Stephen Preston to Hamilton Fish, October 25, 1875
No. 178. Mr. Preston to Mr. Fish.
The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Republic of Hayti, has the honor, in obedience to the instructions of his government, to transmit to the honorable Secretary of State of the United States the memorandum which is inclosed with this note, and which the President of Hayti causes to be communicated at the same time to each of the powers represented at Port au Prince.
The undersigned thinks it proper for him, on transmitting this memorandum, to make a few observations which his government has instructed him to submit to the particular attention of the honorable Secretary of State of the United States.
The undersigned will not remind the Hon. Hamilton Fish of the complications to which the asylum granted by Mr. Bassett to certain Haytians might have given rise. Inasmuch as these difficulties have been settled by a common agreement and by means of mutual concessions, the undersigned does not think proper to recur to them now; it seems to him indispensable, however, to allude at least to the occurrences which have just taken place, with a view to presenting a few observations with regard to the influence which this so-called right of asylum may have upon the political destinies of the nations among which it is exercised.
An attempt to create an insurrection was made in Hayti on the 1st of May. The government was on its guard, and easily frustrated the guilty design. Nevertheless, certain officers of the army refused to obey the orders which were given them; they endeavored to incite the population of the plains to rebel. Subsequently, when they became aware that the energy of the government and the good sense of the people had sufficed to frustrate their plans, when they saw themselves surrounded, a fight took place between them and the armed force. In this melée Boisrond Canal killed two soldiers, and then, in the midst of the struggle, escaped with three of his companions, and, with them, sought refuge at the residence of Mr. Bassett.
The honorable Secretary of State, on learning of these facts, considered, from the very outset, their grave consequences. He saw how the legitimate authority of the government of Hayti was thus baffled. The honorable Secretary of State knows what penalties the public law of the United States provides for the crime of treason. Would the United States, if they were dealing with one of their citizens charged with this crime, suffer a third power to interfere, under any pretext whatever, for the purpose of opposing their will? They would very properly regard any attempt of this kind as a blow struck at their sovereignty. And yet among the people of the United States, where veneration for constitutional liberty has so long prevailed, such an act could not produce the fatal effects which it might in other countries, where the spirit of revolution has long existed, and where it opposes its bad influence to the regular development of free institutions. This, however, is not the gravest aspect presented by the Boisrond Canal affair.
The honorable Secretary of State knows the danger to which republican forms of government are particularly exposed in a portion of this hemisphere. The Spanish language has furnished the sorrowful word which designates it. Military “pronunciamentos” are the plague-spot which threatens the future of certain political communities. The rigorous maintenance of discipline in the army is the only possible remedy for this evil. Yet the asylum granted to officers may paralyze the arms of the government in such a manner as to render the force of authority utterly nugatory.
Finally, the undersigned would refer to his note of the 26th of August last, in which he laid before the Department of State of the United States the facts which his government had brought to his knowledge, and expressed the fear that not only was the American legation at Port au Prince serving as an asylum for conspirators, but that the latter, being thus secured against punishment, would continue to foment a criminal agitation in the country by means of correspondence, which the head of the legation seemed unable to prevent; so that in this way also the diplomatic asylum imperiled the rights of sovereignty.
The undersigned knows how much such acts, when they are known to the honorable Secretary of State, are disapproved by him. If the United States have protected from the vengeance of certain great powers political refugees who had come to seek an asylum on the soil of the American Republic, and who there freely expressed their sentiments, and if this right of asylum has always been defended with vigor and in so honorable a manner by the Federal Government, the latter has never yet permitted refugees to make the soil of the United States the base of operations against another power; it is almost useless here to call to mind the firmness with which the Washington Cabinet has always acted toward the Cuban insurgents, for instance, who have taken refuge principally in New York, and the jealous care which it has exercised in order to prevent or frustrate all their armed attempts against the Spanish colony of Cuba.
These facts are now known to the whole world, which has done full justice to the good faith and energy of the Federal Government. It is, therefore, to these sentiments of international justice, and to that respect for the law of nations of which the Secretary of State of the United States has given so many honorable evidences, that the government of Hayti appeals under the present circumstances. Is it possible for the right of asylum to be exercised at an American legation, when dangers to public tranquillity result therefrom like those to which conspirators thus protected can cause it to be exposed? What! certain refugees, after having violated the laws of their country, and having escaped from all legal proceedings, maintain communication with their confederates outside, and endeavor to appeal to the spirit of revolution; and, meanwhile, are they to be protected by the flag which covers their asylum, and, in fact, to become inviolable? The dangers of such a situation are so evident as to render it unnecessary to dwell longer upon this subject.
At the same time, as the undersigned has just remarked, such an exercise of the right of asylum in the republics of the New World imperils the stability of those republican institutions to the development of which the Government of the United States attaches so high a value; those institutions cannot be truly developed in those countries unless public tranquillity be assured there. Now, if this purpose is to be accomplished, the spirit of intrigue and of revolution must yield to liberty regulated by law; but how can this be, if every conspirator knows that, under all circumstances, he can be protected from the consequences of his acts, however inconsiderate and guilty they may be, and that, after having disturbed the public peace, he has nothing to dread, provided he can take refuge under the flag of a foreign legation?
Such a state of affairs is so well described by a minister of the United States, who was accredited some years since to one of the republics of the Pacific, that it is impossible not to borrow his words:
“The practice of giving asylum,” said General Hovey, then minister of the United States to Peru, in a dispatch to Mr. Seward, “has been and still is a prolific source of revolutions in, and the instability of, the South American republics. The traitor, who would for his own ambition steep his country in blood, feels assured that if he fails in his rebellion he has only to flee to the house of some minister, and that there he will find a refuge beyond the reach of justice. Thus encouraged, and the high crime of treason varnished over with the soft name of ‘political offense,’ he launches recklessly into his ambitious schemes, and the country is kept in continual commotion.” (Diplomatic Correspondence published in 1868, Part II, pp. 737, 738.)
Thus, the exercise of the right of asylum imperils even the most essential attributes of the sovereignty of the state. In the second place, it permits malcontents to organize the most criminal enterprises at their leisure, since they stand in no fear of the law. Finally, it contributes, wherever it is permitted, to the maintenance of a state of continual disturbance, which retards or prevents the establishment of stable and fixed governments.
Such are the considerations which the undersigned desired specially to present to the honorable Secretary of State. He now asks his kind attention to the accompanying memorandum.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to the honorable Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consideration.