Mr. Olney to Mr.
Young.
Department of State,
Washington, January 30,
1896.
No. 263.]
Sir: The Department has carefully gone over the
claim of J. H. Hollander against the Republic of Guatemala with intent
to dismiss it or press it to a settlement, according to its merits.
The admitted facts are, as outlined in the instruction to you of May 6,
1893, as follows:
In the year 1888 Mr. Hall was the minister of the United States at
Guatemala. Mr. Hosmer was the United States consul-general there, and
Hollander, an American citizen, was residing there publishing a
newspaper by license of the Government of Guatemala. During that year
Mr. Hollander made affidavit before Mr. Hosmer that Mr. Hall and certain
high officials of Guatemala had been beneficiaries of a fraudulent
overissue of bonds of that Government; that Mr. HalFs participation
therein was shown by the books of certain bankers there, and that a
certificate of a prominent citizen, Mr. Herrera, showed the complicity
of the Guatemalan officials. Hollander filed the alleged certificate
with Mr. Hosmer. Mr. Hall, hearing of these charges, asked Mr. Hosmer
for Hollander’s affidavits, the alleged certificate of Herrera, etc.
These were refused, but copies were given him, and he (Mr. Hall) brought
the matter to the attention of the Guatemalan Government, asking an
investigation. The investigation was held and resulted in Hollander’s
arrest and imprisonment on February 8, 1889, on a charge of calumny and
forgery. Before Hollander’s trial came on and while he was in prison, he
was, on May 14, 1889, expelled from the country by an Executive decree.
The expulsion followed immediately on the decree, and he was not even
allowed to see his family, or to make any business arrangements
whatever.
Upon this state of facts this Government demanded a reasonable indemnity
for Hollander, upon the ground that the harsh and hasty manner of his
expulsion was in violation of international law. In its reply of
December 22, 1893, the Guatemalan Government said:
It is impossible to lay aside the right which the Government had
to expel Mr. Hollander at the hour and in the conditions that,
according to its judgment, were convenient. The Government was
not under obligation to allow him more or less time to get out
of the country, nor to accommodate him in any way. All the
practices of international jurisprudence, supposing them to be
certain and indisputable, fall down before a law clear that
comes immediately from the sovereignty of a nation. The stranger
who lands on our shore knows, or ought to know, that he is
exposed to those eventualities, if he does not observe a
convenient behavior, and he who puts in practice a right, as the
Government of Guatemala has done, does not cause
[Page 776]
injury nor violate other people’s
rights. Whatever may be the consequences of Mr. Hollander’s
expulsion he must blame himself only, and lament them as the
result of his want of prudence. This is an argument that, in my
opinion, can never be answered satisfactorily. I shall say no
more about it, because it seems unnecessary to explain a point
in itself so clear. It is contradictory not to allow that the
Government had the right to expel Mr. Hollander, and to want
indemnity for a legal act.
“The practices of international law * * * fall down before a law clear
that comes immediately from the sovereignty of a nation.” The logical
result of that proposition is that whatever a State by legal formula
wills to do, it may do; and that international obligations are annulled,
not infringed, by legalized administrative action in contravention of
those obligations. The United States is unwilling to accept that
proposition as seriously presented by Guatemala. I construe the language
used to mean that as a rule of international law the right of expulsion
is absolute and inherent in the sovereignty of a State; and that no
other State, can question the exercise of this right nor the manner of
exercising it. It is possible some authority may be found in support of
that view, and that it obtained in the earlier practice of nations; but
the modern theory and the practice of Christian nations is believed to
be founded on the principle that the expulsion of a foreigner is
justifiable only when his presence is detrimental to the welfare of the
State, and that when expulsion is resorted to as an extreme police
measure it is to be accomplished with due regard to the convenience and
the personal and property interests of the person expelled.
In 1888 Rolin Jacquemyns, the secretary general of the Institute of
International Law, made a report to that body on the “Right of expulsion
of foreigners,” which is published in the Revue de Droit International
(Vol. XX, p. 498, and following). The report was in answer to a call by
the association for an examination of the question “In what manner and
within what limits governments may exercise the right of expulsion of
foreigners?” This jurist says:
The first condition of the existence of a state is not only the
existence of a group of citizens who recognize its sovereignty,
but also the existence of a territory on which this sovereignty
is exercised, as a matter of fact and of right, to the exclusion
of any other sovereign authority. But this sovereignty would be
compromised if it were possible for persons under no political
obligation to the state which they enter, who contribute nothing
in the way of personal service, and whose country, in short, is
elsewhere, to install themselves there and defy the local
authorities, by whom their presence is regarded as dangerous or
injurious to the community.
