Article 131: The provisions of this law shall in no wise impair the immunities and guarantees which are secured to diplomatic and consular officers by international law, and by the treaties or conventions which the Government has concluded; nor shall they impair the rights granted by such treaties in particular to foreigners of a determinate nation. This law is a plain declaration on the part of the Government of Guatemala of the correctness of the view which I have earnestly urged upon the attention of the Department of State, namely, that the rights of an American citizen in Guatemala as given to him by the treaty between Guatemala and the United States should be fully preserved to him, and that a mere executive decree contrary to such treaty could not be accepted by the Government of the United States as any justification of a violation of those rights by Guatemala. It is true that decree No. 67, under which it was claimed that the expulsion of Mr. Hollander was authorized, did not contain any similar provision with reference to the rights of foreigners under treaty. But it seems to me plain that the insertion of the provision by the Government of Guatemala in this new decree is a recognition that such a provision should have been inserted in decree No. 67; and that the Government of the United States can not recognize that decree No. 67, or any order of expulsion issued under it, as justifying a violation by the Government of Guatemala of the rights which were assured to American citizens by the treaty between the United States and Guatemala. It has seemed to me advisable that in any other correspondence between the State Department and the Government of Guatemala the declaration of the Government in the above-mentioned decree No. 491 might properly be dwelt on as a condemnation out of its own mouth of its operative action toward Mr. Hollander. I remain, your obedient servant, ROBERT D. BENEDICT, Attorney for J. H. Hollander. [Inclosure 3 in No. 263.] Mr. Benedict to Mr. Olney. NEW YORK, January 9, 1896. SIR: On further examination of the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1894, I see upon pages 312 to 315 a correspondence in relation to the case of three American citizens wrongfully arrested in Guatemala in August, 1894. The correspondence shows so close a similarity between that case and the case of Mr. Hollander that I beg leave to call your attention to the points of similarity, as well as to some points of difference, referring to Mr. Young's letters for the facts in the recent case, and to the dispatches of Mr. Hosmer, our chargé d'affaires at Guatemala, dated May 18, 1889, and October 7, 1889, for the facts in Mr. Hollander's case. Mr. Young states that the three men "were arrested and placed in the penitentiary." Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander was "arrested and placed in the Santa Catarina jail;" and again, that he was "arrested and marched off to jail" and "removed from the jail to the penitentiary." Mr. Young states that the men were "arrested without warrant." Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander was "arrested by two policemen, without showing their warrants for his arrest." Mr. Young states that he went to the minister of war, who accompa nied him to the President, and that he stated to the President that he was ready to give any bond that might be named for their appearance in court at any time, but he declined to interfere. Mr. Hosmer states that he "called to see the President, but was unable to see him;" that on the following day he called upon the minister of foreign affairs, to inquire if new bail would not be accepted for Mr. Hollander, who replied that it was entirely optional with the judge of the court; that he afterwards saw the President, who stated that he did not feel justified in interfering with the action of the court and could not recommend the judge to accept bail. Mr. Young states that the prisoners were brought before the judge, and he went to the judge and tendered bond, but it was declined. Mr. Hosmer stated that Mr. Hollander "applied to the court to be admitted to bail, having a responsible person who was ready and offered to deposit in the keeping of the court a sum of money equal to the amount originally accepted as bail," and adds, "although the law distinctly permits it bail was refused, and the judge informed me privately to the effect that he would not receive anyone as bondsman, even if twenty of the most responsible people of Guatemala should present themselves for the purpose." Mr. Young states that the men were kept under arrest from the 25th day of August to the 6th of September. Mr. Hosmer states that Mr. Hollander, after his first arrest, was kept in prison "some fifteen or sixteen days." And further, that on the 5th of May Mr. Hollander was arrested, on the 6th was removed to the penitentiary, and on the morning of the 17th was removed from the penitentiary under guard and taken out of the city of Guatemala. The Department will see that the above furnish points of similarity between the two cases. There appear to have been the following points of dissimilarity: (1) These three men appear to have been laboring men. Mr. Hollander was a man in large business and occupying a prominent position in Guatemala. (2) One of the men appears to have been beaten. Mr. Hollander was banished from the country and ruined. I understand that a third point of difference is that the Guatemalan Government has made atonement to all the three men by payment of damages, whereas no atonement whatever has been made to Mr. Hollander for what must be conceded by everyone to have been a case of very much more atrocious oppression. Mr. Young, in his letter, adopts as his own the question put by one of the men, "Is there really any security for the life, limb, and property of any American in this Republic if this injury is not atoned for?" That is the very question which Mr. Hollander has been asking for the last seven years, and as long as the injury to him remains unatoned for that question will remain a permanent and burning question. I remain, etc., ROBERT D. BENEDICT, Attorney for John H. Hollander. [Inclosure 4 in No. 263.] Mr. Darr to Mr. Benedict. DECEMBER 20, 1895. MY DEAR SIR: When I was vice-consul at Guatemala city it was my opinion, and I am sure it was general also, that Mr. Hollander was very close to the Government officials under President Barillas, and I was sure that all the printing for the Government that could be discreetly given to Hollander was thrown his way. It is now so long ago that I can not say precisely what he did print for the Government, but I feel reasonably sure that I saw piles of printed documents in his printing office ready for delivery to the authorities. Yours, very truly, FRANCIS J. A. DARR. No. 91.] HAITI. EXPULSION OF EUGENE WIENER. Mr. Terres to Mr. Gresham. