Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

preventing its taking a shape so detrimental to the commercial interests of the United States and Venezuela. I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 1116.

Mr. Scott to Mr. Bayard.

No. 194.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Carácas, October 17, 1887. (Received October 26.) SIR: I have the honor to ackuowledge the receipt of your No. 126, September 22, 1887, in reply to my No. 187, of the 3d ultimo, informing you of the contemplated action of Venezuela in closing her ports against the island of Curaçao, and thereby damaging and interfering with American commerce between the United States and Venezuela.

Since the writing and mailing of No. 187, the difficulty between Venezuela and Curaçao, bas been amicably and satisfactorily adjusted by Curaçao complying partially with the request of Venezuela in expelling two of the three so-called revolutionists from her territory, and the action on the part of Curaçao has given satisfaction to Venezuela, and this matter has now ended, which, when I wrote, threatened serious trouble.

I am gratified, however, to receive the views and instructions embodied in your No. 126, and in the event of a repetition of this difficulty I will know how to act promptly and advisedly in protecting American interests. I have, etc.,

CHARLES L. SCOTT.

No. 1117.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Scott.

No. 136.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, November 8, 1887. SIR: I have received your No. 194, of the 17th ultimo, by which it appears that the difficulty between Venezuela and Curaçao has been adjusted and that the ports of Venezuela will not be closed against Curaçao, thus removing the ground of complaint considered in the instruction sent you on September 22 last. Nevertheless, the principles involved being no less important, you will please take occasion some time in conversation to refer to the subject, stating the views of your Government in the premises, and saying further that the formal protest which you had been instructed to make was not communicated in writing, only because the anticipated action of the Venezuelan Government had not been carried out, though, should occasion arise, the rights contended for would be insisted on. I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 1118.

Mr. Scott to Mr. Bayard.

No. 204.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Carácas, November 30, 1887. (Received December 13.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 136, in relation to the closing of the ports of Venezuela against Curaçao, and to state that I will avail myself of the first opportunity to make known to the Venezuelan Government, through Dr. Urbaneja, minister of exterior relations, your views on this subject, as expressed in your No. 126, and dated Washington, September 22, 1887, thus carrying out the instructions embraced in your No. 136. . I am, etc.,

CHARLES L. SCOTT.

No. 1119.

Mr. Scott to Mr. Bayard.

No. 210.]

DEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Caracas, December 23, 1887. (Received January 4, 1888.)

, SIR: I beg leave to inform you that at an interview had with Dr. Urbaneja, minister of foreign affairs of Venezuela, I availed myself of the opportunity to carry out your instruction contained in your No. 136, and dated Washington, November 8, 1887, and made known to him the views of our Government on the closing of the ports of Venezuela against Curaçao as embodied and expressed in your No. 126, and dated Wash. ington, September 22, 1887.

Dr. Urbaneja remarked that this difficulty bad been settled, and there was now no cause of apprehension of damage to the commerce of the United States. I replied that I was aware of that fact, but that my Government was looking to the future and the principle involved in this matter. He then indicated that he concurred in your views, and gave assurances that no damage would be done to American commerce in the event of coming difficulty between Venezuela and Curaçao, and the closing of the ports of the former against the latter. I have, etc.,

CHARLES L. Soort.

No. 1120.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Scott.

No. 156.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 22, 1888. SIR: I inclose copy of a dispatch from our consul at Puerto Cabello complaining that he has been prevented from going on board American vessels at that port by Government officials, unfurnished with a permit in writing from the collector of the port.

You are instructed to make a courteous application to the Govern. ment of Venezuela to permit by some general regulation the consuls of the United States to visit vessels of their nationality in their official capacity without a special permit from the local authorities. I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

(Inclosure in No. 156.)

Mr. Burke to Mr. Rives.

No. 58.]

UNITED STATES CONSULATE,

Puerto Cabello, February 29, 1888. Sir: In my dispatch No. 28, of June 28, 1887, I had occasion to make complaint and enter protest against a certain official at this port for preventing my going aboard one of the American steamers without a written permit from the

collector of the port; though from a reading of the dispatch referred to, you will observe I had verbal permission from General Arismendi, then collector, to go on board any American steamers whenever I chose or official duty called me. The official who stopped me on the gangway at that time knew of this fact. I now make a like complaint and enter a like protest for a like reason against such law or regulation as is in force at this port, and other ports throughout the country, so far as their application to a representative of the United States Government is concerned. On Friday last, November 24, while going on board the steam-ship Philadelphia of the “Red D Line," I was stopped by a custom-house official and told I would not be allowed to pass without a permit (written) from the collector of the port, though, as in the case referred to in dispatch No. 28, the recently appointed collector, Mr. Coronado, when courtesy compelled me to apply to him for a permit to discharge official dnty on an American steam-ship, told me it was not necessary; I might feel at liberty to go on board any of the steam-ships at any time, when I chose. After the refusal by the custom-house official on Friday last to allow me to pase, I did not seek to obtain a written permit from the collector of the port; nor do I intend to do so, at least till hearing from the Department on the subject.

In reply to my dispatch No. 28, instructions No. 18, of July 19, 1887, Hon. James D. Porter, then Assistant Secretary of State, says:

“The regulation referred to is not in violation of the rules'of international law which, . in the absence of a treaty, govern our intercourse with Venezuela. You will have, therefore, to rely on the courtesy of the port officials for exemption from this restriction.”

In this case the order prohibiting any person from going on board without a permit, or those on board, Americans and others, from leaving the ship without a like permit, came from the Government at Carácas, I am informed. Why? Because, as one of the officials stated to me, the political affairs of the country looked serious. And because the political affairs wear a serious look I can be prevented from discharging my official duty. Why should the seriousness on the political countenance of the country affect me! I had no word, nor hand, nor act, nor part in such an unusual thing as forcing the face of Venezuelan politics to assume so serious and so grave a look.

I am neither urging those who hold the reins of government to cling to them, por aid. ing the party ont of power to seek to upset the Government coach and in thó general confusion to grasp these reins, if possible, and hold them for the next two years.

I have no further interest in the candidates or the party than the desire every good citizen of a Republic like ours should have to see this country so governed as to develop most rapidly its great resources and advance the people in moral, intellectual, and material prosperity. Because the President of this Republio suspects of being on board an American steamer a Venezuelan citizen who is regarded by him, at least is said to be, as revolutionary, because he, this Venezuelan citizen, is also a candidate for President, this appears to me no just reason why a representative of the United States Government should be reduced to the condition of a suppliant entreating a port oflicial to grant him a permit to discharge a duty that no man or no government should attempt to prevent him from discharging, at least so long as tho country in whose harbor the American ship is anchored is at peace with other countries and the normal state of things exists within the confines of the country itself.

There is no reason for such an act, especially as I have treated all tbe officials with courtesy and civility, and have engaged in no other business but that of a strict performance of my duty in such a manner as to offend no one, and personally have so conducted myself as to be above and beyond reproach.

There have been at least four different collectors appointed for this port during the past fifteen months. The next few months may bring a more abundant crop of changes. Now, tho same humiliating courtesy in the matter of discbarging one's offi

[ocr errors]

cial duty on board an American steam-ship must be sought from each new appointee under the present law of this country and the port regulations. The representative of a great government like ours, in the performance of official duty under such regnlations, is not only subject to a capricious government or an arbitrary executive, but

a also to the fancy of every new custom-house official. Clearly the fault lies not with the officials, but with the law or regulations.

The law should be such that neither government whim, executive order, por any condition, no matter how irregular, of mind or of body of any official, conld have the power to prevent a representative of the United States from going on board an American ship in the discharge of his official duty as long as such representative does not step outside the line of that duty.

Without pursuing the matter further, I beg to submit is not this a question the United States Government should adjust in such a way that its legally-appointed representative should not be, except through his own misconduct, subjected to whatever discourtesy, affront, or insult any port official may feel disposed to offer, and be compelled to accept as a special favor what should be demanded as a right, viz, the going aboard of an American ship whenever required to discharge an official duty! Awaiting your instructions, I have, etc.,

David N. BURKE,

Consul.

No. 1121.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Scott.

