Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

It should be observed that Mr. Loomis had previously reported the two

following incidents : Mr. Goldschmidt, Jan. 1, 1900, was walking with his wife to his resi

dence when a soldier policeman, standing near, fired his carbine, wounding Mrs. Goldschmidt, though not seriously. Next day Mr. Goldschmidt called on the jefe civil, who though he expressed no regrets stated that the soldier was in prison, pending an investigation as to whether the firing was intentional or accidental, and would

be punished accordingly. On the evening of Jan. 18, 1900, Mr. Goldschmidt when returning to his

home with his wife was stopped, in front of the house of the prefect of police, by a soldier or policeman, who stated that he had orders to search all persons for arms. Mr. Goldschmidt protested his official character, but the officer tore open his coat and searched him. The jefe civil, to whom Mr. Goldschmidt complained by telephone that

these annoyances were getting rather too frequent,” replied that it was barbaridad," and that the offender should be punished ; and next morning the “comisario mayor” called at Mr. Goldschmidt's house and made a renewed expression of the jefe civil's regrets and promise of punishment. During the afternoon Mr. Goldschmidt saw the policeman in the street, “ carrying a gun, as usual, evidently on duty.” (For. Rel. 1900, 913–944.)

On the night of Oct. 22, 1900, the legation of the United States at Caracas received a telegram from Mr. Baiz, a Danish subject, but United States consular agent at Barcelona, Venezuela, stating that he was in prison “incomunicado ” by order from Caracas, and that he knew nothing of the cause of his arrest. The next morning Mr. Russell, secretary of the legation, on inquiring at the foreign office, was informed that Mr. Baiz had been arrested by mistake, and had been released with due apologies. Mr. Baiz, however, stated that he was released without any explanation; and a telegram of inquiry sent to him by Mr. Russell on the 24th of October was not received by him.

Mr. Loomis, United States minister at Caracas, was, on Jan. 16, 1901, instructed to present the case to the foreign office, and to call attention to the interception of the telegram. His instructions also said: “ This is not the first occasion upon which Mr. Baiz has been subjected to the arbitrary action of the Venezuelan local military leaders. Although he is not a citizen of the United States, this government will protect him, while acting as its consular representative, against the arbitrary interference of Venezuelan officials. You will insist that adequate explanations and apologies be made to the consular agent, and that proper measures be taken to prevent the recurrence of such acts."

Mr. Loomis, on Jan. 30, 1901, presented the matter in conformity with his instructions, and in so doing stated that, as he was informed, a telegraphic order was received by the authorities at Barcelona from the minister of the interior for the arrest of a person named Baiz, who was at a certain time treasurer of the State; and that the authorities, although they knew that Mr. Baiz, the consular agent, was a peaceful merchant, who had never had any connection with the government, arrested him and held him in confinement till the next morning, when they released him with the remark that his arrest and imprisonment were “a mistake." a

a Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Loomis, min, to Venezuela, Jan 16, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 534.

Mr. Blanco, minister of foreign affairs, replied, Feb. 16, 1901, that reports on the incident had been requested, but that Mr. Baiz ought to be satisfied with the excuses or explanations already made; and that, as a consular agent was subject to the civil jurisdiction in what related to his person and property, he could " look for no other action to be taken in his case than would be taken in similar cases with respect to any person whatever entitled to the guaranty and protection given by the laws of the country.” )

Subsequently, however, Gen. Rodriguez, provisional president of the State of Barcelona, addressed a letter to Mr. Baiz, on April 16, 1901, as follows: “Mr. Consul: I am pleased to tell you that your arrest some months ago, and which I regret exceedingly, was due to a mistake, as I personally had the honor to tell you at the time, and as there is nothing that can lessen the esteem in which Mr. Baiz is held by the authorities, the government takes especial pains to maintain the most cordial relations with the consulate out of regard for the person in charge, and also for the fact that he is the consular agent of the United States, a nation always friendly to Venezuela."c

Mr. Baiz replied in a similar vein, and the incident of the arrest and imprisonment was treated as terminated; but a further inquiry was made as to the interception of Mr. Russell's official telegram. This was explained to have been due to the interruption of the service first by storms and then by the earthquake of October 29; and the explanation was accepted as satisfactory. In January, 1904, the German consul at Santo Domingo City

requested the American legation, in the absence of Case in Santo Do

a German naval vessel, to request the commander mingo.

of the U. S. S. Columbia to furnish a guard to conduct to the city the German vice-consul who, with his family, resided about two miles away, and who was ordered to remove into the city within forty-eight hours or to suffer the consequences, his situation at the time being precarious because of a civil conflict which was going on. The legation communicated the request to the commander of the Columbia, who at once sent forty marines to the legation, but before they proceeded on their errand the American diplomatic representative personally advised the Dominican government of what was proposed to be done. The Dominican officials expressed their concurrence, as the government was powerless to render the aid itself, and orders were given to the commandants of the several forts that there should be no firing while the guard was outside the walls. When the marines left the city, they were accompanied by the American diplomatic representative and the German congul, and they kept in sight of the Columbia, whose guns were trained to render assistance if needed; and they were able to remove the vice-consul with his family to the city, together with a certain amount of portable property, without accident.

a Mr. Loomis, U. S. min., to Mr. Blanco, min. of for. aff., Jan. 30, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 535.

Mr. Blanco, min. of for. aff., to Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, Feb. 16, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 536. It appeared that Mr. Baiz had been required to pay various forced loans to the local authorities. (Ibid.)

€ For. Rel. 1901, 538.

d Mr. Hill, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, chargé at Caracas, May 4, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 539.

e Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, chargé at Caracas, July 12, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 541.

For. Rel. 1904, 267.

4. PROTECTION OF ARCHIVES AND DWELLINGS.

$ 705.

Not only may a consul claim inviolability for the archives and official property of his office and their exeinption from seizure or examination, but he is protected from the billeting of soldiers in the consular residence.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $73, p. 28.

By various treaties, in violability of the consular office and dwelling is expressly secured. This does not imply that a consular dwelling may be used as an asylum.

Inviolability is also in many instances expressly pledged to the archives and papers of consulates.

('onsular Regulations of the l'nited States (1896), $8 79, 80, p. 31.

April 9, 1849, the dwelling of Mr. Weems, United States consul at Antigua, Guatemala, was forcibly entered by a body of armed men, apparently engaged in an insurrection, and pillaged of money and other property valued at upwards of $3,000. His consular office and the archives of the consulate were in the same house, where his family also resided. The persons who committed the pillage were pursued by an armed force under the command of the President of Guatemala in person, and the property was recaptured. It was not, however, returned to the owner, but seems to have been appropriated as booty by the troops making the capture. On this state of facts the United States maintained that Mr. Weems had a clear and indisputable claim against the government of Guatemala for remuneration. That a government was bound to afford ample protection to the official representatives of other governments within its limits, was, said the Department of State, at the very foundation of international inter· course and was universally acquiesced in. The government of Guatemala sought to deny responsibility on the ground that it had made every effort to prevent the perpetration of the outrage and to punish those who committed it. The government of the United States did not deny that such efforts had been made, but affirmed that the liability of Guatemala for any failure to give protection to the official representative of the United States did not depend upon “ the ability of the government to prevent the infliction of the wrong complained of, or on the sincerity and good faith in which its efforts to that end were made.”

Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, Aug. 6, 1852, MS. Notes to

Central America, I. 33.

“2. The local authorities have an abstract right to forbid the employment of a foreign naval force to protect the houses of consuls, even in emergencies such as those to which you refer. That employment may, however, be justifiable under circumstances similar to those which are reported at Cape Haytien.

“ 3. Strictly speaking, the consular flag can only be properly displayed over the residence of the consul himself. If, however, he should think proper to fly it elsewhere, with a view to protect the property of his countrymen, or property in which they may be interested, he must do this at the risk of having that emblem disregarded by the foreign authorities. This Department can not authorize or direct any such use of the flag of the United States, but will not censure it unless the act should formally be complained of by the foreign government."

Mr. Hunter, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Peck, Oct. 4, 1865, MS. Inst.

Hayti,

62.

After considering the results of an investigation of an alleged insult to the American flag, the burning in June, 1880, of a building in which a United States consular agent in Chile had his office, the conclusion was reached that there was “no proof or probability that insult was intended, with a knowledge that the flag was that of the United States. If, as is supposed,” continued the Department of State, “the firing of the building was in conformity with the war policy of Chile, and even if the Chilean officer, under whose direction that took place, was aware that the flag was that of the United States,

H. Doc. 5514 vol 5- 4

the removal of the flag before the burning may be regarded as less offensive than if it had been allowed to be consumed. Whatever might have been the disposition of this government under other circumstances, it makes no claim on Chile for the value of the building, as it is understood that it was not American property."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Martinez, June 29, 1881, MS. Notes to

Chile, VI. 279.

men

Early in January, 1887, the vice-consul of the United States at Santos, Brazil, complained to the chief of police that a group of and boys had thrown stones at the consulate, breaking some of the windows and injuring the consular coat of arms. On investigation it appeared that the stoning was not directed at the consular office, but at the quarters of a merchant on the floor below it in the same house, who was violating a local ordinance forbidding the keeping open of shops on Sunday. Some of the persons concerned in the disorder were punished, and an explanation of the occurrence was duly communicated by the chief of police to the vice-consul. The United States considered the matter to have been satisfactorily disposed of.

For. Rel. 1887, 53.

In September, 1888, the Peruvian authorities took possession of the building at Mollendo in which the consular agency of the United States was situated. The incident was terminated by negotiations between Mr. Buck, the American minister at Lima, and Mr. Alzamora, Peruvian minister of foreign relations. Mr. Alzamora stated that, as the consular agent, MacCord, had a consular office at Arequipa and resided there, the authorities assumed that the consular agency at Mollendo had disappeared, and under that impression seized the house in which it had been kept. The house was restored to the owner, and orders were given to the effect that, as the agency was definitely ascertained to be in Mollendo, it would be recognized as being there, but that no consular agency would be recognized at Arequipa. In view of this explanation and disclaimer of intention to offend Mr. Buck stated that he considered the incident as closed.

Mr. Buck, min. to l'eru, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. 460, Jan. 22,

1889, MS. Desp. Peru; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Buck, Feb. 18, 1889, MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 372.

The consular agent of the United States at Laguna de Terminos, Mexico, having denied the power of the consul at Merida to suspend him and refused to surrender the office, and the local authorities being unable to act in aid of the consul in ousting him without special permission from the Federal government (art. 31, Mexican Consular Law), the legation of the United States at Mexico was

« PředchozíPokračovat »