Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part I

No. 225.
Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish.

Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, Hayti, September 23, 1872. (Received October 4.)

No. 149.]

Sir: Referring to my dispatches No. 141, of July 27, and No. 146, of the 10th ultimo, both treating of the case of Mr. Charles F. Teel, United States consular agent at Miragoâne, I have the honor to represent that after I had exchanged dispatches with the Haytian minister of foreign affairs, and after I had held several informal conversations with him and his colleagues, on the subject, Mr. Teel was released from custody on the 8th ultimo, after an imprisonment of eighteen days. In my No. 1411 sent inclosed to the Department a copy of my dispatch to the Haytian minister, recounting the circumstances of Mr. Teel’s arrest, and asking, for reasons therein given, that he be immediately and unconditionally released.

Before writing that dispatch I had explained to the minister, verbally, all the facts alleged in the case, and at his intimation and instance I sent him a copy of my dispatch in the French language, with the view of facilitating his early action in regard to the subject. He promptly replied to this dispatch on the 27th of July, in a communication (see Inclosure A) in which he inclosed the reports of the preliminary proceedings in Mr. Teel’s case, and argued that there had been no indignity offered to Mr. Teel, no injustice done to him, and no illegal action taken against him. He also stated that, as the question was then in the hands of the judiciary, it did not belong to the executive to order Mr. Teel’s release before his case should be tried and decided by the courts, and seemed to rely upon the fact that Mr. Teel was engaged in business for a justification of his presumption that the latter’s official character need not enter into the subject. It had appeared to me manifestly improper, particularly in a country like Hayti, to admit the principle that a consular officer of the United States can be at any time arrested and thrust into prison without even the knowledge of his government, and I had therefore notified the minister in my dispatch that if, in future, charges of a criminal character, especially, were made against any consular officer of the United States here, information of that fact should be at once given to this legation.

The request seemed to somewhat surprise the minister, and in his dispatch he asked for an interview to discuss with me this point. Accordingly I called at his office on the morning of the 1st ultimo, and at his suggestion I gave him my views in support of the request. He listened very attentively to my remarks, and took full notes of all that I said. A memorandum of this interview is herewith sent. (See Inclosure B.)

On the following morning I addressed to him another dispatch, (see Inclosure C,) in which I recount the statement that twenty-five thousand gourdes, out of a bag containing one hundred and seventy-five thousand, were declared false, and attempt to show him, by reminding him of the wretched condition of the paper currency of this country and of the common experience of merchants and others here in regard to it, that even if this statement be correct it would form no just basis for the proceedings against Mr. Teel. The minister is also reminded of the apparent illegality of the proceedings taken in the case, and of the lack of consideration seemingly shown in those proceedings for Mr. Teel’s official character, and he is notified that the authorities of his government would be held responsible for all injury which they might in any illegal way inflict upon Mr. Teel.

To this dispatch the minister did not reply until the 8th ultimo. But meantime I saw and discussed with him the case, informally, several times. And I am rather under the impression that, without washing to appear to recede directly from the ground taken in his dispatch of the 27th of July, he had, perhaps, indirectly secured the release of Mr. Teel. At all events, his dispatch is dated on the same day on which the district attorney at Anse-à-Yeau gave a verbal order, which was immediately carried into effect, that Mr. Teel should be set at liberty and all proceedings against him be stopped.

In this dispatch (see inclosure D) the minister argues again in justification of the action of the authorities against Mr. Teel, and labors to show that it was in fact necessary. He admits, however, the common notoriety of my statement as to the unfortunate condition of the paper currency of this country, and even concedes that every person who has on hand large sums in these paper notes runs the risk of having among them bad bills. He declares, however, that Government experts can readily distinguish between the false and the genuine notes—a statement which is at variance with nearly everybody’s experience here, and at variance also with the facts in this very case, as appears from the accompanying inclosure E. Declining to accede to my request for Mr. Teel’s release, and pleading in refutation of my intimation that the proceedings against Mr. Teel were illegal, he declares that the three powers of the state—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—are independent of one another, and says the only promise he can make me is that the affair will be hurried forward and be kept strictly within the law. Soon after the receipt of this dispatch I learned by a special messenger, sent me from Miragoâne and Anse-à-Yeau, that Mr. Teel had been set free and proceedings against him stopped.

