No. 179.
Mr. Fish
to Mr. Preston.
Washington, December 11, 1875.
Sir: The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, had the honor duly to receive the note of Mr. Preston, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the republic of Hayti, of the 25th October last. That note is accompanied by a memorandum on the subject of asylum offered by diplomatic agents to refugees in Hayti. Mr. Preston says that the memorandum has also been communicated to other governments who are represented at Port au Prince, and asks the assent of this Government to the articles of that paper. Mr. Preston’s communication has been occasioned, he says, by the recent grant of an asylum by Mr. Bassett, United States minister to Hayti, to Mr. Boisrond Canal and his brother, charged with conspiracy against the government of that republic. That step on the part of Mr. Bassett, Mr. Preston is well aware, has been disposed of by an agreement signed by himself and the undersigned, in pursuance of which the refugees are understood to have left the country.
The right to grant asylum to fugitives is one of the still open questions of public law. The practice, however, has been to tolerate the exercise of that right, not only in American countries of Spanish origin, but in Spain itself, as well as in Hayti. This practice, however, has never addressed itself to the full favor of this Government. In withholding approval of it, we have been actuated by respect for consistency.
It is not probable that the practice would ever be attempted in this country, or, if attempted, could be tolerated, and the discountenance which the United States extends to the practice is upon the principle of doing to others as we would they should do unto us, so that when we acknowledge the sovereignty of a foreign state by concluding treaties with and by accrediting diplomatic officers to its government, we impliedly, at least, acknowledge it as a political equal, and we claim to extend to all the political prerogatives and immunities which we may claim for ourselves.
We sincerely desire that it may be universally recognized that foreign legations shall nowhere be made a harbor for persons either charged with crimes or who may fear that such a charge may be made.
Prominent among the reasons for objection on our part to giving asylum in a legation, especially in the governments to the south of us, is that such a practice obviously tends to the encouragement of offenses for which asylum may be desired.
There is cause to believe that the instability of the governments in countries where the practice has been tolerated may in a great degree be imputed to such toleration. For this reason, if for none other, the Government of the United States, which is one of law and order and of constitutional observance, desires to extend no encouragement to a practice which it believes to be calculated to promote and encourage revolutionary movements and ambitious plottings.
Instances, too, have occurred where asylum, having been granted with impunity, has been grossly abused to the defeat of justice, not only against political offenders, but also against persons charged with infamous crimes. Such abuses are plainly incompatible with the stability and welfare of governments, and of society itself.
Temptations sufficient to lead to an abuse of the practice cannot fail [Page 344] to abound in most persons who may exercise it. Such temptations are incident to human nature, and in countries where political revolutions are of frequent occurrence one must be gifted with uncommon self-denial to be wholly free from their influences.
It is believed, however, to be sound policy not to expose a minister in a foreign country to the embarrassments attendant upon the practice. Still, this Government is not, by itself, and independently of all others, disposed to absolutely prohibit its diplomatic representatives abroad from granting asylum in every case in which application therefor may be made.
We do not, however, withhold from them our views of the practice, and will expect that, if they do exercise the prerogative, it will be done under their own responsibility to their own Government. We would prefer, therefore, not formally to assent to the propositions contained in the memorandum above referred to, without ascertaining the views of the other governments concerned in regard to them.
Some, at least, of those propositions appear to be fair enough; but, as the circumstances of cases in which asylum may be granted greatly vary, it would, in the opinion of the undersigned, be preferable, until an understanding and an approach to accord of views as to the future practice in this regard can be had by the other powers, that every such case should be treated according to its merits, rather than that we should be fettered in advance by rules which may be found not to be practically applicable or useful.
The undersigned avails, &c.,