HAITI RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF HAITI FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTIONARY TROOPS1 438.00/416 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs (Morgan) of a Conversation Regarding British Claims Against the Hatian Government 2 [WASHINGTON,] April 27, 1928. Sir John Broderick said that he had sought this opportunity to discuss the question in an informal and friendly manner with General Russell and Dr. Millspaugh, to see if some way could not be found by which these claims could be reconsidered. The British Government was not disposed to create unnecessary difficulties; it appreciated the Department of State's desire not to have claims reconsidered if this would prejudice the financial stability of Haiti. Nevertheless, the British Government still thought that some formula could be found for settling these British claims without bringing about any of the consequences which the State Department desired to avoid. The British Government felt that these claims were thoroughly justified, and that their rejection had been based on unsound doctrine -or at least a doctrine which the British Government could never accept-namely, that governments are not liable for the acts of successful revolutionists. The British Government felt sure-in fact they had already been so informed that the State Department was in accord with the British Government in not accepting this doctrine. Therefore, as the claims had been rejected without being heard on their merits, but simply because of the assumption by the Claims Commission of a doctrine contrary to international law, it seemed that the claimants were entitled to have their case taken up through diplomatic channels. For previous correspondence concerning these British claims, see Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. III, pp. 84 ff. 'Present during the conversation were Sir John Broderick and Mr. Hopkinson of the British Embassy; Mr. Morgan; General Russell, High Commissioner in Haiti; Dr. Millspaugh, Financial Adviser-General Receiver for Haiti; and Mr. Baker, Assistant to the Solicitor for the Department of State. 416955-43-11 55 Sir John Broderick said that the British Government had made a definite reservation in submitting the British claims to the Claims Commission, and while he understood that there was some question in the minds of the State Department and the Haitian Government in regard to the manner in which that reservation had been made, he did not think it necessary to discuss that technical point at this time. The British Government considered that it had made reservations. Dr. Millspaugh said that an effort had been made, in conjunction with Mr. Edwards, the British Chargé d'Affaires at Port au Prince, to find a formula which would admit of these claims being reconsidered without opening the door to the reconsideration of other claims, but it had been impossible to find such a formula. Claims totalling about thirty-three million dollars had been submitted to the Claims Commission and settled for between three and four million dollars. The French, Italians, and he thought the Germans, had made definite reservations in connection with their claims; therefore if any claims were to be reopened and subjected to further consideration he saw no way by which it would be possible to prevent many other claims from being brought up. A great many claims had been settled in accordance with the same doctrine referred to by Sir John Broderick; namely, that a government was not responsible for the acts of successful revolutionists. If these British claims were presented again he saw no way to prevent other claims of French, Italian and German citizens from being presented as well. Furthermore, it would probably be necessary to consider the claims of Haitian citizens, as the Haitian Government could hardly accord foreigners more favorable treatment than it gave to its own citizens. The United States had of course made no reservations. Nevertheless, it would be difficult for the Department to show why it used its influence in favor of these British claims but refused to take up again the claims of American citizens. The Mr. Morgan reminded Sir John Broderick that of course the Department was interposing no objection to the British Government taking this matter up with the Haitian Government through its Legation at Port au Prince and the Haitian Foreign Office. The only question now under discussion was whether the State Department would use its influence with the Haitian Government or recommend that the Haitian Government reconsider these British claims. Department could not at the present time see its way to do this. Sir John Broderick said he perfectly understood that the British Government could take the matter up direct with the Haitian Government, but he felt convinced, the situation being as it was in Haiti, that it would be a waste of time to do so unless the British Government had the active support of the Department of State. In summing up the results of the conference Mr. Morgan said that it appeared that the situation was the same that it was at the time of the last conference between Sir John Broderick, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Phenix on January 24; namely, that the Department agreed in principle with the British Government that these claims were rejected on an untenable ground by a Commission which did not consider them on their merits; that the Department's attitude is purely practical and based entirely on its desire to see the financial stability of Haiti maintained. The Department will not interpose any objection if the British Government cares to present these claims to Haiti. If a formula can be found by which the United States can use its influence to assist in the settlement of these claims without at the same time running the risk of reopening the general question of claims already settled by the Claims Commission or bringing about the presentation of a flood of claims of a similar nature, the Department will be glad to do so. No such formula has yet been found, but possibly one can be found in the future. Sir John Broderick said he understood the position of the Department to be the same that it was at the time of the last conference, and he would continue to study the case in the hope that he might find a formula which would be acceptable to the Department. [STOKELEY W.] MORGAN 438.00/417 The Chargé in Haiti (Gross) to the Secretary of State No. 1263 (High Commissioner's Series) SIR: I have the honor to refer to previous correspondence regarding the desire of the British Government to reach a settlement of claims of British subjects arising from revolutions in Haiti. Under date of August 1, 1928, the Financial Adviser has prepared for this office a review of the present situation regarding these claims and in his report he makes the following observations: "1.