I thought it best, however, to wait a few days, to see whether the minister would himself inform me of the fact. And although the inland post passes between the capital and the other localities of the republic once a week, it was not until I had prepared my dispatch of the 22d ultimo that he disclosed to me his knowledge of Mr. Teel’s release.

This dispatch of the 22d ultimo (see inclosure E) I judged it necessary to write, in order to review the whole case of Mr. Teel, and to maintain the grounds which I had taken in relation thereto in my former dispatches. In it the minister is assured that the Government of the United States recognizes the right of every government to regulate its own internal affairs in its own way, but that every government is nevertheless under the high obligations imposed, as well as the high benefits conferred, by public law, and has a certain right to safeguard the interests of its citizens sojourning or domiciled in other countries.

The dispatch goes at length into the details of Mr. Teel’s case, and an attempt is made to substantiate the statements already advanced, to the effect that the action against Mr. Teel was without justifiable or probable cause, was not in accord with the requirements of Haytian law, and was taken without due regard to Mr. Teel’s official position.

Comment is made upon the three independent powers of the state, and occasion is taken to invite his attention to the great safeguards of personal liberty recognized by our law, especially to the habeas corpus and the right of recognizance or bail.

And he is reminded again that the authorities of his government will be held accountable for all injury illegally inflicted by their action in this case upon Mr. Teel.

The minister has verbally signified to me his desire to make a response to this dispatch. But as in the month which has already passed since it was handed to him I have not received his response, I concluded that I would not longer delay forwarding to the Department the correspondence had on the subject up to this date.

This case seems to me to demand one or two remarks. It is quite generally supposed that this country is full of counterfeit paper-currency, and that these counterfeit notes are introduced largely, if not almost entirely, through persons in the United States.

In both these suppositions I am inclined to believe that there is at least some truth. The penalty which Haytian law attaches to the crime of counterfeiting is death.

But I am assured that this penalty has never yet been put into execution. The extent to which counterfeiting is carried on, and the facility with which persons charged with this crime have always heretofore escaped punishment, seem to have lately aroused the authorities, and they express a determination to pursue to the utmost any and every person found in any way connected with the nefarious business. But in Mr. Teel’s case there are many reasons, most of which will be found at length in the accompanying inclosures, for believing that the proceedings against him were very unjust. No one that knows him could for a moment think him capable of abetting a crime. He is known as an industrious, thoroughly honest, kind-hearted, inoffensive man.

The proceedings against him were universally and justly regarded by the foreign merchants here as a great outrage.

I venture the unqualified assertion that, if his case is to become a precedent, there is not a single foreign merchant in Hayti that may not at any moment be subjected to the same treatment.

Every one felt all the more indignant and astonished at the action of the authorities against Mr. Teel, because there always has been, until the Jastram affair and this case of Teel’s, a remarkable respect, mingled perhaps with a trace of fear, universally entertained for foreign consular officers of every grade in Hayti. Now, Mr. Teel has been unjustly subjected to pecuniary losses and to the humiliation of imprisonment by the authorities of this government.

In any well-established country he might find redress through the legal tribunals. But here an appeal to these tribunals would, in my opinion, be utterly useless in such a case.

In view of all the foregoing statements, I would respectfully request of the Department an instruction as to whether I shall officially ask of this government an indemnity for Mr. Teel. I am, &c.,

EBENEZER D. BASSETT.

[Translation.]

Mr. Ethéart to Mr. Bassett.

Department of State for Foreign Affairs.
Port au Frince, July 27, 1872.

A.

Mr. Minister: At the same time that your dispatch of the 25th instant came to hand relative to the arrest of Mr. Charles F. Teel, consular agent of the United States at Miragoâne, and merchant doing business at that place, the secretary of state of interior expedited to me certified copies, 1st, of a letter addressed to him by the commander of the arrondissement of Nippes, and, 2d, of the minutes of two investigations held in relation to the same subject. I have the honor to send you these different documents under cover of this communication. It will be easy for you to see thereby that Mr. Teel has not been ill-treated by the authorities of Marigoâne. The visit made to his house, the search that was effected there, the seizure of counterfeit notes, the arrest of Mr. Teel, were all accomplished in legal form; and if Mr. Teel has been sent to Anse-à-Veau, instead of being imprisoned at Miragoâne, it is because the civil tribunal of that arrondissement has its seat in the former locality; it is consequently there that are found the judges competent to take cognizance of his case.

You will agree with me, Mr. Minister, that if Mr. Teel is consular-agent of the United States, he is at the same time a merchant, and the privileges which surround him, certainly, as consular-agent cannot extend to him in his quality of merchant.

If there had been any violence exercised against Mr. Teel, he would have had the right to complain, but, as it appears to me, such is nowise the case. Mr. Teel is suspected of possessing counterfeit money; the authorities go to his house, verify and seize on a sum of twenty-five thousand gourdes in counterfeit treasury-bills, cause him to be arrested and delivered to judges competent to take cognizance of his case. I do not think that in these facts we can detect any reprehensible proceedings.

Permit me to observe, Mr. Minister, that legitimate suspicions had already been established against Mr. Teel, from the moment that the authorities had been informed that Messieurs E. Sievers and Company had refused to receive this money from Mr. Teel, and had returned it to him.

The affair in question being now legally in the hands of the judiciary, I do not think that it belongs to the executive power to order the immediate release of Mr. Teel before the case shall be tried and decided.

As a proof, however, of the steady desire of my government to maintain the good relations which exist between the United States and Hayti, the secretary of state for justice has written to-day with the view of hastening the investigation of the case.

The forms of law will be religiously observed, I assure you, Mr. Minister, and no pains will be spared to avoid as much as possible all tedious delays.

I count upon having an interview with you on the subject contained in the last paragraph of your dispatch, and I pray you to inform me when it will be most convenient for you to receive a visit from me for that purpose.

Accept, Mr. Minister, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

L. ETHÉART,
Secretary of State, &c., &c.,

[Translation.]

A. Behrosse, major-general commanding the arrondissement of Nippes, to the Secretary of State, of Interior, and of Agriculture.

Miragoâne, July 22, 1872, 69th year of the Independence.

No. 695.]

Liberty—Equality—Fraternity.

republic of hayti.

Mr. Minister: This will inform you that Mr. C. F. Teel, a merchant at this place, sent some funds inclosed in a sealed bag to Messrs. Emile Sievers and Company, merchants established at Port au Prince, to buy drafts, and that this bag, containing $175,554, was returned to him by the schooner Nereid, arriving here about 10 o’clock this morning.

The authorities entertaining legitimate suspicions that this bag contained false money, were on the look-out, and immediately proceeded, after seizing the bag, to make a domiciliary visit to the premises of Messrs. Teel & Co., in order to examine the contents of the bag, as well as of such other places as might be used for the deposit of funds.

The fact remains established that of the $175,554 contained in the bag, we found $25,940 to be false bills of the denomination of $20. Messrs. C. F. Teel & Co. declared to us that they had received this money from various debtors, among others from Mr. Gédéon Riobe, at whose place we found in a trunk the sum of $110,072 in good bills.

The affair has therefore been referred to the commissary of the government for the arrondissement of Nippes, together with the documents in support of the accusation, followed by the arrest of the said Mr. Teel, who has been sent to be tried by his lawful judges. Under this cover are two several minutes recording the result of our investigations in the mater.

I pursue actively my functions, Mr. Minister, in order that the sword of justice shall fall heavily upon the fabricators of false money.

I have the honor to salute you, very respectfully.

A. DEBROSSE.

[Translation.]

Liberty—Equality—Fraternity.

republic of hayti.

On this 22d day of July, 1872, in the sixty-ninth year of independence, at 11 of the clock in the morning—

We, A. Debrosse, major-general commanding the arrondissement of Nippes, assisted by Major-Genera! GhSsy Felix, commanding the commune of Miragoâne, by the assistant magistrate of the same commune, and by other officers of the public force, in the absence of the justice of the peace and of his assistant, assembled in the commercial house of Messieurs C. F. Teel & Company, for the purpose of examining their safes and other objects used for the deposit of funds, as it had come to the knowledge of the authorities that this firm had sent money to the amount of one hundred and seventy-five thousand five hundred and fifty-four dollars, Haytian currency, to Messieurs Emile Sievers &. Co., merchants established at Port au Prince, to purchase drafts, which sum was returned here by the schooner Nereid. Immediately after the landing we effected the seizure of a bag, well sewed up and sealed, containing the aforesaid amount.