Upon this principle of territorial sovereignty he formulates the
fundamental rule that—
Every state may limit the admission and the residence of
foreigners upon its territory by such conditions as it deems
necessary. But [he adds] there is another consideration which
tends, not to annul, but to restrain this exercise of
territorial sovereignty. The individual expelled has the double
quality of being a man and a citizen of another state. As a
human being, he has the right to be exempt from needless harsh
treatment and from unjust detriment to his interests; in his
quality of citizen of another state, he has a right to invoke
the protection of his country against unduly rigorous treatment
and against spoliation of his property. The act of expulsion
ought to conform to its direct, essential object, which is to
relieve the soil of an obnoxious guest. The right of national
sovereignty does not require nor permit more. Generally an
official order to leave the country within a specified time is
sufficient. If not, force may be employed. But forcible eviction
should never assume a gratuitously vexatious character.
This author makes a practical distinction, furthermore, between the
treatment of a transient visitor and that due a resident foreigner who
has established a business or acquired property interests which would be
ruined by sudden expulsion.
[Page 777]
In the latter ease it is especially important [he says] that the
government which expels should exercise every indulgence, and accord
all delay consistent with the public interests, if it would escape
the charge of cruelty and masked persecution.
In closing his report, Mr. Rolin-Jaequemyns offers the following as one
of five “conclusions:”
Even in the absence of treaty, the state to which the expelled
person belongs has a right to know the reason for the expulsion,
and the communication of the reason can not be refused.
Moreover, the expulsion should be accomplished with special
regard for humanity and respect for acquired rights. Except in
cases of special urgency, a reasonable time should be allowed to
the expelled person to adjust his affairs to the new conditions.
Lastly, except in cases of extradition, the expelled person
ought to be allowed to depart by the route which he prefers.
Professor Bar (Journal Dr. Int. Privé, 1886, vol. 13, p. 5) quotes with
approval Bluntschli’s opinion that “the right to expel foreigners should
not be considered as an unqualified right; if so, international
relations would be impossible,” and adds that, without denying the right
of a state in certain contingencies to refuse foreigners access to its
territory and to expel them from it, he confines himself to affirming
“that the exercise of such a power should be limited to exceptional
cases rigorously justified, and should not be at variance with the
principles of international, law and of the necessities of the case, nor
in contravention of the practice of nations. * * * Any other course
finds its condemnation in Vattel (Dr. Int., II, 8, 104) who says: ‘The
sovereign has no right to grant an entrance into his state for the
purpose of drawing foreigners into a snare.’”
At a later meeting of the Institute of International Law (1891), in which
a set of rules was formulated for the regulation of expulsion, Professor
Bar said, in criticising one of the proposed rules which provided for
diplomatic reclamation in favor of the expelled foreigner:
I do not doubt that the government of the expelled person may
sometimes demand an indemnity in his behalf; but this is only an
application of the general and unquestioned principle of the law
of nations which prohibits the unjust treatment of foreigners, a
principle that needs not the sanction of an express regulation.
(Inst. Dr. Int. Annuaire, Vol. XI, p. 310.)
Calvo (Dictionnaire de Droit International, title Expulsion) says:
But when a Government expels a foreigner without cause, and in a
harsh, inconsiderate manner (avec des formes blessantes), the
State of which the foreigner is a citizen has the right to base
a claim upon this violation of international law and to demand
adequate satisfaction.
To the same effect is Bluntschli (Droit Int. Codifié, art. 384.)
Some investigation has been made of the laws and practice of other powers
touching the expulsion of foreigners, and they have been found to
comport generally with the principles advocated by the jurists above
quoted. These writers, Bar, Bluntschli, Oalvo, and Rolin-Jacquemyns, are
specialists in the science of international law, and the opinions of no
modern jurists are entitled to greater respect. Their utterances were
made as statements of principle and without reference to any controversy
in which their sympathies were engaged or by which their judgment might
be biased.
In certain countries, of which Belgium is an example, the law relating to
expulsion provides safeguards against abuse and injurious consequences,
by requiring previous notice, by conceding the right of choice of the
way out of the country, etc. In others, as in France, the law permits
immediate expulsion, but the administration of it is tempered by
executive regulation. In an Executive order of December 17, 1885, the
French minister of the interior deprecated and forbade harsh execution
of the law by subordinate functionaries. “Whatever may be the
[Page 778]
necessities,” he said, “which
in the interest of public order are imposed on the superior authorities,
I believe that the Government of the Republic should be actuated in
matters of this nature only by considerations of impartial humanity
consistent with the wholesome enforcement of the law.” Referring to
certain instances of harsh execution of the law by the police
authorities near the frontiers, he says:
This is, in my opinion, a misconception of the sentiment of
humanity to which I alluded above, and an application of the
letter of the law with a rigor which a free republican
government like France can not afford to exercise toward
foreigners of any nationality. (Journal de Dr. Int. Privé, vol.
13, 16, and 497.)
Expulsion is a police measure, having for its object the purging of the
State of obnoxious foreigners. It is a preventive, not a penal process,
and it can not be substituted for criminal prosecution and punishment by
judicial procedure. (See Inst. Dr. Int. Ann., 286, 300.)
In no instance has an example been found of treatment such as that to
which Hollander was subjected. Hollander had been admitted to residence
in the Republic of Guatemala and encouraged to engage in business there.
