sonal Instructions, and the Foreign Relations for 1895; that the former referred to "unsuccessful insurgents" and "offenders against the laws," and the latter to persons who had assumed office by revolution. In the present instance, however, he had offered asylum to the regularly elected officers of government, so recognized for years, from possible outrage at the hands of “offenders against the laws," virtually"cutthroats" and "outlaws." Had the latter succeeded, their success would have been temporary, since if they had not fled President Alfaro would have dislodged them and reestablished his Government, and the concession of asylum "would have saved from death the legitimate heads of the Government until such a time as they could again assume the functions of their respective offices." a In its answer the Department of State, while quoting Mr. Olney's statement, in the case of General Savasti, the minister of war of the overthrown Ecuadorian Government, that "the case of a member of an overturned titular government" might be "different" from that of a revolutionist," until the empire of law is restored, and the successful revolution establishes itself in turn as the rightful government, competent to administer law and justice in orderly process," said: "A general rule, in the abstract, can not be laid down for the inflexible guidance of the diplomatic representatives of this Government in according shelter to those requesting it. But certain limitations to such grant are recognized. It should not, in any case, take the form of a direct or indirect intervention in the internecine conflicts of a foreign country, with a view to the assistance of any of the contending factions, whether acting as insurgents or as representing the titular government. "I therefore regret that I am unable to approve the promise of shelter made by you to the members of the titular government before the emergency had actually arisen for decision as to whether the circumstances then existing would justify or make it permissible; and especially am I unable to approve the apparent ground or motive of the promise, that you would have saved from death the legitimate heads of the Government until such a time as they would again assume the functions of their respective offices.' "The Government of the United States remains a passive spectator of such conflicts, unless its own interests or the interests of its citizens are involved; and I conceive that it might lead to great abuses in the grant of such shelter, which is afforded only from motives of humanity, if assurances were given in advance to the leaders of either of the contending factions that they might carry the conflict to whatever extremes, with the knowledge that at last they should enjoy @ Mr. Sampson, min. to Ecuador, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, April 10, 1899, For Rel. 1899, 257. immunity in the protection of this Government, yet such might be construed as the practical effect of the assurance given in this case. I am therefore constrained to withhold my approval of the assurances given at the time and under the circumstances stated in your dispatches and as understood by the Department.” Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sampson, min. to Ecuador, June 5, 1899, (6) HAYTI AND SANTO DOMINGO. $ 300. In Hayti and Santo Domingo both legations and consulates have been used as asylums for persons engaged in the disturbances that so often occur in those countries. "1. Consuls may harbor political refugees, but as the law of nations confers upon them no right to do this, and as the treaty between the United States and Hayti is silent upon the subject, no sufficient cause of complaint would arise if refugees so harbored were to be taken by the local authorities from the consular abode." Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Peck, Oct. 4, 1865, MS. Inst. In a despatch of May 8, 1868, Mr. Hollister, then minister of the United States at Port au Prince, describes the disorders attending the return to that city of President Salnave at the head of his army, after an encounter with insurgents. The city, he said, was in a state of "consternation," and his dwelling was filled with "refugees-men, women, and children-to the number of one hundred and fifty." Mobs roamed the streets, as they had done for two weeks, firing their muskets promiscuously. In conclusion he said: "I beg instructions in relation to the receiving of refugees. It does more mischief here than it does good, and is really, as it is practised, little more than offering a premium for factious disturbances and a bid for sedition. The three chargés here are ready to recommend the discontinuance of this much-abused custom if our Government is ready to take the step." On May 28 Mr. Seward replied as follows: "The right of a foreign legation to afford an asylum to political refugees is not recognized by the law of nations as applicable to civilized or constitutionally organized states. It is a practice, however, which, from the necessity of the case, is exercised to a greater or less extent by every civilized state in regard to barbarous or semibarbarous countries. The revolutionary condition seemed to become chronic in many of the South American nations after they had achieved their independence, and the United States, as well as the European nations, recognized and maintained the right of asylum in their intercourse with those republics. We have, however, constantly employed our influence, for several years to meliorate and improve the political situation in these republics, with an earnest desire to relinquish the right of asylum there. In the year 1867 we formally relinquished and renounced that right in the Republic of Peru. This Government has also largely modified the exercise of that right among some of the oriental nations. "Thus we are prepared to accept the opinion you have deliberately expressed that it is no longer expedient to practice the right of asylum in the Haytian Republic. Nevertheless, we should not be willing to relinquish the right abruptly, and in the midst of the anarchy which seems to be now prevailing in Hayti, in the absence of matured convictions on your part. Nor do we think it expedient that it should be renounced by the United States legation any sooner or in any greater degree than it is renounced by the legations of the other important neutral powers. With these reservations, the subject is confidently left to your own discreet judgment." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hollister, min. to Hayti, May 28, 1868, Mr. Hollister's dispatch is in the same volume, p. 354. On June 29 Mr. Hollister reported that, owing to the breaking out of disease in the legation, President Salnave had as a "sanitary measure" agreed to the safe departure of the women and children. and had permitted all the men to be put on board a merchant vessel for New York, except General Roman and six others, who with the consent of the President remained under the diplomatic roof. On this report Mr. Seward observed: "I see no reason to censure or disapprove of your proceedings mentioned, by which you obtained relief from the excessive incumbrance of refugees. The proceeding is in harmony with the instructions you have received from this Department, and with the settled policy of the United States. . . . In all cases the exercise of the right [of asylum] should be attended as far as possible with delicacy towards the state concerned, and with forbearance from all appearance of arrogance and dictation." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hollister, min. to Hayti, July 18, 1868, "Your dispatch No. 20, of the 20th ultimo, has been received. It represents that in consequence of the apprehended triumph of the armed opposition to the existing Government in Hayti, the foreign consulates, and even the legation of the United States, had been sought as asylums for persons and property. Occasions for this have of late years frequently arisen in the independent states of this hemisphere, but the proceeding has never been sanctioned by the Department, which, however, appreciates those impulses of humanity which make it difficult to reject such appeals for refuge. The expediency of granting an asylum in such cases, especially by consuls, is more than questionable, and the obligation to take that course has no foundation in public law, however in Hayti or elsewhere it may be tolerated and customary. While you are not required to expel those who may have sought refuge in the legation, you will give them to understand that your Government can not on that account assume any responsibility for them, and especially can not sanction any resistance by you to their arrest by the authorities for the time being." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett, min. to Hayti, Dec. 16, 1869, For. A copy of this instruction was inclosed by Mr. Fish, May 18, 1871, to See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, tó Mr. Bassett, min. to Hayti, Feb. 4, In March, 1875, the British minister in Hayti granted asylum to General In March, 1872, Mr. Jastram, vice commercial agent of the United States at St. Marc, Hayti, afforded asylum to General Batraville, who was pursued for proclaiming an insurrection. The chief of the department demanded that the fugitive be given up, and when the demand was refused, sent troops to arrest him. At the consular office a fracas ensued, and the troops not only searched the office and arrested the General, but they also seized Mr. Jastram and took him through the public streets with many demonstrations of violence. From this "undignified position," as he termed it, Mr. Jastram was rescued through the intervention of the French vice-consul. Mr. Bassett, in accordance with the instrutions of December 16 1869, declined to make any claim on account of the arrest of General Batra ville, but he obtained an expression of regret from the Haytian Government for the indignity to the consul and a promise of future protection to consular officers. He also demanded the punishment of the officer at the head of the offending troops; but the Government met this demand to Mr. Bassett's entire satisfaction by assuring him that it would not fail to censure or punish that officer, if he had not "paid, in his own person, the last tribute to nature." Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary of State, congratulated Mr. Bassett that the case had been "adjusted upon a basis compatible with the honor of both Governments." a In April, 1872, the British vice-consul at Cape Haytian caused great excitement by receiving political offenders and refusing to give them up. The British and American consular representatives at Gonaives pursued the same course, and the authorities stationed guards about their offices. Ultimately the refugees were delivered to Haytian agents, by whom they were embarked. But in March, 1873, the authorities of Santo Domingo took from the British consulate at Puerto Plata, in that Republic, by force and against the consul's protest, three Dominicans who had sought asylum there after heading an armed demonstration against the cession of Samana Bay to the United States. Mr. St. John, British minister at Port au Prince and chargé d'affaires at Santo Domingo, immediately demanded their release and, with the intervention of a British man-of-war, compelled the Dominican authorities to give up the prisoners, censure the officers concerned in their arrest, and salute the British flag. On the 1st of August Earl Granville, on learning the facts, instructed Mr. St. John to inform the Government of Santo Domingo, as well as all Her Majesty's consular officers there, that the British Government had determined to abandon the practice of receiving political refugees in its consulates in that Republic. "The immunities of an ambassador are not of a personal character. They belong to the government of which he is the representative. It is to be regretted, therefore, that you treated the invasion of your house and the arrest therein of your servants as a personal offense, to be atoned for by the simple release of the persons arrested, and a private note expressive of regret. "This act, especially when regarded in connection with a recent invasion of the commercial agency at St. Marc, and other acts of disrespect, and of neglect of diplomatic and international courtesies, is significant of an intent which should have elicited from you a more a For. Rel. 1872, 264-284. For. Rel. 1872, 270; 1873, I. 465–473. c For. Rel. 1873, I. 460–463. d For. Rel. 1874, 584. |