No. 169.
Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish.
Port au Prince, Hayti, Nov. 12, 1875. (Received Nov. 26.)
Sir: I beg leave, most respectfully, to invite your attention to a proposition, which I herewith submit, relative to the modification or abolition of the practice which has until now existed in Hayti, and by which foreign representatives of every grade here have extended an asylum to citizens of the country whenever the latter have found themselves under arbitrary pursuit by the authorities, usually in times of public inquietude or in the midst of irregular proceedings on the part of the government in their regard.
It would seem as if the correspondence to which the case of General Boisrond Canal, recently a refugee under our flag here, gave rise, might indicate a disposition on the part of both our own Government and that of Hayti to act in some judicious way upon such a proposition. In his note to me of May 8, 1875, (see inclosure A to my No. 365, of the 19th of that month,) the Haytian minister of foreign affairs says that the view of his government is “that if the right of exterritoriality insures to the representatives of foreign powers the inviolability of their persons and residences, it does not acknowledge their power to give asylum to and to protect any category of criminals (catégorie de coupables) belonging to the country where they are accredited.” Again, Mr. Preston, Haytian minister plenipotentiary to the United States, in his note of August 14, 1875, to the Department, says that “he considers that the way is now prepared for the negotiations which his government has instructed him to open and pursue with that of the United States, with the view of bringing about the abolition of this practice, (of granting asylum,) which has been too long maintained in Hayti by the legations there established. And in his note of the 26th of the same month, to Mr. Cadwalader, Mr. Preston again argues against the right of asylum. In a word, this government, in its whole proceeding in regard to that case, (of Boisrond Oanal,) has taken ground against the right of asylum. I know very well, however, that every government in Hayti, especially since the revolution of 1843, has desired to keep that so-called right open, for what reason it is easy to see, and even during the very time when Mr. Preston was writing his notes to the Department denouncing the right so-called, General Septimus Rameau, the head and front of this government, told me that he thought the so-called right ought to [Page 322] be reserved for the necessities of those who had faithfully and patriotically served under a fallen government.
The views of the Department on the subject are not unknown. In your No. 236, of the 26th of August last, you distinctly inform me that my act of granting asylum to General Boisrond Canal and his brother “cannot be approved.”
It is also stated in Mr. Cadwalader’s note of August 6, 1875, to Mr. Preston, that this “act on his (my) part has not been approved by this Department, as it is not sanctioned by public law.”
Mr. Cadwalader also says in that note that “it is quite probable, however, that when the present case (of Boisrond Canal) shall have been satisfactorily adjusted, this Department may be disposed to receive and consider any proposition which Hayti may make looking to the abolition by the several governments represented in that country of the practice of granting an asylum to refugees in their respective legations.”
These views, so distinctly expressed by both governments, appear to me, whatever may be the real wishes of that to which I am accredited, to open the way for some judicious modification of the practice which has heretofore existed in Hayti of receiving refugees under foreign flags here. Mr. Cadwalader’s statement seems, however, to leave the initiative to this government. That initiative, now that Boisrond Canal has been safely embarked, will not, as I think it likely, be taken. But a regularly-established government ought not to be considered a plaything; and it can have no just ground of dissatisfaction if it be taken at its repeated formal declarations on any given subject.
I therefore respectfully propose that authority be given me to act in concert with my colleagues in the view of modifying, that is to say, lessening in its, scope or of abolishing altogether, with the consent of our respective governments, the practice of receiving refugees under our respective flags in this country.
I make the proposition in these terms because the desire to this end, as shown above, has been fairly expressed by both our own Government and that of Hayti, and because, although I shall not feel authorized to receive refugees in the future, I think it might be an invidious distinction against us and our flag here if we alone were to renounce the practice formally while other powers just as formally continue it. I am aware, too, that there may be some difficulty in obtaining the concurrence of other powers to the abolition of the practice of granting sanctuary in their legations to political refugees in this country. I need only refer to their ready and prompt approvals of this practice whenever it has been acted upon by their representatives here, or more especially to the fact that during the administration of President Geffrard, M. Thouvenal wrote a note to the French legation here strongly instructing the then French chargé d’affaires that the custom of granting asylum here could not, in his view, be safely abolished.
I may refer further to the fact that only very recently I gained information of a dispatch addressed by the Earl of Derby to my colleague, Major Stuart, the British minister, dated August 31, 1875, and numbered 23, in which his lordship states that Her Majesty’s government had frequently had under consideration the subject, and that while they have never yet been convinced that they ought to withdraw the so-called right from their legations in countries like Hayti, they nevertheless think it desirable to reduce its exercise to the narrowest possible limits, and to be circumspect as to the persons to whom it is extended.
I am, &c.,