Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

It is rumored that the French consul is pressing the Dominican Government for the payment of a claim for 280,000 francs, and in the meantime it is not shown that the overdue balance on the award in the Ozama River Bridge case has been paid.

The Department expects you to take that matter up and urge the payment of it without more delay. You already have full information as to all the details of the case, and you have been amply instructed that the claim must be paid, and the Department having knowledge of your zeal and activity in the discharge of official duty confidently expects a prompt report showing its payment.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

No. 151.]

REFUSAL OF ASYLUM TO A DOMINICAN.

Mr. Powell to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Port au Prince, Haiti, August, 14, 1899.

SIR: A Dominican this morning sought asylum at our legation and requested protection from arrest from Haitian Government, who, upon the demand of the Santo Domingo Government, on account of a secret treaty between the two Republics, are compelled to deliver all who are seeking to foment disturbances in the Republic of the other.

In examining the statement made I found this man to be one of the followers of Mr. Jimenez, who is endeavoring to overthrow the present existing Government in Santo Domingo.

I have refused to receive him or to give him the protection requested. I have based my refusal upon the following: That this legation can not afford protection or asylum to those who are actively conspiring against a government that we are holding friendly intercourse with, nor can it be used by those who seek asylum therein for the purpose of conducting or consummating plots against their Governments while we are giving them at the time immunity from arrest.

If I am wrong in this matter I will be glad if the Department will inform me. In requesting this information it may appear in conflict. with my recent action that I have taken in affording protection and asylum to certain Haitians who have appealed to us for asylum during the pending troubles. These cases are not parallel; those that are here are men who have not conspired, and are not conspiring, so far as I know, but were innocent. I have further explained their cases in dispatch No. 623 (H) of this date.

I have, etc.,

W. F. POWELL.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Powell.

No. 90.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 2, 1899.

SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 151, of the Santo Domingo series, dated August 14, in which you report your refusal of solicited asylum to a Dominican who thereby sought to escape proceedings in

extradition upon the demand of the Government of Santo Domingo in virtue of a secret treaty with Haiti for the mutual surrender of political disturbers.

The reasons leading to your decision appear to have rested mainly on the assumption that the applicant was in fact a conspirator against the peace of Santo Domingo, and might seek to conduct or consummate plots against that Government while enjoying immunity from arrest. You contrast his case with those of the Haitians recently sheltered by you, the latter having been so far as you know not conspirators, but innocent.

The Department does not think it necessary to discuss the reasons assigned by you for your action in this incident further than to question your capacity to judge of the guilt or innocense of persons apply'ing to you for shelter, and to make your individual impression on this point the basis of your action in your character as to the representative of a friendly Government.

Your course may, however, properly be approved, not for the reasons given by you, but because it is not shown there existed such circumstances of danger from lawless violence as makes it sometimes permissible to afford shelter.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

ECUADOR.

ASYLUM TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF ECUADOR.

No. 89B.]

Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Quito, January 16, 1899.

SIR: Since my last the revolution has assumed threatening proportions.

On the night of the 12th the army dug trenches and threw up barricades on all streets leading to the palace. Business was entirely suspended on the 13th and 14th, and a battle was expected hourly.

At 5 o'clock the minister of foreign relations came to inquire of me if the unexpected should happen and the Government should be defeated, would I give asylum to the Vice-President (acting President in the absence of President Alfaro in Guayaquil) and all the members of the cabinet with their families, and the chiefs of the army. On receiving assurances that I would, he returned thanks in the name of the Government and that of the individuals interested, saying they had full confidence in "the stars and stripes" of the United States.

Latest: Reports now indicate that the rebels have retreated, being afraid to make an attack.

Official and commercial business continues suspended.

[blocks in formation]

SIR: The Government of Ecuador has made official proclamation of the suppression of the rebellion.

In the last battle over 600 were killed, several hundred mortally wounded, and over 400 prisoners taken.

I have, etc.,

ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Sampson.

No. 72.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 27, 1899.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 89 B, of the 16th ultimo, stating that, on the request of the minister of foreign relations, you had promised asylum in case of need to the Vice

President of Ecuador, now acting President at Guayaquil, the members of the cabinet, with their families, and the chiefs of the army.

The reported withdrawal of the revolutionary forces renders improbable that the asylum will be asked, but your attention is called to paragraph 51 of the Printed Personal Instructions, and to the uniform series of precedents cited in Wharton's Digest, volume 1, section 104, in discouragement of the practice of granting the so-called "asylum." You are also referred to Foreign Relations, 1895, page 245. I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

No. 109.]

Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Quito, April 10, 1899. SIR: Your No. 72, February 27, received. When I promised asylum, if need be, to the chief officials of this Government, as communicated in my No. 89, I had fully considered paragraph 51 of Diplomatic Instructions, Wharton's Digest (not here, for this legation has not these Digests), and Foreign Relations, 1895, but did not consider either of these an inhibition against what I agreed to do. Paragraph 51 refers to "unsuccessful insurgents" and "offenders against the laws." Foreign Relations, 1895, refers to "harboring offenders against the laws," as cited by Mr. Frelinghuysen. In the case therein passed upon those receiving asylum had assumed the offices by revolution, while in the case reported in my No. 89 I offered asylum to the regularly elected officers of the Government, and so recognized for years, from possible outrage at the hands of "offenders against the laws," virtually "cutthroats" and "outlaws." Had these taken the palace and made asylum necessary, it would not have meant their establishing a government to succeed the present, for President Alfaro, at the head of a large force, would have come from Guayaquil to dislodge the "offenders against the laws" and reestablish the Government officials in the palace. I would have saved from death the legitimate heads of the Government until such a time as they could again assume the functions of their respective offices.

Was I right? While the "revolution" is now ended, it does not mean that it will stay ended. It may come again while I am here, and I want to know if my interpretation of the law is not right. I can not see that the law cited applies to such a case as I reported; but, of course, I will obey your instructions.

I have, etc.,

ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Sampson.

No. 89.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 5, 1899.

SIR: In your No. 89, of January 16, ultimo, you reported that the revolution had assumed threatening proportions; that

the minister of foreign relations came to inquire of me if the unexpected should happen and the Government should be defeated, would I give asylum to the Vice

FR 99-17

President (acting President) and all the members of the cabinet, with their families, and the chiefs of the army. On receiving assurances that I would, he returned thanks in the name of the Government.

In your No. 109, April 10, ultimo, you state that if the asylum had been actually granted you—

would have saved from death the legitimate heads of the Government until such time as they could again assume the functions of their respective offices.

In the Department's No. 72, February 27, ultimo, you were referred to precedents found in Wharton's Digest and in Foreign Relations, 1895, page 245.

The discussions in Wharton's indicate the exceptional circumstances which warrant the granting of shelter to political offenders and the extreme circumspection which should be used in granting such applications. Its exercise is not the exercise of a strictly diplomatic right or prerogative; and, being founded alone in motives of humanity, it should be rigidly restricted to the necessities of the case, which are generally, if not always, characterized by features of lawlessness and mob violence. It should not be granted for the purpose of protecting fugitives from justice, guilty of common crimes.

In the case cited in Foreign Relations, 1895, Mr. Tillman afforded shelter to General Savasti, the late minister of war of the overthrown Government. Secretary Olney cautioned Mr. Tillman touching the exercise of the utmost care to avoid any imputation of abuse in granting such shelter, saying that it might be tolerated should it be sought to remove a subject beyond the reach of the law, to the disparagement of the sovereign authority of the State." He added that

It seems to be generally supposed that the case of a member of an overturned titular government is different; and so it may be until the empire of law is restored and the successful revolution establishes itself in turn as the rightful government, competent to administer law and justice in orderly process. Until that happens the humane accordance of shelter from lawlessness may be justifiable, but when the authority of the State is reestablished upon an orderly footing, no disparagement of its powers in the mistaken friction of extra-territoriality can be countenanced on the part of the representatives of this Government.

From the foregoing considerations it is evident that a general rule, in the abstract, can not be laid down for the inflexible guidance of the diplomatic representatives of this Government in according shelter to those requesting it. But certain limitations to such grant are recognized. It should not, in any case, take the form of a direct or indirect intervention in the internecine conflicts of a foreign country, with a view to the assistance of any of the contending factions, whether acting as insurgents or as representing the titular government.

I therefore regret that I am unable to approve the promise of shelter made by you to the members of the titular Government before the emergency had actually arisen for decision as to whether the circumstances then existing would justify or make it permissible; and especially am I unable to approve the apparent ground or motive of the promise, that you would have saved from death the legitimate heads of the Government until such a time as they would again assume the functions of their respective offices."

The Government of the United States remains a passive spectator of such conflicts, unless its own interests or the interests of its citizens are involved; and I conceive that it might lead to great abuses in the grant of such shelter, which is afforded only from motives of humanity, if assurances were given in advance to the leaders of either

« AnteriorContinuar »