In searching, as above stated, the objects that might serve for the deposit of funds, it resulted that, in the aforesaid bag containing one hundred and seventy-five thousand five hundred and fifty-four dollars, we found, after examination, the amount of twenty-five thousand nine hundred and forty dollars to be false bills of the denomination of twenty dollars, which the firm declared to have been received from sundry persons, to wit, first, from Mr. Gédeon Riobé, merchant of this place, ninety-seven thousand dollars; second, from Verdinette, two thousand dollars; third, from Gentil N. Alet, ten thousand dollars; fourth, from P. Devieux, eighty-four thousand dollars; fifth, from Milfort, twelve thousand dollars; sixth, from Bernard, twenty-one thousand dollars; seventh, from Valmers, twenty-four thousand one hundred five dollars; the names of other debtors were also given, which will be furnished, if needed, at the first investigation.

The above amount thus examined is to be expedited to the commissary of the government of this jurisdiction, with the papers relating thereto, in order that the affair may be proceeded with according to law, the arrest of the said Mr. Teel in the meantime being effected.

Of all which we have drawn up the present minute, on the day, month, and year above written, and subscribed our names hereunto.

C. F. TEEL & CO.

DAMBREVILLE.

G. FELIX.

A. DEBROSSE.

[Translation.]

Liberty—Equality—Fraternity.

republic of hayti.

On this 22d day of July, 1872, at 11 o’clock in the morning—

We, A. Debrosse, major-general commanding the arrondissement of Nippes, assisted by Major-General Glésy Felix, commanding the commune of Miragoâne, and other officers of the public force, in the absence of the justice of the peace and of his assistant, assembled in the commercial house of Gédeon Riobé & Co., the assistant magistrate of the commune being present, for the purpose of examining the safes and other objects used for the deposit of funds, in pursuance of a declaration of C. F. Teel & Co., who asserted that their house had received from Mr. Gédeon Riobé the value of ninety-seven thousand nine hundred fifty-three dollars ($97,953) during the past week, and that the false bills in Mr. Teel’s possession may have come from Mr. Riobe. After having searched the house of the said Gédeon Riobé, we found in his trunk one hundred ten thousand seventy-two dollars (1110,072) in good treasury-bills.

And the said Gédeon Riobé declared that he had delivered the aforesaid some eight days ago, and that the clerk of the house had verified it, and that he had given good bills; hence the false bills in possession of Messrs. Teel & Co. did not come from him.

In witness whereof we have closed the present minute the day, month, and year above written, and subscribed our names to the same.

• G. RIOBÉ. G. FELIX.
• DAMBREVILLE Fils.
• A. DEBROSSE.

Memorandum.

Thursday, August 1, 1872.

B.

In his dispatch relating to the Teel case, dated July 27th ultimo, the Haytian minister of foreign affairs had requested of the American minister an interview, for the purpose of discussing a point raised in the latter’s dispatch of the 25th ultimo, on the same subject, and in response thereto Mr. Bassett called at the bureau of foreign affairs at 10 o’clock forenoon, Thursday, August 1, 1872.

After the customary exchange of courtesies, the Haytian minister, Mr. Ethéart, said he would thank Mr. Bassett if he would amplify and define the exact meaning of the last paragraph in his dispatch of the 25th ultimo, wherein it is stated that if, in future, any consular officer of the United States in Hayti be charged with transgressions of the law of this country, prompt notice of that fact should be sent to the United States legation. Does Mr. Bassett mean that such notification should be thus sent before initial proceedings be taken against these officers, in case they be charged with misdemeanors or crimes? If so, might it not lead to opportunity for the guilty to escape?

