[Subinclosure 2.] Mr. Senter to Mr. Trout. SANTA MARTA, May 31, 1902. DEAR SIR: The numerous inconveniences and insults we foreigners have been subjected to lately in Santa Marta have culminated in the forcible entry of our houses and the taking therefrom our personal property. At daylight this morning my house was forcibly entered and my saddle horse and a mule taken for Government use, without compensation or receipt, and my efforts to get restitution are met by the governor's statement that the Government is in no way responsible for illegal acts of its soldiery. This statement was made to me in the anteroom of the governor's office, in the presence of a number of people, and you can readily imagine had a bad effect on foreigners' interests here. I wish again to urge the necessity of a ship's presence here for our protection. Yours, very truly, [Subinclosure 3.] HENRY M. SENTER. Mr. Edwurn to Mr. Trout. SANTA MARTA, May 31, 1902. SIR: In accordance with your suggestion I make the following report of an occurrence this morning: At daylight this morning a squad of police or military forced its way into the house of Mr. Henry M. Senter and myself, and without warning or explanation, or the giving of a receipt, took from us two horses and a mule. We immediately sought the proper authorities, who informed us that they agreed it was an evil deed done by ignorant soldiery, and while the Government held itself "morally responsible, it was not legally so for the acts of its soldiers and police.' The governor refuses to return the animals. We are informed that this act has been repeated in the house of at least one other foreigner to-day. Yours, very respectfully, LEO. EDWURN. Mr. Hill to Mr. Beaupré. No. 412.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 605, of the 5th of May last, reporting the position of the Colombian Government on the subject of expropriations. It appears from your dispatch and its inclosure that the Colombian Government has announced that "if very urgent necessities make it indispensable to seize animals of foreign private individuals for reasons relating to the maintaining or restoration of public order," such property may be taken. The Government of the United States regrets its inability to acquiesce in the application of such measure to its citizens. While it is not disputed that circumstances might arise in which the property of foreigners, as well as of natives, situated in Colombia might be lawfully expropriated for military uses or State purposes, it is impossible to recognize an order couched in such vague and general terms that it could be considered as a license to seize and confiscate the property of citizens of the United States under circumstances and for purposes which could not warrant and justify the seizure either upon principles of public law or under existing treaty stipulations between the United States and Colombia. A state of public war does not exist in Colombia, and the belligerent right of expropriation which may sometimes be lawfully exercised does not exist. But even if the measure were defensible, which is not conceded, the discrimination alleged to be practiced by the seizure of private property of citizens of the United States, while property of "amigos" or friends of the titular Government, similiarly situated, is untouched, could not be characterized otherwise than as odious and intolerable. Nor can the Government of the United States concede for a moment the right of the Colombian authorities arbitrarily to fix the value of the property so taken, so as to defeat the right of the owners of such property to full compensation and indemnity for its actual value when taken. For all property of United States citizens thus taken by the authorities of the Colombian Government the Government of the United States will expect that such compensation be made. I am, etc., DAVID J. HILL, No. 414.] Mr. Adee to Mr. Hart. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 4, 1902. SIR: Referring to Department's Nos. 407 of June 18 and 412 of the 31st ultimo, in regard to the expropriation of the property of United States citizens in Colombia, I inclose copy of a letter from the Navy Department and invite your attention to paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the report made by the commanding officer of the U. S. S. Ranger regarding his visit to David. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, Acting Secretary. [Inclosure.] Mr. Taylor to Mr. Hay. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, July 30, 1902. SIR: I have the honor to inclose for your information a copy of a letter received to-day from the commanding officer of the U. S. S. Ranger at Panama, dated the 19th instant, reporting on a visit to David. Very respectfully, [Subinclosure.} Commander Potter to Mr. Moody. H. C. TAYLOR, No. 3.] U. S. S. RANGER, Panama, Colombia, July 19, 1902. SIR: 1. I have the honor to report that, in obedience to the Department's telegram of July 10, I left Panama on the 12th instant and arrived off the bar at the mouth of David River on the 14th. 2. On the morning of the 15th I proceeded up the river in steam launch to Pedregal, the head of navigation, 15 miles from the anchorage, and by carriage to David, 34 miles inland. 3. Consul-General Gudger accompanied me. 4. Consultations were had with the English and French consular representatives and with some of the principal American property holders in the province of Chiriqui, two of whom from Boquete were fortunately in David at the time. 5. Most of the Americans are located at Boquete, some 40 miles in the interior from David, engaged in the culture of coffee, and do not appear to have been interfered with any more than would naturally be expected from the unsettled condition or the country. 6. Gen. Benjamin Herrera, the leader of the revolutionists, had left David by land with the greater portion of his forces for some point on the Gulf of Panama, presumably to meet the Government forces. 7. I received personal assurances from Gen. Manuel Quinteros, jefe civil y militar, the representative of General Herrera at David, that there would be no interference with the persons and property of Americans, and that orders had been issued that their native labor should not be molested or withdrawn to any greater extent than the exigencies of the situation demanded during the present condition of affairs. 8. The house of an American named Lawler, married to a Colombian, had been searched during his absence for the presence of Government sympathizers, for which a written apology was given immediately after the occurrence. 9. Mr. Lawler lost eight horses, which the authorities claim were taken by irresponsible marauding parties, and he was given written authority to recover them wherever found. The general informed me that in the meantime Mr. Lawler would be furnished with eight horses in lieu of his own until they could be recovered. 10. No general manifesto had been issued to foreigners in regard to levying money or supplies, as was reported. One individual demand was made in the case of a Frenchman, and that may have been for cause. 