Mr. Smythe to Mr.
Gresham.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, December 17,
1894. (Received Dec. 31.)
No. 106.]
Sir: As supplemental to my dispatch No. 104 of
this series, I have to report the reception on the 12th instant of an
answer from the foreign secretary, herewith inclosed, with translation
as inclosure 1. On the 15th instant I transmitted the inclosed note of
reply and explanation
[Page 804]
(Inclosure 2), which I hope will meet your approval. In the present
unsettled state of the Government, suggested in a former dispatch, I
have little hope of immediate action in the matter. I am convinced that
the Haitian Government will insist strenuously on the absolute right of
expulsion, and as well assured that its modification is necessary to the
interests of American citizens resident here. I beg leave to refer you
in this connection to my No. 47, of March 3, 1894, with a view to
suggesting an extension of your instructions for my guidance as to
immediate action in case other citizens are arbitrarily expelled. In
view of the numerous expulsions, this can hardly be considered a
hypothetical question.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure in No.
106.—Translation.]
Mr. Marcelin to
Mr. Smythe.
Department of State for Foreign Relations,
Port au Prince, December 12, 1894.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to answer
the dispatch which you addressed to me dated the 4th of this month
to request, in the name of your Government, explanations on the
expulsion of Mr. Eugene Wiener, an American citizen.
As you must have seen by the decree of the department of the
interior, Mr. Wiener was expelled from our territory as a dangerous
individual, capable of compromising the public security. Our secret
agents have notified us for a long time of the conduct of Wiener.
The abusive language which on every occasion he utters against the
Government and the Haitian nation and his affinity with the Haitian
exiles residing in Kingston have caused us to place him under the
surveillance of the police. Recently our minister plenipotentiary at
Washington informed us that Wiener had proposed to a workman in New
York to fabricate several millions of Haitian paper money. That
criminal attempt, which threatened not only the Government but the
entire society as well as the national and foreign commerce, had
among other objects that of provoking civil war and placing
resources in the hands of the enemies of public order.
That Wiener denies having committed an act reproved and punished by
the laws of all nations, is perfectly in his role, and it is
naturally the first system of defense that he would employ. But the
Government is convinced of his culpability, and it has acted in
conformity with its rights.
I can not admit, for one instant, Mr. Minister, that your Government
can see in this expulsion an act aimed directly at the American
nation. We have already given proofs of the desire which we have to
draw closer our relations of friendship, and the department has
oftentimes made to you this sincere declaration.
You will permit me, Mr. Minister, not to enter into the theoretic
considerations with which you have entertained me in the matter of
expulsion, through fear of my not agreeing with you on certain
points.
I desire to answer especially to the passage of your dispatch which
cites our treaty with the United States of America.
It can not be advantageously maintained that a conventional
obligation of the nature of the treaty of 1864 can alienate the
rights of sovereignty of a nation. If it was thus it would be, you
will admit, a disguised abdication of power.
[Page 805]
We have employed the method of expulsion instead of that of the
tribunals, because the case of Mr. Wiener springs from (relevait)
[one of] a purely political order [class]. This mode, as you have
said, is an attribute of national sovereignty; it is an
incontestable right.
I remain, therefore, persuaded, Mr. Minister, that the case of Mr.
Wiener can not give rise to any difficulties to my Government even
in virtue of the treaty referred to, because this treaty can not
deprive us in any manner of an attribute essential and indispensable
to the security of the State.
Please accept, etc.,
[Inclosare 2 in No.
106.]
Mr. Smythe to Mr.
Marcelin.
Legation of the United States,
Port au Prince, December 15, 1894.
Sir: Your dispatch, dated the 12th instant,
is before me, and I regret to say that while it is in response to
mine of the 4th, I am very sure that my Government will not deem it
a satisfactory answer to the request that I was directed to make in
these words:
You will therefore call the attention of the Haitian
Government to this case and request it to furnish this
Government with the evidence of the acts and conduct alleged
against said Wiener and which he denies.
You will observe here that my dispatch did not ask for an
“explanation” of your Government’s action, but that my Government
might be enabled to acquiesce in its conclusion I requested you to
furnish this legation with the evidence on which such action was
based.
Your dispatch shows that Wiener for a long time was under the
surveillance of the secret agents of your Government, and surely the
report furnished the department of the interior, which was
sufficient to justify the exercise of the harshest method of
expulsion—the ruin of his business and the virtual confiscation of
his property—is of such a character as to justify the act of which
he complains. Surely, sir, such evidence should not be withheld from
a friendly power which only seeks the full and absolute protection
of its citizens in all rights guaranteed by the laws of nations or
the treaties made in pursuance thereof.
My Government, Mr. Secretary, does not see in this expulsion “an act
aimed directly at the American nation.” Nothing in my dispatch gives
even a hint at such a conclusion, and it is not to be supposed for
an instant that the idea you suggest should enter into the
discussion of the question. I am happy, sir, to be able to return
with hearty sincerity all expressions of good will, and my earnest
hope is that by an amicable compliance with my Government’s
reasonable request another step may be taken toward that complete
entente cordiale so useful and so desirable between nations having
so many interests in common.
My dispatch did not intimate that any of the rights of sovereignty
had been alienated or impaired by the treaty of 1864. I pointed out
how the acknowledged right of expulsion had been modified by the
custom of nations of the first rank.
In this connection it hardly seems necessary to remind you that
sovereign rights may be modified or even surrendered by treaty, but
inasmuch as all contracts are based on the idea of mutual
obligation, and in my dispatch I have given you my Government’s view
of the right of expulsion, it seems unnecessary to discuss what you
are pleased
[Page 806]
to denominate
an attribute of national sovereignty, an incontestable right which
(under the modifications set forth in my dispatch) my Government
admits.
In closing this note, sir, permit me to say that my dispatch demands
nothing that is incompatible with the honor and dignity of Haiti;
that its request is not only founded on the terms of the convention
of 1864, but sustained by sound principles of justice and
international custom.
Again, Mr. Secretary, permit me to ask that your Government furnish
this legation with the evidence of the acts and conduct of said
Wiener, and which he denies.
I have, etc.,
