No. 353.] No. 307. Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Port au Prince, March 11, 1875. (Received April 2.) SIR: On Friday, the 5th instant, the National Constitutional Assembly, which is still sitting in extra session, took steps to place under accusation General Lamothe on charges of unfaithfulness in the discharge of his functions as minister of interior and foreign affairs, under President Saget's administration. Immediately thereupon General Lamothe sought and obtained refuge in the British legation. At first the government contented itself by stating to my colleague, Her Britannic Majesty's chargé d'affaires, that there were no charges of a political character against the general, intimating that he consequently had no claim to the protection which he had sought in the British legation. To this my colleague responded in effect, that as in this country it was not always easy to distinguish between administrative acts and those of a political character in such cases, and as the right of asylum had always been conceded to foreign legations, he could not consent that General Lamothe should be invited to leave the legation against his own will. The authorities then brought forward the extradition treaty alluded to in my No. 232, of July, 1873, which treaty has not, however, been yet duly ratified and proclaimed, and intimated a desire for General Lamothe's rendition under its provisions. My colleague, in reply, asked reference to his first communication on the subject, and again refusing to accede to the intimated desire, said he should refer to Her Majesty's government the entire case, together with the correspondence thus far had in reference thereto, which he has, I understand, accordingly done. I think it not altogether improbable that this government may also instruct its chargé d'affaires in London to make representations to the foreign office on the same subject. The vexed question as to the so called right of asylum is thus to be brought again freshly to the attention of Her Majesty's government; and while that government has formally withdrawn the exercise of that right from its purely consular officers in this island, I scarcely think it will be disposed, under existing circumstances, to make a similar withdrawal from its diplomatic representative here. I have, &c., EBENEZER D. BASSETT. No. 355.] No. 308. Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Port au Prince, April 9, 1875. (Received April 30.) SIR Referring to my No. 353, of the 11th ultimo, in which it is stated that General Lamothe had sought and obtained refuge in the British legation because of an accusation preferred against him by the Corps Législatif, on the ground that he had not faithfully fulfilled to the state his trust as President Saget's minister of interior, I have the honor to represent that he was allowed, by a mutual understanding between my colleague, Her Britannic Majesty's chargé d'affaires, and the authorities of this government, to resume his freedom and return to his home on the 27th ultimo. After the date of my No. 353, communication, in one form and another, between my colleague and the government relative to the affair continued, but with unsatisfactory results, up to the 16th ultimo. On that day I went to Minister Rameau with my colleague, at his request, and on his representation to me that he wished to have the case presented from a humane point of view and in a friendly spirit. At the interview with the minister my colleague stated our united view of the so-called right of asylum; that it is generally regarded as an exceptional but humane measure, which, if continued at all, ought to be open alike to citizens of all parties in the country, and that when once a person has been received as a refugee in a foreign legation, the rule seemed to be not to deliver him up on requests or demands such as had been made for General Lamothe, without a guarantee for his personal security from irregular proceedings against him. We also intimated to the minister that if his government would formally express its desire and purpose to fairly renounce the so-called right without reference or prejudice to any case actually in hand, it was possible that our governments, in conjunction with any others having legations here, might acquiesce in an understanding to that end. The minister did not appear favorable to this intimation. He said that it raised another question, which his government might not be prepared now to decide, and went on to reiterate with some warmth his view; that the case of General Lamothe was not a political one, and that, therefore, the general was not entitled to the refuge he had obtained from my colleague. The suggestion was then made to him that if the government wished merely, as we inferred from his remarks, to place General Lamothe on trial for an alleged misappropriation of public moneys, he might be relieved from further refuge in the British legation by entering on his part into security sufficient for the sums alleged to have been misappropriated, and the government, on its part, giving my colleague a guarantee that no irregular proceedings or persecutions should be taken against the ex-minister. This idea seemed to arrest the minister's attention, and he said he would think well over it. Although during the conversation the minister manifested considerable warmth, and at one time said somewhat vehemently that his government would express itself and claim its rights before Her Majesty's government in the matter through its legation in London, the interview ended in the utmost good feeling. In accordance with the terms of the suggestion above noted, General Lamothe came out from the British legation on the 27th ultimo. I doubt, however, whether he will ever be brought to trial. Nevertheless, I await with some interest the view that Her Majesty's government may express upon the case, which was early referred to them. I am, &c., No. 309. EBENEZER D. BASSETT. No. 358.] Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Port au Prince, April 17, 1875. (Received May 8.) SIR: On the 23d of December last President Domingue issued a proclamation convoking in extraordinary session, for the 11th of Janu ary following, the National Constituent Assembly, acting under the constitution as the Corps Legislatif. The only reason given for the step in the proclamation was in these words: "That a treaty of peace, commerce, navigation, and extradition has been concluded between the Republic of Hayti and the Dominican Republic; that, according to the terms of article 40 of this treaty, its provisions must be ratified and the ratification exchanged at Port au Prince within a delay of three months from the 9th of November last." The assembly promptly ratified the treaty on the 20th of January, (see my No. 346, of February 3, 1875,) and might then have supposed, from the terms of the president's proclamation, that the work for which it had been convened was finished; but it continued in session thereafter two months, occupying itself with the regular business of the legislative body, and acting in full harmony with the executive on nearly, if not quite, all questions. On the 19th ultimo, the usual legisla. tive work done at the annual sittings of the Corps Legislatif having been well advanced, the assembly adjourned without day, and the pres ident issued a proclamation announcing that "the next legislative session, which ought to be opened the first Monday in the month of April, in this year, is postponed, and will take place the 20th of next September." The assembly's work after the ratification of the treaty related chiefly to internal affairs; but there were two or three measures adopted which may possess interest of a wider scope. Among these may be noted the opening to foreign commerce of the port of Anse d'Hainault, situated at the end of the western peninsula of the republic. Another act of some interest was the vote to erect a befitting monument to the memory of the Emperor Dessalines and of other distinguished actors in the first revolution. It has seemed to me that there has been heretofore a strange neglect on the part of this government and people in regard to the memory of the really extraordinary men in the history of Hayti. One almost never hears the name of Toussaint l'Ouverture here, and I have sought in vain for an accurate likeness of him. Known and cherished as are his name and fame in foreign lands, his memory is almost "without honor in his own country." But the most important measures acted upon by the assembly were those looking to an improvement of the financial condition of the republic, which, it must be confessed, has been, and still is, deplorable. President Domingue, on his accession to power, found the finances exhausted, the French debt, that standing burden to Hayti, in arrears, the army unpaid, the country staggering under interior debts, and floundering generally in financial embarrassment. The government, therefore, in December last judged it necessary to negotiate, and did negotiate, with the English house of Messrs. White, Hartmann & Co. here, a loan of three millions of dollars, with which to liquidate the arrears of the French debt and meet the installments coming due thereon, release itself from its engagements to this same house for loans advanced under the former administration, to effect the retreat of the paper currency, and to consolidate some of its smaller floating interior debts. The terms upon which this loan was made were quite favorable to the lenders. It was to be refunded in installments running through ten years, the first payment to be made within six months after the loan was effected. The interest was so fixed that it amounted to nearly sixteen per centum per annum, and a lien was given upon the customs-revenues in guarantee for both principal and interest. As these revenues had already been mortgaged for the French debt, the contract necessa rily received in some form an approval through the French legation, and duplicates of it were lodged in both the French and English lega tions. Moreover, the government engaged itself not to contract any other loan within the ten years without first giving the preference to Messrs. White, Hartmann & Co. During the month of February it was claimed that the three million were not sufficient for the end in view, and finally that the lenders had not fairly kept to their engagements in the matter. And on the 10th of that month the Assembly authorized the government to contract a new loan of twelve millions of dollars, with which it might be enabled (1) to pay off the three millions recently borrowed of Messrs. White, Hartmann & Co.; (2) to liquidate entirely the French debt, which is now estimated at about eleven millions of