File No. 4880/15–16.
It seems that the Haitian Government will desist from prosecuting those
summoned to appear in court for violation of the law of 1876, and will
require foreign firms to take out retail licenses which are being issued
by the municipalities.
The issuing of the retail licenses to foreigners is contrary to law,
foreigners only being legally allowed to take out importers’ licenses.
Yet the representatives of the other foreign governments accredited here
have advised their countrymen to take out these retail licenses,
[Page 738]
as being the best way out of
the difficulty. The said license costs $50 Haitian (to-day about $10
United States gold), and is required of all Haitians who have importers’
licenses and wish to sell at retail. I am desirous of knowing if the
department would suggest that it would be best for American firms also
to take out retailer’s licenses.
[Inclosure.]
Minister Furniss to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs.
American Legation,
Port au
Prince, March 12,
1907.
No. 152.]
Sir: I am in receipt of your excellency’s
note of the 8th instant, containing several points to which, while
awaiting further instructions from my Government, I feel the
necessity of replying.
Your excellency has failed to comprehend the meaning of the word
“license,” which is defined by Webster, a recognized authority, as
“a formal permission from the proper authorities to perform certain
acts or to carry on a certain business which without such permission
would be illegal.”
I am well aware of the method of issuing licenses by your
excellency’s Government—that is, requiring first a license
authorized by His Excellency, the President, giving permission for
one to do business in Haiti, then upon presentaton of that license
to the proper local officials a license is issued for a designated
place, permitting one to carry on a specific business at that place,
the former license being a necessity for the latter, and the two
constitute one’s rights to carry on a legal business.
It is immaterial that it is the prerogative of municipal authorities
to issue a part of the license and to enforce the law.
Municipalities are but parts of Haiti, and as such are responsible
to the general Government of Haiti. It is but natural that for
anything done by any municipality to jeopardize the interest of
American citizens the Federal Government of Haiti alone must be held
responsible. The very idea of Haiti’s being a sovereign government
exacts this. Any other doctrine could not for an instant be
admitted.
I need not discuss your excellency’s contention that no licenses
permitting foreigners to sell at retail have been issued since 1903,
as your excellency has since doubtless been made aware of the fact
that the most recent proof was being enacted in Port au Prince while
your excellency’s note was in transit to this legation, though
perhaps, as your excellency well shows, without authority of
law.
I can not understand your excellency’s idea as to what constitutes
friendliness toward foreigners. Surely the fact that should the law
of 1876 be enforced to the letter, thus forcing all foreign firms to
liquidate, none being able to comply with the law, can not be
considered as such, even if all foreign firms are placed in the same
category. If it is the desire or intention of your excellency’s
Government to keep what you call the “small trade” in the hands of
Haitians, then there should be a revision of the law, as under
present financial conditions in Haiti all sales of less than $100 to
one person at one time can not be considered “small trade” when such
sales are so seldom made, and there are large foreign firms whose
total sales some days do not equal that amount.
In reply to the last paragraph of your excellency’s note, you will
pardon me for quoting from my No. 148, misdated February 6, 1907,
wherein I said: “If, however, the enforcement of the exceptions
which have been made to the law is persisted in, my
fellow-countrymen will be obliged to close their stores and leave
the country.” Your excellency will note that I said “will be
obliged” to leave, that expression in English conveying the idea
that it would not be because they wanted to leave but because they
would be compelled to do so. Nowhere in my note did I say “will
leave” the country; but should they so wish, I have no doubt, as
your excellency says so, that your excellency’s Government would not
contest their right to withdraw.
Your excellency will please accept, etc.,