No. 159.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 12, 18ss. SIR: On December 4, 1885, you were instructed to protest against the law of Venezuela requiring masters of vessels coming from foreign ports to deliver all the ship's papers to the customs authorities of the port of entry (the papers being then retained by the custom-house till the clearance of the vessel), and to ask that certain changes suggested by the consul at Maracaibo might be made in the customs regulations on this point. (See Foreign Relations, 1885, pp. 928 et seq.)

Having received no report of your action, and the consul at Varacaibo having made another complaint on the subject, I have to recall my former instruction to your attention.

The matter was thoroughly discussed some years ago, the complaint having been originally made by the consul at Maracaibo in 1879, in a dispatch citing the Venezuelan law, which was inclosed in my abovementioned instruction to you.

In Department's No. 49, of June 26, 1879, Mr. Baker was directed to report on the law and to ascertain whether the Government would repeal or amend it. In No. 120, of April 12, 1881, this instruction was repeated and the inconvenience of the law clearly demonstrated. Mr. Baker replied in his No. 464, of September 3, 1881, that the Venezuelan minister of foreign affairs was favorably disposed toward the repeal of the law as far as it affected the United States. In No. 151, of May 5, 1882, the Department instructed Mr. Baker to urge on Venezuela the adoption of a law similar to that of the United States embodied in sections 4203 and 4211, Revised Statutes (Foreign Relations, 1882, pages 534). Mr. Baker's reply is published in Foreign Relations, 1882, pages 539, 540. The Department restated and re-argued the question in its No. 190, of November 29, 1882 (printed pages 543 ct seq., Foreign Relations, 1882). Mr. Baker reported in his No. 912, of April 30, 1884, that the Government was not averse to the desired change in the law if it could be accomplished by a treaty and limited to the United States, but that it objected to altering it by legislative enactment, as the changed law would then

apply to all nations. He again stated in his No. 93, of May 11, 1885, that the Congress was indisposed to legislate. The subject was afterward brought to your attention, as above stated. : After reading the papers referred to, you are instructed to press the matter urgently upon the Venezuelan Government, and to make a full report of your proceedings to the Department.

The correspondence which led to the repeal of a siinilar law in Colombia will be found published in Foreign Relations, 1879, pages 260, 266, 280; Foreign Relations, 1880, pages 312, 315, 320.

A translation of the Colombian statute, enacted in consequence of our minister's representations and based on sections 4209 and 4211 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, will be found at page 489, Foreign Relations, 1880. I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 1122.

Mr. Scott to Mr. Bayard.

No. 232.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Carácas, April 28, 1888. (Received May 11.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the U. S. S Pensacola, with the Venezuelan commissioners on board, conveying the remains of General Paez to his country, anchored in Laguayra at 2 p. m. April 7. General S. A. Pachano, accompanied by Lieutenant Baker, U.S. Navy, went on shore to make the necessary arrangements for the landing of the remains. Delegations were received from Carácas offering the hospitalities and freedom of the city on the part of the Government, and also a committee from the Union Club tendering a ball to the captain and officers of the Pensacola. Messages of welcome were also received from the President of the Republic.

At 9 a. m , April 9, 1888, the Venezuelan commission to New York came alongside the Pensacola, and the body was embarked with full military honors from that ship. The funeral procession to the wharf consisted of the Venezuelan boats containing the casket, the commission, delegations from Carácas and Laguayra, officers from the Pensacola, and a company of marines and blue jackets. Minute guns were fired during the landing. All the vessels in the roadstead and all the flags on shore were at half-mast. This cortege was met by General Arismendi and the national troops, the band playing “Hail Columbia;"! and the casket containing the remains of General Paez was deposited with all military honors in the funeral car at the railway station to be transported to Carácas.

At 12 m. on the same day a banquet was offered the officers of the Pensacola by the Government at the customs house, General Arismendi presiding. Captain Yates, of the Pensacola, responded in behalf of the United States to a toast proposed by General Arismendi to the Presi. dent of the United States, and Lieutenant Baker responded in Spanish to the toast of General Pachano to the New York committee.

At 3 o'clock on the same day the funeral train, draped, left for Cará. cas containing the various committees and eighteen of the Pensacola officers in special full dress uniform. At the station in Caracas, on the arrival of this train, the President, cabinet, governor of the federal dis

« ÎnapoiContinuați »