I reply in my second inclosure, remarking that the minister seems to argue
chiefly from the assumption that Mr. Mevs was guilty of smuggling, an
assumption which was made impossible by the frank confession of the State
that no case could be made out against the accused man.
I ask the minister whether his note is to be interpreted as a refusal to
indemnify Mr. Mevs.
[Inclosure 1 in No.
156—Translation.]
Mr. Lespinasse to
Mr. Durham.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Port au Prince, January 23,
1893.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your dispatch of the 19th instant, which your legation
accompanied with its translation in the French language.
Notwithstanding the desire that you expressed to me I have not been able
to answer sooner, as I have already made known to you, on account of the
great misfortune which has happened to his excellency the President of
the Republic.
I have examined with the most lively attention, the different grievances
that are there set forth against the procedure followed in the affair of
Mr. Mevs, an American citizen, and I take note that you arrive at this
conclusion: Mr. Mevs having suffered a real injustice, it would be
worthy on the part of the Haitian Government to recognize it.
I take note equally that his excellency the President of the United
States has charged you to say to me that this affair must be adjusted by
your legation, and that he relies on the sense of justice of my
Government to make an equitable reparation to Mr. Mevs.
It seems to me that the objections which you have thought necessary to
present to me result from the circumstance that it has not been given to
you to have under your eyes the different provisions of the law of July
13, 1858, on the administration and direction of the custom-houses of
the country, law which has been slightly modified by those of July 20,
1859, and July 1, 1871.
The offense of which Mr. Mevs is accused, being the act of smuggling, it
is effectively in the special law, by which are regulated our
custom-houses that there should be sought the legality of the procedure
employed against him. It is, moreover, good to note that this special
law is posterior to the promulgation of the code of criminal
instruction, and that in consequence it modifies it in its provisions
that may be contrary thereto.
Mr. Mevs, taken in flagrant délit of smuggling,
was arrested and pursued in virtue of article 6 of the aforesaid
law.
The offense of smuggling should not be pursued extraordinarily by the
public ministry of the jurisdiction before the competent tribunal, by
virtue of article 8 of the same law. The commissary of the Government of
Port au Prince did therefore call by a direct summons Mr. Mevs before
the correctional tribunal, and his trial took place at the first
audience of the tribunal which followed his imprisonment.
At that audience the tribunal acquitted Mr. Mevs. This circumstance,
which you state as being of a nature to constitute a grievance, is, on
the contrary, an evident proof of the independence of our tribunals, and
of the guaranty which they give to all.
It is therefore in virtue of these special provisions of the law of 1858,
and again of those contained in its article 83 that Mr. Mevs has been
arrested and judged.
The different legal provisions which are called up in your dispatch of
the 19th in nowise concern the procedure followed against Mr. Mevs.
Article 14 of the Constitution, which alone could be invoked, does not
apply to a case of flagrant délit. The other
articles of law which you make mention of are not applicable to the
special offense of smuggling, for the prosecution of which the
legislator, with a particular view to protection, has permitted the
public minister to act extraordinarily, as I have already said, and on a
simple requisition (to such a degree are the ordinary forms suppressed)
of the directors and agents of the custom-house, of the agents of the
administration of finance, in short, even on that of the authorities
charged, of the military police, and even ex-officio.
Mr. Mevs, therefore, was at the time of his trial and in the procedure
before, pursued and judged according to forms provided by the laws, and
the tribunal did, moreover, make the necessary interrogations at the
time of the examination of the affair.
In these conditions, Mr. Minister, I do not estimate that Mr. Mevs has
right to any reparation. I trust that the sense of justice of your
Government will not fail to guide it in the circumstance and that it
will appreciate that my Government has acted as it should have done. The
law on our custom-houses has simply been applied to an American citizen,
as it would have been to a Haitian citizen, and as it has always been to
all indistinctly.
Herewith inclosed you will find a memorandum containing copy of the
different articles of the law cited by me in this dispatch.
Please accept, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 156.]
Mr. Durham to Mr.
Lespinasse.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, January 23,
1893.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your note of to-day, in which you discuss the case of Mr.
Mevs chiefly on the assumption that that gentleman was guilty of the act
of smuggling.
I beg you to inform Dr. John B. Terres, vice-consul-general, at your
earliest convenience, whether or not your statement is to be interpreted
as a refusal on your part to indemnify Mr. Mevs.
I ask you to address the vice-consul-general, as I purpose to be absent
at the other part of my post during the next few days. I beg for him all
the consideration that your respect and friendly feeling for the United
States may inspire.
Repeating my expressions of distinguished consideration, I am, etc.,