Mr. Bassett responded that the request under consideration might be considered in law as one resting upon international courtesy—perhaps privilege. But it was based upon good reason. The law of nations and specific international stipulations, such, for example, as those contained in the consular conventions between the United States and France, between the United States and Italy, recognize special discriminations before the municipal law in favor of consular officers of every grade. The reason for this is that these officers are clothed with a certain representative character. They are charged to safeguard in foreign ports the commercial interests of their country, and sometimes even are authorized to exercise quasi diplomatic functions. The immunities to which they are entitled do not, however, amount to those conferred upon diplomatic representatives. Yet they are of such a character that the municipal law in case of a charge upon probable or other good cause, of misdemeanor, or crime, should be brought to bear upon a consular officer with delicacy and prudence, and with special consideration for the good name of his government, his consular office and dwelling, and his person. The commission that he bears from his own government, and the exequatur that he receives from the government of the country to which he is sent, concur in suggesting the impropriety of snatching him from his official functions and summarily thrusting him into prison, particularly on slight or insufficient cause or suspicion, while he is yet in full possession of these credentials. Each nation might justly be too jealous of its official letters to see willingly one who holds them thus inconsiderately dealt with. In the United States express provision is made by the Constitution for the trial of all cases to which a foreign consular officer is a party. Besides, the United States Government selects with care and deliberation those whom it intrusts with the consular dignity. It is fair to presume that they are men of character, and certainly not likely to be persons capable of willful infringements upon the municipal law of any country. Surely that Government would not desire to continue in its consular service any person against whom serious charges are substantiated. Ought it not, then, to have early knowledge of any such charges? The representative character of the consul, the importance of the interests he is charged to safeguard, due respect for the good name of his Government, the dignity of his office, the presumptions in favor of his uprightness of character, all seem to demand that, in the case supposed, his Government should at least have this early knowledge.

Mr. Bassett also gave special references to the provisions of several consular conventions between the United States and other powers, dwelling particularly upon the one made with France in 1853, and the one with Italy in 1868.

The Haytian minister listened attentively to these remarks, and took fall notes of all that Mr. Bassett said. He asked Mr. Bassett if he could have the opportunity of consulting the volumes to which reference had been made. He was of course told that every facility would he given him in this regard.

Mr. Ethéart, the Haytian minister, having made some allusion to the special case of Mr. Teel, Mr. Bassett said he was well convinced of the insufficiency of the evidence in support of the charges made against that consular officer, and of the injustice done by his summary arrest and imprisonment, and that it seemed to him but just to observe that the Haytian authorities, who are responsible for the proceedings against Mr. Teel, ought to be held accountable for all injury done thereby.

Minister Ethéart observed thoughtfully and hesitatingly that it was not perhaps always easy to insure a faithful and prudent execution of the law in countries like Hayti. He then thanked Mr. Bassett for calling at the bureau of foreign affairs, saying that it was his intention to have called at the United States legation for the interview. Thereupon a few moments of pleasant personal conversation ended the conference.

Mr. Bassett to Mr. Ethéart.

Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, August 2, 1872.

C.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of the 27th ultimo, in answer to mine of the 25th, in reference to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Charles F. Teel, United States consular agent at Miragoâne, and I must frankly say to-you that neither your dispatch nor my conversation with you yesterday has in the least relieved my mind of the views and opinions expressed in my said dispatch of the 25th ultimo.

In Mr. Teel’s possession were found one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, Haytian, which had been sent by him to E. Sievers & Company, Port au Prince, and by them returned to him. Thereupon, Mr. Teel’s house, store, and premises were searched. Twenty-five thousand out of the one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars were declared false money. Mr. Teel was then arrested and taken to prison to Anse-à-Veau.

I am sure that no impartial merchant, or other person who is practically cognizant of the unfortunate condition of the currency of this country, would consider the proceedings against Mr. Teel as justified by the facts in his case. It is not pretended that Mr. Teel was engaged in counterfeiting the currency of the country. It is not claimed that he had not fairly and in good faith received the moneys found in his possession. Every one in this community knows the difficulty of distinguishing the false money notes from the genuine. It is a matter of common speech and notoriety that, in the present unfortunate condition of the paper currency of this country, the counterfeit notes often escape the greatest care and scrutiny. In my opinion, any merchant or other person who handles large quantities of this currency is liable to have false notes imposed upon him. No merchant in this country can feel assured that he is entirely, or even generally, safe from these false notes. I cannot myself distinguish them. Can you yourself do so, Mr. Minister, in every case, or even in a majority of cases? I deny, therefore, in view of all these circumstances, that there was justifiable ground, or even probable cause, for the proceedings against Mr. Teel.

Again, the fundamental law of this country, the constitution of the republic of Hayti, in section 3, articles 16, 17, and 18, makes express provisions for the guarantee of personal liberty. It directs in what manner arrests and domiciliary visits may be made. The terms of these provisions were not complied with in the arrest of Mr. Teel and the searching of his premises. The proceedings against him were therefore illegal. They were, in fact, a clear infringement on the fundamental law of this country.

Mr. Teel is a consular officer of the United States. In that character he holds a commission from that Government, and an exequatur from yours. According to well-settled principles every person commissioned and recognized in this quality is under the special protection of international law. And in the eye of that law he has claims to protection and consideration to which an unofficial person may not be entitled. I do not claim that a merely consular officer engaged in business has an entire immunity from arrest. His engaging in business does not, however, absolve him from responsibility to his own government, nor does it take from him the special protection of international law. But considerations of friendship for his government and regard for its good name, do, in all cases, require that whenever for good and ample cause it is necessary to take legal proceedings, especially of a criminal character, against him, this should be done with delicacy and caution.

What, then, shall be thought of the treatment which Mr. Teel has suffered at the hands of the authorities of this government? He was arrested without probable or justifiable cause; his premises were searched, and he was taken to prison without a compliance with the requirements of the fundamental law of the land; and the delicacy and consideration which might have been adjudged due to his official character were not shown, either to him or to this legation.

Mr. Minister, I reiterate all that is said in my dispatch of the 25th ultimo, and especially do I reiterate the urgent request for Mr. Teel’s immediate release from prison.

I have also the honor to inform you that for all the injury which may be in any illegal way inflicted upon Mr. Teel by the authorities of your government, I shall hold it responsible.

I have the honor to be, Mr. Minister, your obedient servant,

EBENEZER D. BASSETT.

Hon. L. Ethéart,
Secretary of State, &c., &c.

[Translation.]

Mr. Ethéart to Mr. Bassett.

Department of State for Foreign Affairs,
Port au Prince, August 8, 1872.

D.

Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of the 2d instant, in answer to the one that I addressed to you on the 30th ultimo.

It is beyond doubt that if the right of the government to make precautionary arrests could be contested, when, after a domiciliary visit, it finds itself in possession of documents furnishing sufficient motive for such an arrest, then the administration would find itself in the impossibility of fulfilling its functions, and this point being conceded, all crimes and misdemeanors committed would remain unpunished.

Legitimate suspicions were established against Mr. Teel after his money was sent back from here by Messrs. E. Sievers & Company. His house was visited, and twenty-five thousand gourdes ($25,000) in false papers were found. These are facts that it is impossible to deny. Could the authorities stop there without taking any further measure against Mr. Teel? Did it become those authorities to abstain from handing this affair over to justice? And how could it do so, according to the forms prescribed by the law, without making sure of the person of Mr. Teel? The examination of the matter will make known the guilt or innocence of Mr. Teel, who will show whether he received in good faith or fabricated the false papers that he had in his possession, and then Mr. Teel will be released or punished.

I have given you the formal assurance, Mr. Minister, that the secretary of state for justice has written to Anse-à-Yeau to hasten with all due diligence the examination of the affair, and to diminish as much as possible all tedious delays. I will hasten to transmit to you all communications relating to this affair as soon as he shall send them to me.

It is true that persons are generally pleased to say that it is not possible to distinguish false bills from the genuine; but this is certain, that officers named by the administration to distinguish them know very well how to recognize them: and there are certain indices which are sure guides in this matter. I admit that every person, who has on hand large sums in paper money, runs the risk of having some bad bills; but then as soon as the quantity passes beyond a reasonable limit, the authorities have certainly the right to take measures to assure themselves of the source from whence these papers emanate, and this is what has been done in regard to Mr. Teel.

