Слике страница
PDF
ePub

granted to Arturo Dworzak to construct a steel bridge across the entrance to the port of Habana.

A copy of your despatch has been forwarded to the Secretary of War.

I am [etc.]

HUNTINGTON WILSON.

File No. 837.156/113.

No. 502.]

The American Minister to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN LEGATION, Habana, November 15, 1912.

SIR: Referring to my despatch No. 111 of February 15, 1912,' to the Department's unnumbered instruction of March 24, 1911, and to previous correspondence, in regard to a concession granted to one Arturo Dworzak for building a bridge across Habana harbor between Habana and Casa Blanca, I have the honor to enclose herewith copy of a letter' dated the 13th instant (received today) from the Havana Coal Company, concerning a proposed modification in the plans for this bridge, now pending approval by the Executive, and which, if approved, would, that company alleges, do incalculable harm to its property at Casa Blanca. The grounds upon which the Havana Coal Company objects to the proposed modification of the concession are fully set forth in its letter. The Havana Coal Company is an American corporation controlled by the Berwind-White Coal Mining Company of New York. Its coal-handling plant at Casa Blanca is a large and valuable property.

As it is reported in the press of this city that the President will, notwithstanding an unfavorable report of the Junta de Puertos, probably approve the modified project, I have ventured, pending the receipt of appropriate instructions from the Department, to request the Cuban Secretary of State to cause the matter to be held in abeyance until I should be able to ascertain the Department's wishes. I enclose a copy of my note' to the Cuban Secretary of State in this sense.

I have [etc.]

File No. 837.156/117.

No. 177.]

A. M. BEAUPRÉ.

The Secretary of State to the American Minister.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 13, 1912. SIR: The Department has received your No. 502 of the 15th ultimo regarding the concession granted to Arturo Dworzak for building a bridge across Habana harbor between Habana and Casa Blanca.

In reply I enclose for your information copies of letters' from R. Floyd Clarke, attorney for the Habana Coal Company, dated December November] 26, 1912, and from J. A. L. Waddell, representative of the Habana Bridge and Loan Company, dated December 2, 1912, in regard to the controversy between the Coal Company and

Not printed.

the Bridge Company as to the location of the piers of the projected bridge, which controversy the Department is informed has now been adjusted. These letters have been referred to the War Department and the Navy Department for their consideration.

Apart from the controversy between the two companies, the Department desires further investigation and report concerning this Government's possible interests in the matter, particularly respecting the land grand [grant] feature of the concession.

I am [etc.]

For Mr. Knox: HUNTINGTON WILSON.

File No. 837.156/129.

No. 587.]

The American Minister to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN LEGATION, Habana, January 10, 1913. SIR: Referring to my despatch No. 502 of November 15, 1912, concerning the protest of the Havana Coal Company against the proposed modification in the plans for building a bridge across Habana harbor between Habana and Casa Blanca, I have the honor to enclose herewith copy and translation of a note dated the eighth instant which I have today received from the Cuban Secretary of State.

I have [etc.]

A. M. BEAUPRÉ.

[Inclosure-Translation.]

REPUBLIC OF CUBA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

No. 67.

HABANA, January 8, 1913.

MR. MINISTER: With reference to your excellency's esteemed note No. 421 of November 15th last, in regard to certain representations made to the Legation by the Havana Coal Company concerning a project to build a suspension bridge, I have the honor to inform your excellency that the President of the Republic, in his decree of December 12th last accepting modifications in the bridge, took into consideration the suggestions of Mr. Sanborn, secretary of that company, as embodied in a telegram received by the concessionaire, reading as follows:

Sanborn has suggested, and I have agreed, subject to your approval, to change the tangent of the bridge 430 feet to the westward along the wharf (of the Havana Coal Company), thus avoiding any damage to the coal business. The new tangent crosses (the channel) perpendicularly to the wharf (of the Havana Coal Company), cutting the tangent of the southern approach to 390 feet from the extreme end of the intermediate curve. The principal sections of the bridge are not to be changed. The northern approach turns to the right and towards the end again turns to the left and ends approximately 100 feet from the center of the water storage. The two central radia of the new curve measure 160 feet.

I avail [etc.]

G. PATTERSON.

File No. 837.156/129.

The Secretary of State to the American Minister.

[Telegram--Paraphrase.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 15, 1913.

Habana bridge matter. Your despatch January 10, No. 587. This matter has been considered by the War and the Navy Departments

in relation to the interests of the United States and of Cuba, irrespective of the controversy between the coal company and the bridge company. In an opinion recently submitted the Navy Department points out that even under the amended plans the bridge threatens seriously to congest traffic in the narrow harbor entrance and to embarrass the movements of the larger ships; and it emphasizes the consideration that if, either in peace or war, any part of the span were to fall, which could easily be effected with a charge of dynamite, it would close the harbor, shut in vessels on the inside and keep out vessels on the outside.

Inform the Cuban Government of the substance of the foregoing and add that the Department believes that upon consideration thereof the Cuban Government will not be willing to go on with a project so seriously threatening the trade and military interests of the two Governments.

If you find opposition to this view, you will request delay or suspension of action until the two Governments shall have further opportunity to discuss the matter.

File No. 837.156/131.

The American Minister to the Secretary of State.

