Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

animated us in our relations with Guatemala, the Government was loath to go to extremes in the manifestations of its displeasure and merely took care to instruct its diplomatic representative to press his demands, seeing that the testimony of various persons who had been eyewitnesses of the occurrence left no doubt that an outrage had been committed. It is gratifying to me to inform you that this conduct. marked by both firmness and prudence, produced the desired result. seeing that the Government of Guatemala gave satisfaction to the Government of Mexico by yielding to its demands, which involved an expression of regret at what had occurred and the punishment of the person who proved to have been directly guilty."

Message of President Diaz to the Mexican Congress, Sept. 16, 1904, For.
Rel. 1904, 488.

A consul of the United States in Nicaragua has no right, as such, "under the law of nations to make his dwelling an asylum for persons charged with crimes or offenses against that Government."

Nicaragua.

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wheeler, min. to Nicaragua, May 11, 1855,
MS. Inst. Am. States, XV. 236.

"I have received your No. 42 of the 12th ultimo, concerning the report of another revolutionary outbreak at Leon, Nicaragua, and your declination to give asylum to a sympathizer of the revolutionists, one Jesus Hernandez, to whom you announced that the chief aim of your mission in Nicaragua was to look after the interests of American citizens, and next to courteously decline mixing up with the political affairs of any other people.

"The Department cordially approves that sentiment. The views of this Government averse to so-called diplomatic asylum in derogation of the regular and supreme powers of a state are too well known to need repetition, especially as you appear to fully understand your duty in the premises."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Nicaragua, Aug. 15, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 212.

In the revolution in Salvador in 1871, the deposed President. Dueñas, found refuge with General Torbert, minister Salvador. of the United States. The new Government immediately placed a guard about the legation and demanded that the fugitive be surrendered for trial, promising that his life should be spared. General Torbert," having," as he declared, " due respect for the sovereignty of the state," with the concurrence of Señor Dueñas, accepted the guarantee of his life and delivered him to the agents of the Government. Referring to this transaction, Mr. Fish, then

Secretary of State, sent General Torbert a copy of certain instructions to Mr. Bassett, minister to Hayti, of December 16, 1869, and said: "Having, however, whether for sufficient reasons or otherwise, granted refuge to Mr. Dueñas, you thereby incurred an obligation which, it might be said, more or less implicated the honor of this Government in its exact fulfilment. It appears that Mr. Dueñas assented to his own surrender. This assent, however, may be regarded as so important an element in the case that it would have. been preferable if it had been given in writing. This would have made it a matter of record, which might have been used in possible contingencies to refute a charge that the surrender was contrary to the wishes of the refugee."

In April, 1872, charges against Señor Dueñas were presented to the Congress for various malfeasances in office, including the embezzlement and misappropriation of funds, usurpation of office, and nepotism, and for assassination in unlawfully causing ex-President Barrios to be shot. The Senate, after investigation, remitted the charges to the ordinary tribunals, and it was surmised that the trial might end in a death sentence. Mr. Fish, on being so informed, instructed the legation in that event to express to the Government the expectation that the pledge given to General Torbert would be observed. This contingency did not arise. On July 22 the prisoner was sent under guard to La Libertad en route for Panama, the Government having taken his bond with five sureties in $10,000 each that he would not return to Salvador within four years without the permission of the authorities, and having required “the hypothecation of all his large estate to abide the result of the civil procedures against him."

66

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Torbert, min. to Salvador, May 18, 1871,
For. Rel. 1871, 695; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Biddle, min. to
Salvador, May 24, 1872, For. Rel. 1872, 536.

(3) CHILE.

§ 297.

The propriety of your granting an asylum to Colonel Arteaga will depend upon circumstances which are at present unknown to the Department. If there should be any precedent showing that the Chilean Government had previously acquiesced in such a proceeding on the part of the diplomatic representative of any foreign nation at Santiago, it could not justly complain of our course, unless formal notice should have previously been given that it would not in future tolerate the exercise of the right. Inasmuch, however, as the right itself is more than doubtful under the public law, and as a formal demand had been made upon you for the offender, if he should still be

your guest when this reaches you, it is deemed advisable that you should inform him that your house can no longer screen him from prosecution."

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peyton, min. to Chile, July 2, 1851, MS.
Inst. Chile, XV. 90.

"The Department is in receipt this morning of your despatches numbered 37 & 38. . . . The difficulty with Mr. Trevitt, our consul at Valparaiso, is deeply to be regretted. While it is quite true that his house could not rightly be made an asylum for political offenders, it is equally true that the soldiery, who entered it without orders and before any demand for the refugees had been made, deserve reproof and punishment. Their conduct also seems to have been unjustifiably insolent and violent. It is quite probable that, in a frank interview with the minister of foreign affairs, you may be able to arrange this matter satisfactorily. You may give the Chilean Government fully to understand that the consul claims no right and will exercise none to interfere in the local concerns of the country, and as the difficulty at the consul's residence seems to have been somewhat the result of misapprehension or accident, his exequatur may well be restored, and strict inquiry made into the conduct of the Chilean officers in order that they may be properly dealt with. It is not doubted that after mutual explanations in the interview I have suggested a spirit of harmony and compromise will readily lead to a basis of adjustment which will embrace the restoration of Mr. Trevitt's exequatur upon terms perfectly satisfactory to the United States and the Chilean Government.”

