No. 379.
Mr. Thompson to Mr.
Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Port-au-Prince,
Hayti, July 30, 1885.
(Received August 25.)
No. 17.]
Sir: I have the honor to acquaint you that since my
last dispatch, No. 9, of July 8, relative to the complaint of the National
Bank of Hayti against certain individuals, A. C. d’Almena, an American
citizen, being among the accused, the court of cassation has again been
convened and passed judgment on the case.
On each occasion it is noticeable that not one word has been said regarding
the citizen who made an appeal at the same time, but separately from the
others; still is he retained in prison.
* * * * * * *
Before this second decree the British consul, with the minister
plenipotentiary of France, entered a protest against the first ordinance,
which pronounced that one of the English subjects should go before the civil
court of Jacmel.* * * It was then ordered by the Government that the
district attorney should revise the decisions of the supreme court rendered
July 1.
* * * * * * *
On the 17th instant the second decision of the supreme court was published.
Immediately after the British consul and French minister entered a protest
to the Government against the decision; later it was officially reported, to
hurry up the matter and satisfy those protesting, the case would be tried
August 24. This again was unsatisfactory.
* * * * * * *
Fortunately, the case of our citizen has no parallelism to that of the
others; in both of the ordinances Mr. d’Almena was completely ignored,
although he, too, had made an appeal.
I have addressed a note to the honorable secretary of state, Mr. Brutus St.
Victor, explaining to him the fact that Mr. d’Almena’s appeal has been
disregarded, contrary to Haytian legislation, and therefore I must protest,
yet with reserve, at his being held any longer.
I inclose herein my letter.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure in No. 18.]
Mr. Thompson to Mr.
St. Victor.
Legation of the United States,
Port-au-Prince, Hayti, July 28, 1885.
Sir: After having made myself familiar with the
papers relative to the case of Mr. d’Almena, particularly—
(1) Of the ordinance of the chamber of council of the civil court of
Port-au-Prince, of the date of March 14 of this year, which sent him to
the criminal court of Port-au-Prince under the accusation of stealing
mandats, ordinances, and other papers, to the detriment of the National
Bank of Hayti.
(2) Of the judgment of the supreme court given on the appeal of Mr.
d’Almena, against the ordinance, the judgment rendered on the 1st of
July, the same day when
[Page 534]
I
officially entered upon my duties as minister resident and
consul-general of the United States of America to the Haytian
Republic.
(3) Of another judgment of the supreme court of the 17th instant—
I have the honor therefore of calling your attention to this, to show you
that these judgments of the supreme court, not having decided upon the
case that my citizen has submitted to the court in support of his
appeal, which is admissible by the first clause of article 205 of the
code of criminal instruction, to know if the facts which have given
cause to this process and which have been raised by the ordinance are
qualified crime by the law—that these judgments, under the pretext of an
incompetency which cannot be justified, not having even examined the
object of the appeal of Mr. d’Almena, entirely based on the first of
three causes of said article 205 of the code of criminal instruction is
the reason why I feel I must protest, yet with all reserve do I protest
for my citizen against such a violation of the
law with regard to him.
It is certain, Mr. Minister, if in place of the proceeding which has
taken place and been decreed of the nature, the denial of justice which
I write this to show you the supreme court had given itself as the law
requires, to the examination of the qualification of the crime of
robbery, it is very certain, Mr. Minister, that the superior court
evidently would not have found in the nature of the facts exposed by the
ordinance of the council chamber the criminal qualification of robbery
such as is foreseen and determined in its principal elements by article
324 of the penal code; that is to say, “the fradulent taking of a thing
from another.”
Now in the absence of all elements constituting the crime of robbery as
proven, is it not evident that these judgments would have rejected all
criminal accusation of domestic robbery (vol domestique) had they
decided on the appeal, and would have given Mr. d’Almena his liberty?
and doing this put an end to the physical and moral sufferings of all
kinds which he has been undergoing during the nine months of his
detention, both cruel and unjust and, as above narrated, illegal.
It is sad to notice that a violation so manifest, so void of all
principles of Haytian criminal legislation, generally the protector and
guardian of honor, of liberty, of the life and fortune of each and every
one, could be able to permit these two judgments of the supreme courts
of the Republic. Consequently, Mr. Minister, I have the honor of
addressing to you this protest; yet I repeat, under all the reserve that
is not detrimental to the object to which it pertains, for the safeguard
of all the rights and interests of my citizen, openly ignored by these
two judgments of the supreme court of the two dates, the 1st and 17th
instant, which make the object of this communication.
Accept, &c.,