francs; (3) to pay all other debts of the country, amounting to about four millions of francs; and (4) to enter upon and complete numerous internal improvements. On the 8th ultimo a contract was signed to effect this new loan, and three days later it was sanctioned by the Assembly, as it had been agreed upon between the Executive and Messrs. Emile Pievers & Co., the later acting as agents of capitalists in Paris, My colleague, the French minister plenipotentiary, gave his concurrence to the contract as far as the provisions for the French debt were concerned. The terms agreed upon for this loan were thought to be more favor. able than those of the former one. The principal is to be paid in installments covering forty years, the first installment to be paid in 1882. The rate of interest is fourteen per centum per aunum, and the guarantee was the export duties. The government afterward asked that the guarantee be changed to forty-five per centum of the duties on imports. With this modification the contract has gone forward to the Paris capitalists by the hands of a special commissioner of the government. This financial measure is justly regarded as an important one for this government, and the result of the negotiations of the government commission with the capitalists in Paris is looked for with interest. I am, &c, EBENEZER D. BASSETT. No. 360.] No. 310. Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. Port au Prince, April 17, 1875. (Received May 8.) SIR: I have the honor to represent that in consequence of what has been considered an indignity offered by the police authorities at Port de Paix to the British vice-consul there, while my colleague, Her Britannic Majesty's minister-resident, was in that harbor, on the man-of-war Woodlark, on his tour around the island, as noted in my No. 357, the latter returned to Port au Prince yesterday, to make complaint to this government of the proceedings taken against the vice-consul, and to demand reparation for them. It appears that while the vice-consul, Mr. Maunder, brother-in-law of the Madam Maunder referred to in my Nos. 352 and 356, was returning from a visit to my colleague, Major Stuart, on board the Woodlark, about half past 10 o'clock one evening, the police authorities attempted to arrest the boatman, a British subject, who rowed him ashore from the Woodlark, on the ground that the municipal regulations forbade him to be beyond his domicile at that hour. Mr. Maunder very properly protested against the attempted arrest of his boatman under the circumstances, but in the end both himself and the boatman were put under personal detention, being subjected mean while to unpleasant and disrespectful language from the police authorities. He at once appealed to the commander of the arrondissement, who readily ordered the release of both Mr. Maunder and the boatman. On learning of these proceedings the following morning, my colleague, still on board the Woodlark, in the harbor, demanded of the superior authorities there a prompt disavowal of the officer's act in offering an indignity to the vice-consul, the degradation of that officer from his command, and a salute to the British flag in presence of the officers and soldiery in that vicinity. These demands not being acceded to, my colleague at once weighed anchor for Port au Prince, where, as already stated, he arrived yesterday morning, and, without delay, repeated his demands to the government through the minister of foreign affairs, first in conversation, then in an official dispatch. No answer has to this moment of writing been made to his dispatch. But I hardly think that that portion of his demand which exacted a salute to the British flag will be immediately or readily complied with. Indeed, I judge it not altogether improbable that it may be referred to Her Majesty's government through the Haytian legation in London. The other features of the demand ought to, and, I think, will, be conceded. At all events, my colleague has thus unhappily found himself in the midst of difficulty at the very threshold of his entrance into diplomatic life, and I shall carefully advise you of any settlement that may be made of the case, which it may be remembered is the fourth one of disagreement that has occurred between the British legation here and the authorities of this government within three months. I am, &c., EBENEZER D. BASSETT. No. 364] No. 311. Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Port au Prince, May 8, 1875. (Received May 31.) SIR: I have the honor to state that in consequence of measures inaugurated by this government on the first instant against certain of its citizens whom it deemed inimical or hostile to it, and whom it charged with conspiracy, this city, and indeed the whole surrounding country, have been thrown into inquietude and consternation; bad passions have been stirred up, violent language and violent acts have been evoked; persons have been shot down in the streets and in their homes, arbitrarily arrested, exiled, and outlawed; cannon have been fired upon a private dwelling in the city; my residence, as well as those of some of my colleagues, has been and still is occupied as an asylum by persons. pursued by the authorities; my premises have been and are yet surrounded by armed men; by armed men in the public service I have been stopped on my way to my office in broad morning sunlight. I have had |