—In your letter of February 9, you stated that the Department would be glad to have me consult with the British Chargé d'Affaires with a view to finding some formula by which the British claims can be settled without reopening the general question of claims already passed upon by the Claims Commission and without prejudice to the financial stability of Haiti. In the conversation of April 27, Mr. Morgan said that if a formula can be found by which the United States can use its influence to assist in the settlement of these claims without at the same time running the risk of reopening the general question of claims already settled by the Claims Commission or bring'The Assistant to the Under Secretary of State. ing about the presentation of a flood of claims of a similar nature, the Department of State will be glad to do so. Mr. Morgan added that no such formula had yet been found, but possibly one could be found in the future. 2.-Mr. Edwards (The British Chargé d'Affaires) called on me on July 31 and stated that he had received a communication from the British Foreign Office to the effect that it had approached the French and other governments on this subject and had received assurances that these latter governments would not reopen any claims settled by the Claims Commission. 3.-It should be noted that the French government accepted for the settlement of its claims a procedure by which appeal was had to a Commission of Appeal, a procedure which was not applied to the British claims, and which, in view of the reservation which had been made, would not have been accepted by the British government. 4. I told Mr. Edwards that, in view of the information that he had given me, I would ask the High Commissioner to refer the matter again to the Department of State, that I was reluctant to do this in the absence of General Russell, but, in order to save time would report the matter immediately to the High Commissioner in the belief that General Russell would visit the Department on his return from Europe and could be consulted by the Department at that time. I added that it would seem difficult for this office to reject, with regard to these claims, a principle that had been applied to all other claims. This office has refused in a few instances to recognize claims arising since 1916, which involve principles similar to those accepted by the Claims Commission in the recognition of the claims arising before 1916. Nevertheless, in all such cases this office has taken a stricter position than the Claims Commission. It has never, so far as I know, adopted a principle relative to the claims arising since 1916, more liberal than that adopted by the Commission, relative to claims arising before 1916. Furthermore, I added that it did not seem to me that this office could take the initiative in recommending to the Haitian government the payment of the British claims. 5 5.-You may wish to bring the following suggestions to the attention of the Department of State. The reservation of the British government relative to the settlement of British claims by the Claims Commission was officially communicated to the United States government but not to the Haitian government. The technical position of the Haitian government seems correct, and the Haitian Foreign Office has officially rejected the British claims as diplomatically presented. The office of the Financial Adviser does not as a rule propose expenditures to the Haitian government. It expresses its opinion on proposals made by the Haitian government. It does not seem appropriate with regard to the British claims for this office to urge on the Haitian government their recognition and payment. This office, however, is now disposed to believe that the recognition of the British claims would not reopen the question of other claims settled by the Claims Commission. The chief objection to the recognition of the British claims lies in the abandonment of a principle which, in the future, should revolutions occur, would protect the Treasury against claims Presumably reference is made to note No. 923 of Dec. 8, 1922, from the British Ambassador, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. II, p. 553. based on the acts of successful revolutionists. It is understood, however, that the Department of State does not accept the principle adopted by the Claims Commission, that a government is not responsible for the acts of successful revolutionists. The Department of State may, therefore, desire to obtain from the British Embassy at Washington copies of the assurances which, it is understood, the British government has obtained from the French and other governments, and, with this information in hand, may wish to reconsider the question whether the United States government can use its influence in this matter with the Haitian government." In this regard I have the honor to refer to the last paragraph of Despatch #1038 (High Commissioner's Series), dated July 7, 1927, in which was set forth certain opinions expressed in London, last year, by Mr. Stoker, formerly a British member of the Claims Commission. I have [etc.] C. GROSS 438.00/420 The High Commissioner in Haiti (Russell), Temporarily in the United States, to the Assistant to the Solicitor for the Department of State (Baker) [WASHINGTON,] October 3, 1928. MR. BAKER: In carrying out my mission in Haiti I have been always made to feel that the British Government desired to assist the United States in the rehabilitation of Haiti and the carrying out of the provisions of the Treaty of 1915.' I furthermore believe that the one obstacle that prevented the payment of the three British claims has been our contention that many other claims would be opened by the French or other interested nations. This obstacle having been removed, I do not see how we can longer object. I therefore recommend 1. That the British Embassy in Washington confirm the oral statement of the British Chargé d'Affaires at Port au Prince; 2. That the British Government reopen the question of these claims with the Haitian Foreign Office; 'Not printed; the pertinent portion of the paragraph in question reads as follows: "Judge J. S. Stanley, now Director of Internal Revenue of the Republic of Haiti, and formerly the American member of the Claims Commission, has informed me that Mr. Leger, the Haitian member, while in London last year, saw Mr. Stoker of the British Foreign Office, who was a member of the Claims Commission when the British claims were discussed, and that Mr. Stoker gave him the impression that the British Government is less interested in establishing the claims under reference than to commit the United States Government to the principle of payment of claims for damages by certain revolutionary troops." 'Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 449. |