The Acting Secretary of
State to Chargé Jay.
Department of State,
Washington, February 1,
1905.
No. 757.]
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your
No. 973 of the 11th ultimo, asking whether American religious,
charitable, and educational institutions in Turkey are authorized to fly
the American flag on Sundays and holidays.
[Page 876]
In reply, I inclose for your information a copy of an instruction
addressed to the American minister to Haiti in regard to a similar
inquiry which came from that country, and refer you to Foreign Relations for 1903, pages 596
et seq., wherein you will find the Department’s views on the
subject.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure.]
The Secretary of
State to Minister Powell.
Department of State,
Washington, July 20,
1899.
No. 354.]
Sir:
* * * * * * *
The flag incident you describe in your No. 593 deserves separate
treatment. It appears that the Compagnie Haitienne, in anticipation
of the seizure of certain property, raised the flag of the United
States above a station of the aerial tramways it has established in
the interior of the island. The Haitien Government has requested
that this practice cease, on the ground that such display of a
foreign flag tends to excite popular feeling. You defend the
practice as a right, while, however, requesting the company not to
fly the flag pending the receipt by you of instructions on the
subject.
The request of the Haitien Government appears not to be unreasonable.
The right to display a foreign flag over foreign owned property is
by no means established except in the oriental countries where the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the foreign flag is secured by
treaty. In some countries it is forbidden so to fly a foreign flag.
In Mexico the privilege of showing their national ensign is
forbidden even to foreign consuls. The right of Haiti to regulate or
forbid by law the display of foreign flags within Haitien territory
could not well be questioned. It does not, however, appear that the
request of the Haitien Government rests on any domestic law; on the
contrary it seems to rest on motives of policy and domestic
expediency, having regard to the particular circumstances of the
case.
In Mr. Sandham’s letter to you, of June 21, he admits that the flag
was raised above a station “owing to a threatened seizure of
logwood” stored therein and that “this action was not diplomatic.”
In this latter statement the Department concurs. The national flag
is the symbol of the paramount authority of its government, which
authority obviously does not extend, in the case of the United
States, over private property situated in a sovereign foreign
jurisdiction. In the present case, moreover, the property belongs to
a company operating under Haitian charter and possessing no
delegated authority to raise the flag as the emblem of any
exercisable power of the United States Government in that
quarter.
As the incident appears to have been terminated by the company’s own
admission of the irregularity of its action in Mr. Sandham’s letter
to you, and by its agreement to lower the flag in order to preserve
harmonious relations, it does not appear necessary to pursue the
subject further.
I am, etc.,