[Telegrams-Paraphrases.]

ΚΝΟΧ.

AMERICAN LEGATION,
Habana, January 16, 1913.

I have sent a note in pursuance of your telegram of January 15. It would be well to consider that the land to be ceded to the bridge company is really a military reservation and is the only available place where, except for Camp Colombia, United States troops could be quartered in Havana.

File No. 837.156/132.

BEAUPRÉ.

AMERICAN LEGATION,
Habana, January 25, 1913.

The following reply regarding bridge has been received from the Cuban Secretary of State:

Since the bill in question has been enacted by Congress and approved by the President, the latter has no means at his disposal for suspending its effect; but he intends to defer its execution for a reasonable period in the confident hope that the United States will promptly complete its study of the matter and, if there are no objections to so doing, communicate its findings to the Government of Cuba.

File No. 837.156/132.

BEAUPRÉ.

The Secretary of State to the American Minister.

[Telegram-Paraphrase.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 28, 1913. .

You may reply to the Cuban note saying that the reasons already given would seem to demonstrate that from the standpoint of the

mutual interests of both Governments the project is not advisable; nevertheless this Government hopes soon to conclude its study of the matter and will be glad to communicate further with the Cuban Government, and trusts that action will be suspended in the meantime. Respecting the suggested difficulty of suspending action, you may say that it would seem to the Department that a precedent is afforded by the course taken in the Zapata matter.'

File No. 837.156/135.

No. 610.]

The American Minister to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN LEGATION,

ΚΝΟΧ.

Habana, January 29, 1913. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the Department's telegram of January 28 in regard to the so-called Habana-Casa Blanca bridge concession, and to transmit herewith enclosed copy of a note which I today addressed to the Cuban Secretary of State on the matter. As the Department will observe, I have ventured to omit from this note any allusion to the precedent created by the suspension of the Zapata Swamp concession.

The Zapata Swamp concession was granted by the President in conformity with the power vested in him by the Law of Waters, a general body of legislation, and was in reality nothing more than a contract. The contract was not to become effective until thirty days after its publication in the Official Gazette, when, if no valid objections were made, the company might claim its contract. During this thirty-day period the Department made its objections to the contract and the President, acting within the authority granted him, suspended the effects of the decree to permit an investigation. Even under these eircumstances he suspended his decree only with the consent and at the instance of the concessionary company which preferred to suspend the decree until the project could be made to conform to the wishes of the American Government, thus avoiding subsequent complications. The bridge concession, on the contrary, was granted by a special bill in Congress which, upon signature by the President, became a law. The decree has been duly published and become a part of the law, and the company has begun work. The President could no more suspend this measure than he could repeal any other piece of legislation. I have [etc.]

A. M. BEAUpré.

[Inclosure.]

No. 472.1

The American Minister to the Cuban Secretary of State.

AMERICAN LEGATION,
Habana, January 29, 1913.

YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency's courteous confidential note of the 24th instant, concerning the so-called Habana-Casa Blanca bridge concession.

1 See ante.

In reply I am instructed to say to your excellency that while the reasons already indicated in previous correspondence would seem to demonstrate the inadvisability of the project from the standpoint of the mutual interests of both Governments, my Government hopes soon to conclude its careful study of the question, when it will take pleasure in communicating further with your excellency's Government. In the meantime my Government trusts that action in the matter may be suspended.

[blocks in formation]

SIR: Referring to my despatch No. 610 of the 29th ultimo, in regard to the Habana-Casa Blanca bridge concession, having looked into the question of the right of the Government to annul a concession of this character, I have the honor to report the following upon what I regard as sound legal authority.

It is a well-established principle of Spanish jurisprudence that the Government may at any time revoke or annul a contract or concession, not alone for infraction of any of its terms or conditions by the party or concessionaire but merely on grounds of public interest or convenience. The principle is founded on the rule that the Government may rectify its errors even at the cost or inconvenience of another, because, as distinguished from the errors of a private party, they affect the general public interest. There is such abundant and such a long line of precedent in support of the principle, both in Spain and in Cuba, that no one would venture to question it. The only question that could arise would be as to the authority of the Executive to revoke. Cuba has a constitution and a form of government closely modeled after our own. Many, or in fact nearly all, of the old Spanish laws are still in force in Cuba because no laws better adapted to the changed conditions have been enacted to take their place since the establishment of the Republic. These laws confer upon the Executive many powers that in the United States are legislative, and, in the spirit of the Cuban Constitution, should be so in Cuba. Cuban Executives have, however, largely continued to execute powers of doubtful constitutionality, and their right to do so has never been successfully challenged. In the case in point the concession was granted by Congress; the Executive decrees carrying the act into ef fect are merely reglementary. On the other hand, according to the practice which ordinarily obtains here in the granting of concessions of this character, Congressional action was necessary in this case only because of the grant of land attached to the concession, the granting of the bare concession being, under the Spanish law, vested in the Executive. Thus viewed, the special act of Congress in this case was merely an enabling act by which the Executive was authorized in this special case to exceed his usual power: his power to grant the bare concession, and consequently to revoke it, being unimpaired. This question is, however, more academic than practical, because it is hardly likely that there would be any opposition to an attempt upon the part of the Executive to revoke the concession.

« ПретходнаНастави »