JOSEPH BOWIE, Master of Schooner Victor to John Mercer Langston, November 6, 1884

Mr. St. Victor to Mr. Langston.

Mr. Minister. I was about to reply to your two dispatches of the 23d of September, Nos. 294 and 296, when it was agreed between us that we would attempt by verbal conferences to arrive at a definite understanding upon the points which divided us relative to the Mossell and Garrido reclamations and to those of American citizens in general connected with the events at Port au Prince last year.

Our first conference took place at the national palace in presence of His Excellency the President of the Republic, and I had right to hope that a second would place us in complete accord.

I have the regret to witness that it has not done so.

In fact, Mr. Minister, in this second conference, after we had occupied ourselves with the different reclamations upon which I shall have to revert with you in other dispatches, we were occupied with those of Messrs. Mossell and Garrido.

You remember that in the purpose of my Government they ought to form the object of a special inquiry which should verify the correctness of the complaints of Messrs. Mossell and Garrido, in order to establish in an impartial manner the amount of the indemnity to be accorded them, such being the case.

In our interview you consented to reduce by one-half the figure of $10,000, which previously you had demanded for Mr. Garrido, and in that which concerns Mr. Mossell you brought his first figures from $60,000 to $25,000, provided that the Government would engage itself to allow him a monthly sum of $200 as a subvention of a Protestant school which he would establish at Port au Prince, and would liberate upon his demand a person detained in the prison of this city, whom he should designate.

I have not deemed it necessary to dwell upon this proposition which seemed to confer upon Mr. Mossell one of the highest governmental attributes, and whereof the chief of state himself is only in part possessed.

I confirm to you then, Mr. Minister, that my Government is disposed to pursue the projected inquiry, and I pray you to to inform Mr. Mossell and Mr. Garrido, who will be called at the proper time by the examiners.

I will have the honor to advise you of such time.

Permit me to hope that in view of their report our two Governments will be able to regulate the question after a manner just and equitable.

Relatively to the reclamations generally of American citizens, with respect to the events at Port au Prince of last year, you told me in this second conference that in view of the smallness of your figure, very inferior to that France, amounting to $400,000, I ought to accept without discussion your first memorandum.

I would pray you to remark, Mr. Minister, that the examination of all similar reclamations to those which occupy us had been confined to mixed commissions upon basis assuredly less advantageous than those which I have had the honor to propose to you. In all of these questions of equity and justice they had there was made abstraction of the number and of the amount of the reclamations.

Thus, although the Spanish claimants have obtained only $7,850; the Belgian, $3,056; the Danish, $1,160.75; procedure was had with them in the same manner for the French, to whom there has been allowed $413,399.50; the English, $87,403; and the Germans, $77,350.

All these reclamations passed through the same formalities.

If certain figures are higher than others, it is evidently in consequence of the number of the claimants and of the extent of the damages attested.

In the second analysis you have added, Mr. Minister, that for the reasons which you express, you could not change in any respect your memorandum of the 15th of July.

That was exactly that which you wrote me the 23d of September (dispatch No. 296).

I had always thought, nevertheless, and I continue to be of the same mind since our correspondence establishes it fully, that you had agreed with me upon the counter-project which I have had the honor to submit to you, except upon the three points which follow:

• Denomination of the money in which the indemnities are to be adjudged.
• The time of payment.
• Establishment of the nationality of the claimants.

It does appear to me necessary to determine this point of departure, upon which I desire to be informed in a precise and definite manner.

Nevertheless it is my duty to remark to you that the fixing of the term of payment pertains exclusively to the powers of our Corps Legislatif, and that it does not pertain to me to trespass upon its rights.

I believe besides that the denomination of the money of the indemnities to be adjudged ought not to be made the object of discussion between us.

You demand American money or “its equivalent.”

So that one determining the indemnities in American money, or its equivalent, attains exactly the same results.

In that which concerns the nationality, since you do not desire to leave the determination thereof to the mixed commission, I have admitted that the two Governments interested should occupy themselves thereof before the presentation of all the reclamations.

In this regard I remind you of my dispatch of the 18th of September, in which a modification to my counter project is found presented.

This modification I have thought would be accepted without discussion, for it constitutes, without doubt, a privilege; since the other commissions have had to pronounce themselves upon the nationality of the claimants.

Moreover, persuaded that in invoking the facts drawn from the doings of mixed commissions which have sat since fifteen years at Washington, I would have arrived with you in a definite understanding, I have had the honor to present to you a note in which I have shown that all these commissions have had the exclusive right of interpreting the text of the treaty or of the protocol which constituted them and to decide if they had jurisdiction of the claimant, with regard to his nationality or upon the subject of the reclamation.

Thus the two first questions proposed have always been these:

• The commissioners, have they jurisdiction of the claimant?
• Have they jurisdiction of the subject of the reclamation?

Permit me to repeat to you, Mr. Minister, that from the commencement of the doings of the Franco-American Commission, the United States have submitted these questions, have even demanded of the claimant to prove that he had not lost his quality of Frenchman, in repelling every diplomatic action whatever upon the subject. Two hundred French claimants were defeated by the commission either because they had not made choice in view of the treaty of Frankfort, made between France and Germany, or because they had formed in the United States establishments without the purpose of return, or voted in the general elections.

It stands proved that the question of personal status of the claimant has always been the first discussed in these cases, and one can without hesitation give to it the form following:

The claimant, is he a citizen or subject of the country of which he claims nationality and protection?

It is this which is incumbent upon him to prove legally before the commission which ought to take cognizance of his reclamation.

It is then the desire only of my Government to arrive at a settlement of American reclamations, which has caused it to take from the Americo-Haytien Commission a right established by the United States themselves.

The good will which you have always shown for our young Republic gives me the hope that our Government will not have to address itself to the Cabinet at Washington for the solution of those questions which it had been able to settle here without difficulty with the representatives of other foreign powers.

In closing, I desire to express to you the regret that I experience in not being able to separate, as you have asked of me, the different parts of this dispatch. They are bound together closely, and have been the object of two conferences which I desired to speak of in their entirety.

Accept, &c.,