File No. 4880/17-20. No. 176.] Minister Furniss to the Secretary of State. [Extract.] AMERICAN LEGATION, Port au Prince, March 14, 1907. SIR: Through the courtesy of the French minister I am enabled to inclose herewith a copy of the letter received from Secretary Sannon by that minister, in conjunction with the German and Dominican ministers, the Cuban chargé d'affaires, and the British consul-general, in answer to their protest, copy of which was inclosure No. 2 in my No. 171 of the 8th instant. I also inclose copy of their reply to the same, wherein they accept the incident as closed. I have, etc., [Inclosure 1.-Translation.] H. W. FURNISS. The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Minister. Mr. MINISTER: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency's letter of March 6 instant requesting some explanations on the subject of the law regulating the direct taxes. Your excellency complains that the enforcement of the law of October 24, 1876, is injurious to the interests of your fellow-countrymen established here, and in support of your declaration you write that the articles in the law that cause your remonstrance, having been judged inapplicable, they have remained for some time unenforced. I must observe, Mr. Minister, that your excellency is mistaken, and that your error arises from the fact that the law on the administration of direct taxes with us has undergone, during the past few years, successive amendments. In fact, the law of August 3, 1900, amending that of October 24, 1876, gave to your fellow-countrymen, as well as to all foreigners, the right to obtain a license for selling wholesale and retail. But by a new law of August 13, 1903, reenacting the one of October, 1876, that privilege was taken from them at the same time that the status of foreign and native merchants was regulated. This last law was regularly promulgated and has in consequence, during nearly four years that it had been in existence, enlightened all native and foreign merchants as to the conditions under which they can carry on commerce here. I will further observe to your excellency that if that part of the law which treats of the license question has not been enforced, not only would the Government have no responsibility, but, further, it could do nothing in the case. It is the communal administration, an institution independent of the Government, which that point of law interests, and it is it that has charge of the enforcement. I therefore have to express my regret at the decision, which you tell me your fellow-citizens will take, a decision inexplicable, if we consider the kindly welcome that we have always given to them and the facilities which we have always endeavored to grant them. I take the occasion to deplore your supposition, that by its inexplicable obstacles the Republic of Haiti closes its doors to the freedom of commerce. The sentiments of the Haitian people are too universally known, as is also our sincere desire to extend our commercial relations with the friendly powers, for the existence of the least doubt on the real disposition of the Government in that which relates to the freedom of commerce. We have always, in that regard, professed the "open-door" policy, accepting foreigners of all nationalities that bring to us the cooperation of their intelligence or of their capital for the work of our material and moral advancement. In the hopes that these considerations will dissipate all misunderstanding and will help to bring out more clearly the sincere desire of my Government to entertain with yours relations daily more cordial and closer, I renew, etc., H. PAULÉUS SANNON. [Inclosure 2.-Translation.] The answer of the Foreign Representatives to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. PORT AU PRINCE, March 12, 1907. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: The letter that you have kindly addressed to me on the 9th of this month in reply to the one that I have had the honor to write to you protesting against the enforcement of the law of October 24, 1876, has reached me. I thank you for the explanations that you have kindly given me on the law adjusting the administration of direct taxes and on the successive amendments made to that law at different periods. But in that regard, I will observe, Mr. Secretary of State, that if the communal administrations of the Republic of Haiti place, by inopportune decision, obstacles to commerce, I can only address myself to the Haitian Government to put a stop to the effects prejudicial to our common interests. I gather, with pleasure, from your communication the assurances that you give me of your sincere desire to extend your commercial relations with the friendly powers and the real disposition of the Haitian Government in that which concerns the freedom of commerce. Persuaded that these few explanations will dissipate all misunderstanding and put an end to the incident that has caused this correspondence, I am happy, on my part, to assure you that all my efforts and those of my Government will always tend to tighten the bonds of friendship that unite our two countries. File No. 4880/15-16. No. 65.] The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Furniss. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 30, 1907. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 174 of the 14th instant, in which you state that the Haitian Government will desist. from prosecuting those summoned for violation of the law of 1876, and will require foreign firms to take out retail licenses which are issued by the municipalities. In reply I have to say that it is not seen that it would prejudice any right this Government has in the absence of treaty if American citízens individually take out these $10 retail licenses on the same footing as other foreigners, provided that no formal engagement in that regard between your legation and the Haitian Government shall appear. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 171 of the 8th ultimo, inclosing copies of correspondence with the Haitian foreign office in the matter of the enforcement of the law of 1876. In your note No. 148 of the 6th instant to the Haitian foreign office you say: "I therefore, with the approval of my Government, most energetically protest against the application of a measure so unfriendly to foreigners in general and American firms in particular." The department's telegram of March 5 to you was drawn in such a way as to exclude any protest from you in behalf of foreigners. The interests of this Government in Haiti are peculiarly American and its methods of redress are different. To prevent entangling alliances American interests were separated from foreign interests and you were directed to protest in behalf of your countrymen in Haiti and were likewise instructed to disassociate yourself from the other foreigners. Inasmuch, however, as the incident has found a solution which does not appear to imply discrimination against American interests, it does not seem necessary to retract or qualify the statements of your note, but you will bear this instruction in mind, should the question be revived, or any fresh issue of a similar character be presented. I am, ROBERT BACON. File No. 4880/24-27. No. 243.] Minister Furniss to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, Port au Prince, September 23, 1907. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy and translation of a law regulating the collection of license fees, etc., for the fiscal year October, 1907, to September, 1908. This law reenacts the law in vigor for the present fiscal year and is therefore open to the objections set forth at length in my Nos. 165 of March 2, 1907; 171 of March 8, 1907; 176 of March 14, 1907. As stated in my No. 174 of March 13, 1907, the Haitian Government decided not to enforce the law for this fiscal year. a I inclose herewith for future reference of the department a copy of a pamphlet containing the laws relative to municipalities (Recueil de Lois sur les Conseils Communaux). This pamphlet contains the law of October 24, 1876, referred to above. There is also inclosed copy of a law of August 3, 1900, in which is marked the sections in force for the fiscal year 1907-8. a I have, etc., H. W. FURNISS. [Inclosure. Translation.] LAW. Nord Alexis, President of the Republic, using the power given him by article 69 of the constitution; Considering that there is cause to prolong the law of October 24, 1876, on the regulation of indirect taxes for the fiscal period 1907-8, as well as articles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 52, and 53 of the law of August 13, 1906, mentioned in that of August 13, 1903; a Not printed. Considering that it is necessary to reenforce for the same fiscal period that part of the tariff law of August 3, 1900, concerning certain industries foreseen by the law of October 24, 1876; Has proposed, and the legislative corps has voted, the following law: ARTICLE 1. The law of October 24, 1876, articles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 52, and 53 of the law of August 3, 1900, and that part of the tariff of the latter concerning the new professions and industries foreseen by the law of October 24, 1876, are and remain prolonged for the fiscal period 1907-8. ART. 2. The proceeds of carriage licenses and public shows shall be assigned to the communal hospitals. ART. 3. The present law repeals all laws or provisions of laws that are contrary thereto. It shall be executed under the supervision of the secretaries of finance and commerce, and of the interior, each in that which concerns him. (Here follows the certification to the law.) Passed by the House of Representatives August 6, 1907. Passed by the Senate August 22, 1907. Promulgated by the President August 30, 1907. ILL TREATMENT OF DAVID A. BACKER BY HAITIAN SOLDIERS. SIR: I inclose herewith copy of a letter from Mr. David A. Backer, an American citizen, who alleges that he was beaten and otherwise maltreated by certain Haitian officers. Together with said letter is inclosed the correspondence between this legation and the Haitian Government relative to the complaint therein made." The facts of the matter are these: Mr. Backer, while on his way to the field to cut grass for his horse, was called by a certain general of the Haitian army, who was accompanied by several soldiers on foot, and having guns and clubs. He was ordered to dismount and go with them to work the road. This he refused to do, giving as his reason that he was a foreigner and not obliged to do such work, and particularly when the work was not in his district. This seems to have incensed the officer, who ordered him clubbed, and the soldiers only desisted when the officer found out from others who came to the scene that Backer was a foreigner; then the officer liberated him and attempted to make an apology, which was not accepted. Backer immediately after release came to the legation and showed every evidence of having been roughly handled. I accordingly addressed a note (No. 2 of inclosures) to the secretary of foreign relations, calling his attention to the matter, and stated that the treatment which Backer had received at the hands of the Haitian official was anything but proper and would not be tolerated for an instant by my Government when directed against American citizens. A few days after my note had been sent General Carrié, who is the commanding general of the district in which the affair occurred, called upon me he stated at the instance of His Excellency the President-and said he had investigated the case and made verbal report thereon. I asked him to furnish this report in writing, which he promised to do. a Inclosures not printed. After nearly a month's delay, hearing nothing further of the case, I, on September 21, 1906, called the matter to the attention of Secretary Sannon, and on the 26th of the same month followed it with my No. 86 (No. 4 of inclosures), which was answered same day (No. 5 of inclosures). In the reply I was told that it had been impossible for the officials to locate Mr. Backer, and I was requested to give more explicit directions as to where he might be found. This was followed by my No. 88 of September 28, 1906, in which I furnished the requested information and called attention to the fact that it seemed strange that if General Carrié investigated the case sufficiently to make a verbal report thereon that the Government did. not know where to find Backer, as it must have been necessary for General Carrié to have seen Backer to have gotten material for a report. It was not until a month later, after I had several times personally called Secretary Sannon's attention to the fact that there had been no reply, and had sent him my No. 98 of November 6, 1906 (No. 8 of inclosures), that I received Secretary Sannon's notes of November 6 and 3, 1906 (Nos. 9 and 10 of inclosures), the latter inclosing the originals of certain affidavits which had been made by the Haitian officials designated to make the investigation. After studying the documents submitted and talking with Mr. Backer, I decided to go to the scene of the incident complained of and make investigation. I took Captain Young, military attaché, and had no trouble in finding witnesses to the scene, all Haitians, and some three or four others more or less related to Backer, and whose evidence, for that reason, could be only accepted as corroborative. All of these affirmed as Backer had originally stated, and further, that Backer had not attempted to use his machete. Accordingly I, under date of November 15, 1906 (No. 11 of inclosures), again called the attention of Secretary Sannon to the incident, informed him that I had made investigation and found the facts to be as Backer had detailed, and not as brought out in the testimony. I further stated that I was "not at all satisfied with the report which had been submitted to me, nor could I reconcile the apology made to this legation by General Carrié, shortly after I called your (Secretary Sannon's) attention to this incident-he stated that he had come upon order of His Excellency the President-with the statement now made by those examined, who appear to be denying what I have reason to believe to be facts." In reply to the last-mentioned communication was received Secretary Sannon's note of December 3, 1906 (No. 13 of inclosures), in which he chiefly discusses the right of the Haitian Government to force Backer to work. In my notes throughout I have not so much argued the right to compel Backer to work as I have denied the right of an officer to beat him for not working. Even Backer's threatening an officer with a machete, which was not the case, I held was not reason sufficient to warrant the officers beating him. Secretary Sannon says little as to this, other than that if Backer considers that he has been improperly treated he has recourse to the courts. It is necessary to state that in one of my conversations with Secretary Sannon I called his attention to the fact that Mr. Backer had lost considerable time from his work and had spent considerable for doc |