You will, therefore, recognize with me, Mr. Minister, after having well weighed these arguments, that the measures taken against Mr. Teel are not unjust, and that the authorities would have been guilty of a culpable negligence if such measures had not been employed.

Articles 16, 17, 18 of the constitution that you invoke in favor of Mr. Teel, in my opinion, have not been violated.

The motive of the arrest is well known; the law, in execution of which this arrest was ordered, is also. Mr. Teel has not been taken away from his proper judges; and while it is true that the constitution declares that the house of every person dwelling on Haytian soil is an inviolate asylum, yet nevertheless domiciliary visits are authorized within the forms prescribed by law.

The affair of Mr. Teel having been delivered over to the judiciary, if the executive, by its own authority, ordered the immediate release of Mr. Teel, then the constitution would be violated, for there are indeed three powers in the state, and they are independent one of the other. (Articles 41 and 43, title iii.) From all that precedes it follows, Mr. Minister, that no violence has been exercised against Mr. Teel; that suspicions having been established against him his arrest took place in the forms that the law prescribes; that he has been handed over to his proper judges, and that it does not belong to the government for the moment to order his release.

All the assurance that I can give you—assurance that I make it a point to repeat to you—is, that the examination of the affair will go on actively, and that the solution of it will be in no way retarded.

Receive, Mr. Minister, the assurance of my very high consideration.

L. ETHÉART.

Mr. Bassett to Mr. Ethéart.

Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, August 22, 1872.

E.

Sir: Your dispatch of the 8th instant, relative to the case of Mr. Charles F. Teel, United States consular agent at Miragoâne, was handed to me on the 10th instant. I have delayed until now a formal acknowledgment of its reception, because I hoped that the more direct method of personal communication with you would result in an early favorable settlement of that case. I regretted, however, to learn from your friendly personal note of Saturday’s date, as well as from the verbal message which you were good enough to send me day before yesterday, that no knowledge of any such settlement had up to that time reached your government. Nevertheless I have received from other sources direct and reliable information that Mr. Teel, because of the insufficiency of the evidence against him, was released from custody by the authorities at Anse-à-Veau, on the 8th instant, after an imprisonment of eighteen days.

There are, however, some facts and principles involved in this case, and some statements in your dispatch, which seem to require thoughtful consideration.

Permit me to observe that if the first paragraph in your dispatch was evoked by any expression in my dispatches to you on this subject, I must have been unfortunate in the language which I employed to convey my meaning. It is certainly in the interest of all governments that offenses against the well-being of society should be everywhere checked, and the United States do not deny the right of every other government to adopt and enforce its own laws in this regard within its own territory. But all civilized states are under the high obligations enjoined, as well as the high benefits conferred, by the law of nations. And every such state has the right to insist that its citizens or subjects sojourning or domiciled in any other state, shall not, in the eye of that high law, be unjustly dealt with. These principles, Mr. Minister, were intended to be kept fully in view in the dispatches which have been addressed to you by this legation in regard to Mr. Teel’s case.

What strikes us unfavorably in the action taken with Mr. Teel is, that his premises were searched; he was himself deprived of his liberty, and subjected to the humiliation of imprisonment on insufficient evidence, without a compliance with the forms required by Haytian law, and with no apparent regard to his official position as a consular officer of the United States.

And first you will allow me to allude to the evidence. You are pleased to admit in your dispatch that “every person who has in hand large sums in (Haytian) paper currency runs the risk of having some bad bills,” and the common notoriety of the assertion that it is not possible to distinguish between the false and the genuine notes of the Haytian currency. But if it is correct, as you inform me, that there are certain sure indices by which the false and the true bills can be distinguished, I think it is to be regretted that this information has not been placed within reach of persons whose legitimate business brings on their hands large sums which may entail upon them the risk of having some bad bills. Mr. Teel ran this risk, and has sadly suffered for it. He had in this currency on his premises at Miragoâne, when they were searched by the authorities there on the 22d ultimo, about $400,000 in his safe, and about $175,000 in a sealed bag, which had just been returned to him from Port au Prince. Now, out of this $575,000 the authorities at Miragoâne pronounced about $25,000, or a little less than 4£ per centum false money. The bag of $175,000, containing the alleged false notes, was, I am reliably informed, examined again at Anse-à-Veau by the authorities there, and only about $11,000, or about 2 per cent, of the whole amount found, in Mr. Teel’s possession, and about 6 per centum of the $175,000, were declared false.

