No. 380.
Mr. Thompson to Mr.
Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Port-au-Prince,
Hayti, August 15, 1885.
(Received Sept. 1.)
No. 23.]
Sir: Referring to the instructions from the
Department of June 25 and 26, Nos. 8 and 9, and also of the 20th ultimo, No.
13, I have the honor to inclose herewith a synopsis of the case of Mr. C. A.
Van Bokkelen. Since the arrival of the mail on the 8th instant, Mr. Van
Bokkelen came to talk with me concerning the indemnity he wishes to demand
of the Haytian Government, and, on his explaining to me the circumstances, I
advised him, in view of the facts as he thinks they are understood by the
Department, to give me in writing the true statement as regards the merits
of his case; this he does in the inclosed synopsis. I inclose, with
translation, that portion of the annual message relating to Mr. Van
Bokkelen. I think it worth while to explain at this time a peculiar feature
of Haytian law as connected with this particular case. Where a man is
arrested, as was Mr. Van Bokkelen, so long as he is held by the authorities
other persons who he owes can, by “recommending” him, have him held longer
on each and every “recommendation.” I inclose a sample of such
“recommendation,” but in this
[Page 535]
instance it is the withdrawal after the “recommendation” had been given.
Mr. Van Bokkelen leaves here to-day per steamship Haytian Republic, bound for
Boston, and his intention in taking the trip is for the benefit of his
health, to see his parents, and to visit the Department of State, and in
person ask assistance, in order to get an indemnity.
I am, sir,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 23.]
Synopsis of case of C. A. Van Bokkelen.
Simple facts of my case, which Langston never explained to the
Department, and if you will send along to Department will clearly
establish the case. March 5, 1884, arrested in the street by order of J.
Archin, on account of Toplitz & Co.; demanded the sheriff to take me
before the judge before putting me in jail, before judge asked him if my
order of arrest was signed by the commissaire of Government with his
seal, as required by the law before arresting a
foreigner; he said, “Go ahead, none of my business.” I protested, as the
week before in the case of Mr. Garrido, American citizen, this had been
fulfilled and required; this is the first act of injustice and denial of
right under law. Before the judge I demanded that a guarantee be given
by Toplitz that if I was illegally put in jail I would be able to have
some damage; the judge refused and ordered me in jail; was put in jail,
assigned Toplitz & Co., for false imprisonment. The judge who put me
in jail declared my imprisonment for Toplitz & Co. illegal and I was
discharged from jail for Toplitz & Co., and never put in jail for
Toplitz & Co.
Again, in March, 1885, before they discharged me for Toplitz & Co.,
Mr. St. Aude, a Haytian, Nadal, and Delencant under a right recommended
me to be kept in jail for them under the law of 1843 without judgment. I
made the assignment. All those who I owed came to the civil court, and
accepted the assignment, and gave me a release. I was free; but the
Government of Hayti, by the court, refused me my liberty, without
examining the merits of case or law, simply on the ground of my being a
citizen of the United States. I was obliged to remain in jail,
notwithstanding my creditors gave me liberty. I then appealed to supreme
court; they refused. My Government then demanded my release; they
refused; only on the demand of Mr. Bayard did the Government pay Messrs.
St. Aude, Nadal, and Delencant, and give me my liberty, thus trying to
avoid the treaty issue, my being in liberty being excuse for no further
action in the case. I claim that I was illegally detained from the day
the court refused me my liberty, because I was a citizen of the United
States, in violation of articles 6 and 9, as so declared by the
Department. I was illegally put in, as proved, for Mr. Toplitz never put
me in again. I ask for $200 a day from the day the court refused my
rights, because I was a citizen of the United States, my business
destroyed and health ruined, and demand a public acknowledgment that I
was illegally detained, the Government having refused the United States
Government, by letter, my release, and then in the “annual message
“saying, on the demand of Mr. Bayard, I was put out. Put in prison the
5th March, 1884; put at liberty the 23d May, 1884, as having been
detained illegally in by Toplitz & Co., but refused my liberty,
having been recommended by Haytians; had I not been put in illegally in
the first instance, I never would have been recommended by the Haytians,
they having no final judgment; made the assignment before court, all
creditors accepting, but refused by the court my liberty, on account of
my being a citizen of the United States, by its judgment of 27th May,
1884. From the 5th of March to 27th of May I was waiting justice; after
that I was illegally detained from 27th May, 1884, to 27th May, 1885, on
account of my citizenship; this is what I claim on 27th May, put out on
Mr. Bayard’s demand.
[Inclosure 2 in No.
23.—Translation.]
Extract from the annual message of President
Salomon relative to the affiair
of Mr. Van Bokkelen.
Messrs. Toplitz & Co., Americans, haying prosecuted Mr. C. A. Van
Bokkelen, also an American, who, with a view of shielding himself from
bodily constraint provided by law in matters of commercial debts, made
an application to the civil tribunal to
[Page 536]
obtain the faculty of making over his property to
his creditors. To bring this matter before justice he referred to the
treaty of 1865 between the United States of America and Hayti. The
tribunal has rejected the petition by its decision of the 27th of May,
1884, first, because he was a foreigner, and afterwards, because the
treaty in question did not contain any stipulation allowing an American
to enjoy in Hayti the benefit of cession of property.
Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen appealed in cassation against the decision, and
the supreme court, after examining it, as well as the appeal in
question, rejected the latter by a decree of the 26th of February, 1885,
confirming by that means the decision attacked.
Several times the American legation has asked the department of foreign
relations to fix a limit to the time of the detention of Mr. Van
Bokkelen, incarcerated on the application of his creditors, but the
Government has constantly opposed to this demand the impossibility in
which it finds itself to invade the rights of the judicial power, whose
sovereign and independent action is out of the reach of her censure,
although the Government made known the reasons which commanded them to
conform to the limits of their power. The Department of State at
Washington took the matter up the 23d of March, 1885, ordering the
minister of the United States to transmit to the department of foreign
relations a dispatch relating to this imprisonment. The letter of Mr.
Langston, also the dispatch of the honorable Secretary of State of the
United States, Mr. T. F. Bayard, asked the immediate release of Mr. C.
A. Van Bokkelen.
It seemed to my Government that the Department of State was mistaken on
the motive of the decree of the court of cassation of the Republic;
therefore the department of foreign relations in answering has
re-established it and placed it in full light.
The supreme court; in effect of which the decision on this point conforms
moreover to the opinion of eminent jurisconsults, considers that the
judicial making-over of property, being an institution of civil right, a
foreigner cannot benefit thereby, and has proved that the treaty of
1865, invoked by the plaintiff, makes no mention of it.
While giving these explanations to the minister resident of the United
States, my Government has not failed to show the competency of the
courts in the matter of interpretation of treaties when the disputes
which give cause to the interpretation have for object private
interests.
Finally, the principle of the separation of the powers, which forbids all
intermeddling of the executive in judicial affairs, the formal text of
the law still in force on the benefit of cession of property which
excludes foreigners, the silence of the treaty invoked on this subject,
such were the considerations presented to the legation of the United
States, and which opposed themselves to prevent my Government granting
the demand of the setting at liberty, which it was encharged to make by
virtue of instructions of the Department of State.
[Inclosure 3 in No.
23.—Translation.]
republic of hayti.
In view of the state of health of Mr. Adrian Van Bokkelen I come for and
in the name of the National Bank of Hayti to authorize by the present by
the placing at liberty of Mr. Van Bokkelen as far as regards the “recommendation” which the bank had made against
him on the register of the prison.
