Mr. Bassett to Mr. Davis.
New York, January 13, 1885. (Received January 15.)
Sir: If you will extend your courtesy toward me so far as to allow me to refer in this way to our conversation of yesterday concerning the case of Mr. C. A. Van Bokkelen, I would avail myself of the occasion to state to you that upon a careful rereading of the notes exchanged between Mr. Langston and the Government of Hayti on the subject, I find Mr. Langston bases his protest in the matter upon two allegations:
- (1)
- That Mr. Van Bokkelen has been in the jail and hospital of Port au Prince for quite a year, awaiting, as represented (pretended is Mr. Langston’s word) by those in authority, the action of the courts with reference to decision as to his right by law, under the treaty existing between Hayti and the United States, to make assignment of his property, personal or other, in the interests of his creditors.
- (2)
- That neither Mr. Van Bokkelen’s arrest, in the first instance, nor his confinement, accords with the law and usages of Hayti, nor with those of any civilized state of the world.
- (1)
- On the other hand, it appears that, according to the terms of article 794 of the code of civil procedure of Hayti, foreigners are not admitted to the bénéfice de cession.
- (2)
- That the civil tribunal of Port-au-Prince has rejected Mr. Van Bokkelen’s application to avail himself of that bénéfice.
- (3)
- That an appeal has been taken from this decision of the civil tribunal to the supreme court (tribunal de cassation), on the plea that the [Page 548] court below erred in its proceeding, in that it did not, in making up its decision, take due note of the spirit and text of articles 6 and 9 of the treaty. May we not, therefore, infer that Mr. Van Bokkelen’s case has been fairly before the lower courts and is even now before the highest tribunal of Hayti?
Perhaps you will permit me to invite your attention to the fact that while article 6 of the treaty which has been invoked in Mr. Van Bokkelen’s favor confers certain privileges, it also demands that he should furnish surety. As a foreigner in Hayti, he can not offer as surety in his own name any realty. Would the fact that he is willing to surrender his personal property necessarily meet the requirements of the law concerning surety?
It is true that article 9 of the treaty recognizes the right of Americans in Hayti to dispose of their personal possessions (biens mobiliers) by sale, donation, will, or otherwise. This would seem to leave Mr. Van Bokkelen free to assign his personal property to his creditors. But if that property is such in value as to furnish no adaquate guaranty to them under the law, as I understand to be the case, can he in this way escape the force and spirit of the law of the country in which he has chosen to reside during the past eight or ten years?
I do not think that there is any spirit of unfairness towards Mr. Van Bokkelen or discrimination against him in these proceedings. He is, as I understand it, in detention under the customary administration of the law of Hayti, which certainly differs from that of the United States.
I have reflected much on the statement which you kindly made to me, to the effect, as I understood it, that Governments can always hasten proceedings before their courts, and I do not think that there ought to be any difference of opinion as to the desirability of speedy trials, and a duly tender consideration for persons deprived, by whatever process, of their liberty.
I am, &c.,