It would thus appear that even the government authorities who scrutinize the curreney are, after all, very much like the rest of us in their liability to misjudge between the false and the true bills, else how out of the same bag of money could $25,000 be pronounced false by one set of officials, and only $11,000 so pronounced by another set of officials? The question might also here arise whether, if one have of false notes 2, or 4, or 6 per centum in a large amount of this currency, he would pass the “reasonable limit” to which you refer. Besides all this, Mr. Teel offered to show by his books the legitimate sources from which he had received in course of regular trade all moneys found in his possession.

Indeed I should certainly be quite willing to leave it to any jury of impartial merchants or other competent persons here, who are accustomed to receiving and giving out in legitimate trade large sums of this currency, to say whether there is in these statements anything to warrant the proceedings taken against Mr. Teel, and I presume it would be of interest to all such persons to know whether it is to be considered that Mr. Teel’s case ought to become a precedent. For my own part, I insist that, in view of all the peculiar circumstances, the proceedings against Mr. Teel were taken without justifiable or probable cause.

Permit me to inquire also whether these proceedings were altogether within the forms and requirements of Haytian law.

Article 16 of the constitution of the Haytian republic expressly declares that an act for the arrest of a person is not valid unless it expresses formally the cause of arrest and the law in execution of which the arrest is ordered, and further, that it is not valid’ unless a copy of the warrant ordering the person’s arrest be left with him. Article 18 of the same instrument declares that no domiciliary visit shall be made except in virtue of the law and in the forms that it prescribes. But in spite of Mr. Teel’s demands in this regard, no warrant for his arrest was shown either to him or to any person connected with him; there was no law cited to him, and no copy of any warrant was left with him. His private dwelling and his store were searched, but no authority was shown for this proceeding. Were there then, Mr. Minister, no infringements upon the fundamental law of Hayti, no violations of it, in the action of the authorities of your government against Mr. Teel?

Again, Mr. Teel’s official position clearly entitles him, under the law of nations, to some special consideration, which was, I am sorry to say, in no way shown him. I venture the opinion that in no well-established country in the world can one who is at the same time a citizen and consular officer of a foreign state be, as Mr. Teel was, summarily arrested and taken to prison. No notice of his arrest and imprisonment was sent to this legation. That is to say, a consular officer of the United States was, upon an inadequate cause, summarily taken from his official functions, and actually confined in prison, without the knowledge of his government. A consular officer of the United States in prison! Is there no apparent disrespect to the good name and good friendship of his Government in such a proceeding as this? I am sure, however, that your government in these proceedings certainly intended no actual disrespect to us.

You inform me that in such a case as Mr. Teel’s the executive could not interfere to secure his release. We have in the United States the same three independent divisions of the Government as those which, you inform, me, exist in Hayti, namely, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. But in all criminal cases the Government is a party, and it seems to me that this must be so everywhere, because crime is everywhere a public offense. If therefore the executive, from international or other considerations, desires proceedings to be discontinued in a criminal case, it can at any proper stage order to be entered a nolle prosequi. It is indeed singular if such a process is unknown here.

It is, perhaps, to be regretted that the great safeguards thrown around personal security and individual liberty by American and English law, the writ of habeas corpus and the system of recognizance or bail, are not incorporated in your judicial system. One result of a judicial system without these great safeguards is, that summary “precautionary arrests” and the “making sure of the person,” in the sense in which you use these terms in your dispatch, may occur to the very great injury of innocent parties. But to regulate all such questions is the unquestioned concern of every independent state. We claim no right whatever, and certainly do not propose, to interfere with it in Hayti.

It only remains for me to say that, in my opinion, a very grave wrong has been committed in the proceedings of the authorities of your government against Mr. Teel, and that duty obliges me to reiterate to you that I hold your government responsible for all damage and injury done to him by these proceedings.

I avail myself, Mr. Minister, of this occasion to renew to you the assurance of my very high consideration.

EBENEZER D. BASSETT.

Hon. L. Ethéart,
Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.