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Port au Prince, Haiti, October 6, 1894. (Received Oct. 24.) SIR: I have the honor to transmit, herewith inclosed, copy with a translation of a note received on the 4th instant from the secretary of state ad interim for foreign relations, announcing the expulsion of Mr. Eugene Wiener, an American citizen, resident of Jeremie, accused of being an active agent of the enemies of order plotting in Jamaica and elsewhere against the established Government, and also Mr. Volny Dermonzy, a French citizen, resident of St. Marc, charged with making active propaganda tending to unsettle the country. I am, etc., JOHN B. TERRES. [Inclosure in No. 91-Translation.] Mr. Marcelin to Mr. Terres. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, Port au Prince, October 4, 1894. Mr. VICE-CONSUL-GENERAL: I regret to have to announce to you that the department of the interior and of the general police, in view of the conduct of Mr. Eugene Wiener, an American citizen, resident of Jeremie, has issued against him a decree of expulsion, together with the citizen Volny Dermonzy, of French nationality. I hand to you inclosed copy of the decree, in which you will find the causes which have been the motive of that decision. Accept, etc., F. MARCELIN, Secretary of State ad interim for Foreign Relations. [Subinclosure in No. 91-Translation.] REPUBLIC OF HAITI. Whereas international law confers on every independent State the right to expel from its territory foreigners whose conduct and acts are dangerous to tranquillity and public order; and whereas Mr. Volny Dermonzy, of French nationality, residing at St. Marc, has not only made an active propaganda tending to unsettle the country, but moreover has on several occasions uttered outrageous words against the superior authority; and whereas Mr. Eugene Wiener, of American nationality, residing at Jeremie, is an active agent of the enemies of order who are plotting in Jamaica and elsewhere against the established Government; and whereas these intrigues are of a character to endanger the public safety, the secretary of state of the interior and of the general police, on the advice of the council of the secretaries of state, decrees: ARTICLE 1. The named Volny Dermonzy, at present at St. Marc, and the named Eugene Wiener, at this moment at Jeremie, are expelled from the territory of the Republic of Haiti. They shall be embarked on board of the first steamer leaving for foreign parts. ARTICLE 2. The chiefs of the administrative police of St. Marc and of Jeremie are charged with the execution of the present decree. Done at the department of state of the interior and of the general police the 2d of October, 1894, and the ninety-first year of the Independence. [L. S.] [L. S.] F. DUCASSE, Secretary of State of the Interior and of the General Police. FRANÇOIS CURIEL, Chief of Bureau. C. H. DUCHATELLIER, Chief of Bureau of Foreign Relations. No. 66.] Mr. Gresham to Mr. Smythe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 5, 1894. SIR: I have received Mr. Terres's No. 91, of October 6, 1894, relative to the expulsion of one Eugene Wiener, an American citizen, resid ing at Jeremie, Haiti. The Department has also received from Mr. Wiener himself a letter complaining of his arbitrary expulsion from that country in pursuance of an Executive order dated October 2, 1894, and published the next day in Le Moniteur, the official journal of that Republic. The contents of the decree, so far as it relates to Wiener, are in substance as follows: That whereas international law confers on every independent State the right to expel from its territory foreigners whose conduct and acts are dangerous to tran quillity and public order; and whereas Mr. Eugene Wiener, an American, residing at Jeremie, is an active agent of the enemies of order who are plotting in Jamaica and elsewhere against the established Government; and whereas these intrigues are of a character to endanger the public safety, it is ordered that said Wiener, now at Jeremie, be expelled from the territory of the Republic of Haiti; that he be put aboard the first vessel leaving for foreign ports, and the chief of administrative police at Jeremie is charged with the execution of this decree. Wiener says his first intimation of the Government's purpose to expel him was received on the 9th of October from General de la Place, the Délégué du Gouvernement at Jeremie, who read the decree of expulsion to him and ordered him to leave by the first steamer. He was engaged in a general commission business, having transactions with several firms in New York. A large amount of money was due him. He had just completed a new building, and otherwise extended his business. His presence in Haiti was of great importance to him. He asked, therefore, for time to arrange his business affairs, but was refused. He then asked permission to go to Port au Prince, that he might consult the American minister and request the President to let him face his accusers. This, too, was refused. The President declined to receive him. He then wrote to the American consular agent at Jeremie, declaring his innocence of any complicity in the political affairs of the country and protesting against his treatment. A few days after he was notified of the decree of expulsion a French steamer, bound for Martinique, touched at Jeremie, and the authorities ordered him to leave by that steamer. He asked permission to wait FR 95-51 |