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bigler, min. to Chile, May 2, 1859, MS.
Inst. Chile, XV. 165.

"Since the instruction of 2d May was addressed to you, your communication of 15th April has reached the Department. In that dispatch you state that the English consul at Talcahuano had recently given asylum to a certain number of refugees under circumstances similar to those under which Consul Trevitt acted at Valparaiso, but that the Chilean Government had manifested no dissatisfaction with his conduct, while, on the same grounds, it withdrew the exequatur of our consul. The Department is also informed that the practice on the part of consuls of extending asylum to political refugees is almost generally permitted in the Pacific republics and in none more frequently than in Chile. If this be so, the existence of such an usage, taken in connection with the statement you make in regard to the English consul, would go far to induce this Government to require the restoration of Mr. Trevitt's exequatur. You have doubtless informed yourself with careful accuracy upon this point,

and if your information leads to the conviction that our consul has been singled out as a mark for the disapprobation of the Chilean Government for following a precedent generally established, you will express the dissatisfaction of this Government with the course pursued by Chile, and the expectation that Mr. Trevitt's exequatur will be restored to him."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bigler, min. to Chile, June 17, 1859, MS.
Inst. Chile, XV. 167.

"Your despatches to No. 46, inclusive, have been received. In this last dispatch, you inform me that the Chilean Government declines the friendly arrangement in reference to Mr. Trevitt which was proposed in my note of 17 June and refuses to restore to that officer his exequatur. The President has heard of this determination. with surprise and regret. . . . Surely, the case was not one which required, on the part of Chile, any very stringent adherence to its previous action. . . . It was a case, simply, where a few persons had taken refuge in the house of a consul, and had been afterwards surrendered, upon the demand of the proper authorities. In the first instance, undoubtedly, the house had been rudely and illegally violated, by an officer who had no orders to justify his conduct, and who well deserved to be rebuked and punished. The entrance of a band of soldiers into the domicil of an American consul, without warrant of law, and only by the authority of force, was well calculated to excite the indignation which it did elicit, and to provoke the resistance which it occasioned, on the part of those fearless persons by whom the house was occupied. When, however, a proper demand was afterwards made for the surrender of the refugees, by a legally authorized officer, they were taken from the house without opposition. This is what was fairly to have been expected from an American officer. Resistance to aggression and obedience to law are equally characteristic of citizens of the United States. The Chilean Government had no cause to complain, therefore, of what had occurred. Its authority had been respected, and the refugees had been secured. No reason is perceived, therefore, why it was thought necessary that Mr. Trevitt's exequatur should be withdrawn, except the suspicion suggested that he disliked the Chilean Government, and claimed the right to make his house an asylum for political offenders. This suspicion, however, was met by your full assurances that Mr. Trevitt was friendly to the Government and that he made no claim whatever to the right of asylum. Chile, I repeat, therefore, had nothing to complain of. This Government, however, had a right to demand a full investigation into the conduct of the officer (Ramirez) who violated the dwelling of Mr. Trevitt without orders, and a disclaimer of his conduct by the Chilean Government together with

the just punishment of the offender. In proposing to waive this right, and consenting that with the return of Mr. Trevitt's exequatur the whole transaction should be allowed to rest without further inquiry, the President felt that he was giving renewed evidence of his friendly disposition towards the Government of Chile, from which he confidently anticipated an equally friendly response. In this he has been deeply disappointed. . .

"You will transmit a copy of this dispatch to the Chilean minister of foreign affairs, and, in thus presenting to him again the case of Mr. Trevitt, you will assure him at the same time of the sincere satisfaction with which this Government would learn that the Government of Chile had found itself at liberty to restore his exequatur to that officer. If that Government shall persist, however, in declining to do this, another consul will forthwith be appointed. But, in that event, you will demand an immediate inquiry into the circumstances under which Mr. Trevitt's house was violated on the 2d of March, and will insist upon the prompt punishment of the parties who shall be found to have been guilty of wrong on that occasion.”

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bigler, min. to Chile, Aug. 16, 1859, MS.
Inst. Chile, XV. 170.

"Altho' the determination of the Chilean Government, communicated in your No. 63 of 30th November last, not to restore Mr. Trevitt's exequatur, has occasioned both surprise and dissatisfaction to the President, in view of the amicable spirit of compromise displayed by this Government in its proposition of the 2d May last, and which was substantially renewed in the despatch to you of 16th August, still, as Chile has an unquestionable right to assume that position, this Government will press its views upon that point no further. We have, however, the right to insist upon the most searching investigation of the conduct of those functionaries whose violence we were willing to overlook, had Chile responded to our request in a becoming spirit. Since she has decided differently we will press our alternative."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bigler, min. to Chile, February 4, 1860, MS.
Inst. Chile, XV. 188.

"In respect to Mr. Trevitt, this Government has yielded, you are aware, to the wishes of Chile, so far as to transfer that officer to Callao, and to supply his place in Valparaiso. There were circumstances, however, attending the entrance of the Chilean soldiers into his dwelling on the 2d March, 1859, and in reference to their conduct on that occasion, which still demand explanation, and this can not be refused by the Chilean authorities without an utter disregard of those friendly relations which now exist between the two countries.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »