Bassett to Darius Denis, October 3, 1871

Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No 77, of June 24, 1871, which did not however reach this legation until more than ten weeks after its date.

I understood the tenor of its instructions to be, that I should remonstrate plainly and emphatically against the want of good faith shown by the Haytian government in the observance of its neutrality in regard to the domestic strife in San Domingo, if it should acknowledge the proceedings which have been charged against it by the government of San Domingo, and to some of which allusion is made in my dispatch No. 85, of August 3, 1871, and again in my letter marked “private, No. 15,” of the 8th ultimo.

* * * * * *

Upon careful reflection, therefore, I concluded that your instructions would be more fully carried out if I were to embody in my dispatch, conveying to the Haytian government the substance of these instructions, some specifications to the general representations made by the government of San Domingo. In making these specifications I endeavored to keep within the line of diplomatic propriety, and to state them in manner and language as inoffensive as the case would permit.

My dispatch to the minister of foreign affairs (see inclosure A) makes reference to former dispatches on the same subject, and states that since the reports of the acts of his government which have been made, the subject of complaint in this particular come not only from a source so responsible as a recognized and established government, but are found in accord with information from other trustworthy sources, with rumors public and current; and with the well-known sympathies and predilections of his government, scarcely less could be expected than that they should be set forth for such explanation or criticism, or other regard, as may be just and proper. As to the truth of the eight specifications which are embodied in my said dispatch, although it might perhaps be difficult under the circumstances to establish them technically and legally, I have hardly a doubt. Observing, however, to the minister that they appear to be sustained by remarkable corroborations, I felt that I could not say less to him than that if they be correct, they show a want of good faith on the part of his government toward the Government of the United States, and that he ought not to be unmindful of the hazard and responsibility which his government must, in such a case, incur.

The dispatch seemed to have produced a visible effect upon the members of the government whom I chanced to meet socially immediately after sending it to the minister, although they avoided making any allusion to the subject in conversation, and I understood that it was several times brought up for discussion in cabinet meeting.

Ten days after the date of my dispatch, the minister returned answer (see inclosure B) in a dispatch quite characteristic of the government which he represents. He takes advantage of the guarded form of expression used in my dispatch, whereby, following diplomatic usage, I avoided stating the charges in an assured and positive manner, and he intimates that the allegations made in my dispatch are not sustained by proofs, and must have come from factions interested in throwing discredit upon his government, by which latter statement I suspect he intends allusion to the adherents of President Baez, and especially to the Haytian exiles and refuges in San Domingo.

He declares that the sympathies of his government are in full accord with those of the “great majority of the citizens of the United States who have a lively interest in the independence of the republic of San Domingo;” that his government can have no interest in working for the annexation of that republic to Hayti, (nous ne saurions avoir aucun intérêt à attirer à nous cette partie de l’ile;) and makes again the declaration that his government does nothing to foment discord in San Domingo, but that its strongest desire is to cultivate perfect friendship and harmony with that republic.

Although the minister but faintly denies, and does not refute, the specifications of my dispatch, yet it might be surprising that he can even tacitly deny statements which, in my opinion, lack little, if anything, but formal and sworn testimony to substantially establish them beyond question.

At all events, to borrow an expression from your No. 58 of February 9, 1871, the promises and protestations of the Haytian government on this particular subject “do not seem to be expressed in any way to inspire perfect confidence in their sincerity.”

I am, &c.,