No. 281.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Thompson.
Washington, November 7, 1885.
Sir: The subject of asylum in Hayti, to which reference was made in my instruction No. 28 of the 3d instant, is again brought to the Department’s attention by the representations of Mr. Goutier, United States consul at Cape Haytien, a copy of whose dispatch, No. 757, of the 14th ultimo, is herewith inclosed for your information.
Mr. Goutier sets out with an erroneous summing up of the position taken by this Government in the premises. He says in one place that “the United States does not recognize the right of asylum in her consulates;” and, further, that “it is plainly set forth that this right is not admitted.”
The statement properly should be that the Government of the United States does not claim for its legations abroad any extraterritorial privileges of asylum, and consequently makes no such claim in respect of consular offices, or private residences of American citizens, or American merchant vessels in port. If, as a custom, in any country, the practice of asylum prevails, and is tacitly or explicitly recognized by the local authorities in respect of legations, consulates, private dwellings, or vessels of another nationality, the exercise of the consuetudinary privilege by Americans could not be deemed exceptional; and if, under any circumstances, refugees find their way to places of shelter under the American flag, or in the domicile of American citizens, we should certainly expect such privileges as would be accorded were the like shelter under the flag or domicile of another power. But we claim no right or privilege of asylum 5 on the contrary, we discountenance it, especially when it may tend to obstruct the direct operation of law and justice.
Mr. Goutier next refers to the case of the insurgent who took refuge on the French bark Panama, and says that with the Department’s instructions in view he would have been much perplexed had the vessel been American, for, says he, “it would have been my duty to allow the authorities to go on board and arrest that Haytian insurgent.” And Mr. Goutier goes on to argue that if any other power claims the right of asylum in a given case, the United States could not forego a similar claim without loss of prestige.
As we understand the case of the Panama, the local authorities applied to the consul for permission to go on board and take the fugitive. In a case which recently arose in Cuba, where application was made to a consul to order the delivery of a person then on board an American vessel in port, who was accused of common crimes, and where the consul, after examining the charge against the person, ordered the captain to deliver him up, this Department held that the consul had no authority to order such surrender.
* * * * * * *
It does not seem pertinent to the present instruction to discuss the ethics of humanity, to which Mr. Goutier adverts. Section 48 of the Department’s lately issued personal instructions to its diplomatic agents [Page 531] abroad is abundant evidence that the principles of common humanity, where arbitrary pursuit of merely political offenders is concerned, have not been overlooked in its ruling.
This instruction will enable you to answer Mr. Goutier, and you are requested to do so. It will also serve for your guidance in dealing with questions of this nature which may hereafter arise.
I am, sir, &c.,