11. The reports of interference with foreigners appear to be much exaggerated, and, in my opinion, the Americans residing in the vicinity of David and in the province of Chiriqui are in no danger of person or property, although unavoidably subjected to some inconvenience in their business relations on account of the presence of armed forces in the locality. 12. Consul-General Gudger concurs fully in this view of the situation. Very respectfully, W. P. POTTER, Commander, U. S. Navy, Commanding. Mr. Hart to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.-Paraphrase.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Bogotá, August 21, 1902. (Mr. Hart inquires if he is to understand, from Department's instruction No. 407, of June 28, 1902, that due compensation must be made at the time of seizure of property; and states that American citizens must continue to suffer without practical remedy if such rule. is not observed.) Mr. Hart to Mr. Hay. No. 650.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Bogotá, August 23, 1902. SIR: Referring to the Department's No. 407, of June 28, 1902, just received, in the matter of the forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities at Santa Marta, without compensation, of the property of American citizens, I have the honor to submit the following: On Thursday last, 21st instant, being the one day of the week fixed for the reception of diplomatic agents accredited to this Government, I called at the foreign office to lay before the minister the several matters of complaint communicated to me in the Department's instructions bearing June dates. The assistant secretary said that the minister had been called to a cabinet meeting and had left word that any minister who desired to discuss any matter might do so with the assistant secretary. This was far from satisfactory, but, in order to lose no time, I opened to the assistant secretary, among other things, the case now under consideration, which I promised to set forth fully in a note to the minister for foreign afiairs. The assistant secretary said that of course his Government learns always with regret of such unlawful acts, unhappily of too frequent occurrence during the present civil war, and he had no doubt that a prompt and thorough inquiry would be made. * * Assuming the truth of the statements in the Santa Marta matter, this is not the first case of its kind during the present civil war; and, if the war continue, it will not be the last, unless more impressive steps shall be taken to arouse the Colombian Government to a realizing sense of its responsibility. In my conversation, above referred to, with the assistant secretary of the foreign office, he said that unfortunately the military and police do as they please, and the more remote from the capital the more difficult it is to check them. He admitted that many so-called cases of expropriation are no more than common thefts committed in the interests of the seizing officers. The assistant secretary agreed with me that this does not relieve his Government of responsibility for the acts of its agents. In my dispatches to the Department during the present civil war in Colombia I have frequently called attention to the free-handed way in which the property of foreigners is seized by the Colombian military authorities. During my absence in the United States, on leave, Mr. Beaupré, in No. 605, of May 5, 1902, laid before the Department a good specimen case of an outrage committed against an American citizen under the very thin disguise of an expropriation for military purposes. I take the liberty to recall Mr. Beaupré's dispatch to the Department's attention, because the act therein reported was committed at this capital and under circumstances which made Mr. Beaupré familiar at once with all the details. We have here a case that can not be lost in a distant Department, nor swept away by anybody's denial, nor justified on the ground of pressing public necessity-that can not be belittled nor befogged in any way whatsoever. Yet, if the matter be allowed to rest as it is, the American citizen whose property was taken will be paid, if ever, the ridiculously inadequate price arbitrarily fixed by the officer who arbitrarily took his property. In the Santa Marta case there was forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities, without compensation and without receipt for the property taken. In the Bogota case there was forcible expropriation by the Colombian military authorities, without compensation, receipt being given for a ridiculously small part of the value of the property taken. Cases of each kind are of frequent occurrence. Where they involve the property of American citizens, what can this legation do to extend the protection which the circumstances seem to warrant? And what is due compensation?" If by "due compensation" is meant a fair price paid at the time of taking the property, and if the Colombian Government be notified of the intention to exact these conditions, the 66 seizure of American property for military purposes will come quickly to an end. Compensation fixed capriciously and delayed indefinitely can not be "due compensation." The Colombian Government announces that while the war lasts it will not pay claims growing out of expropriations, so that the use of good offices in this behalf must almost certainly be unavailing. I respectfully ask definite instructions in respect of the expropriation of the property of American citizens, so that, if there be a way to do so, I may know how the Department would have me proceed to extend to American citizens the protection which they ask, and, failing this, that I may secure for them promptly the compensation to which they may be entitled. I am, etc., CHAS. BURDETT HART. Mr. Adee to Mr. Hart. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, (Replying to Mr. Hart's telegram of August 21, Mr. Adee states that article 8 of the treaty of 1846 stipulates equitable and sufficient indemnification; that the treaty does not stipulate when compensation shall be made but, according to general principles of international law, private property is subject to seizure only by way of military necessity, and the military commander must cause receipts to be given which will serve owner to obtain indemnification guaranteed by treaty, unless compensation is made at the time of seizure.) No. 421.] Mr. Adee to Mr. Hart. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 6, 1902. SIR: Referring to the Department's telegram of August 27, and previous instructions, regarding the expropriation of the property of American citizens by the military authorities of Colombia, and the bearing thereon of the stipulations of Article VIII of the treaty of 1846, I inclose copy of a dispatch from the United States vice-consulgeneral at Panama reporting instances occuring near Cali. I am, etc., [Inclosure.] Mr. Ehrman to Mr. Hill. ALVEY A. ADEE, No. 329.] CONSULATE-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for your information, a copy of a letter received from Mr. W. A. Barney, consular agent at Cali, Colombia, together with a letter from the firm of Holman & Shearer to Mr. Barney. I have no information in regard to this subject other than that which is set forth in the inclosed letters. Awaiting your instructions, I am, etc., FELIX EHRMAN, United States Vice-Consul-General. |