He lived for a long time in amity and intimacy with the high officers of
the Republic, and those relations continued until he made the charge
reflecting upon the integrity of certain of these officials. With the
aid and support of the ruling powers he had built up a thriving
newspaper and job-printing enterprise, which was in full operation at
the time of his expulsion. The judicial powers of the Government of
Guatemala at once took cognizance of Hollander’s attack on the officials
of the Government, and he was arrested upon the criminal charge of
calumny and forgery. A trial and conviction upon that charge would have
vindicated the Government and its officers and resulted in the
punishment of Hollander if he was guilty of malicious libel and forgery.
His acquittal would have been conclusive of his innocence. The
circumstances of his expulsion give it the appearance of executive
intervention to take the matter out of the hands of the court, and,
assuming the fact of his guilt, to administer punishment by way of
instant and forcible expulsion. The fact that Hollander was expelled
while awaiting trial, and in a manner that defeated the ends of justice
judicially administered, is one of the most aggravating of the incidents
which make the manner of his expulsion a flagrant violation of
Guatemala’s obligations to the United States respecting the treatment of
our citizens. This high-handed treatment of Hollander carried also the
appearance of discourtesy and unfriendliness toward the United States;
and if not so intended, the action of the Executive implied disregard of
an unmistakable character for the rights and sensibilities of a neighbor
Republic which feels as a wound every injury to its citizens.
The treaty of 1849 between the United States and Guatemala (Art. XII)
provides as follows:
Both the contracting parties promise and engage formally to give
their special protection to the persons and property of the
citizens of each other, of all occupations, who may be in the
territories subject to the jurisdiction of the one or of the
other, transient or dwelling therein, leaving open and free to
them the tribunals of justice for their judicial recourse on the
same terms which are usual and customary with the natives or
citizens of the county in which they may be; for which they may
employ, in defense of their rights, such advocates, solicitors,
notaries, agents, and factors as they may judge proper in all
their trials at law; and such citizens or agents shall have free
opportunity to be present at the decisions and sentences of the
tribunals in (all) cases which may concern them, and likewise at
the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be
exhibited in the said trials.
This treaty was terminable in all its parts relating to commerce and
navigation, but in all those parts which relate to peace and friendship
[Page 779]
Article XXXIII declares
that it shall be “perpetually binding on both powers.” Notice of the
determination of the treaty was given by Guatemala in 1874, but July 9,
1888, that Government declared in a note to Mr. Hosmer, chargé
d’affaires of the United States, that Article XII and some other
provisions, being parts of the treaty which relate to peace and
friendship and are based on the general principles of popular rights,
“are to be completely observed, although no treaty exists which would
establish them.” The letter closes with the declaration that “the
convention (treaty), except as regards the stipulations of a terminable
character which it contains, can not be considered as having
terminated.” (Foreign Relations, 1886, pp.
149, 159.)
Without contending that the Guatemalan law of expulsion is in derogation
of Article XII of the treaty, and without taking exception to that law
as a piece of domestic legislation, but having regard to the manner and
circumstances only of Hollander’s expulsion, it was effected in
disregard of the rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by
that treaty, and of “the prescription which,” quoting from the
Guatemalan letter of June 9, 1888, “can not be denied in any civilized
country of the earth.”
Returning to a consideration of the facts, Hollander was held in prison
on bail for more than three months, in the power of the Guatemalan
authorities, awaiting trial. Then, suddenly and without notice, the
judicial proceeding was abandoned and the accused was taken from prison,
carried under guard to the coast, and put upon an outgoing vessel under
a executive decree of expulsion, leaving his family, his business, and
his property unprovided for. He was literally hurled out of the country,
leaving behind wife and children, business, property, everything dear to
him and dependent upon him. Why that abandonment of the judicial
investigation and resort to summary expulsion by administrative decree,
I do not inquire. But the United States takes this ground: The
Government of Guatemala, whatever its laws may permit, had not the right
in time of peace and domestic tranquillity to expel Hollander without
notice or opportunity to make arrangements for his family and business,
on account of an alleged offense committed more than three months
before, Hollander having during the entire interval been in the power of
the Government, subject to the proper enforcement of any of its laws,
and at the time awaiting trial in the criminal court upon the identical
charge upon which he was expelled. If expulsion was lawful and proper on
the 14th of May, it was lawful and proper on the 8th of February
preceding, when Hollander had already committed the offending act and
had been held to answer for it in the courts of the country. After
deliberating three months and more, with Hollander absolutely in its
power, the executive authority expelled him in a manner that defeated
the course of justice in the courts of the country; that violated the
rules of international law and the existing provisions of the treaty,
and was contrary to the practice of civilized nations. In so doing
Guatemala did Hollander, and through him the United States, a grievous
injury, which can not be allowed to go without protest. He is entitled,
upon the undisputed facts, to a reasonable indemnity, and you are
directed to inform the Government of Guatemala that the United States
expects it to be paid.
claim for printing and for coffee lands.
Besides the claim for indemnity above considered, the United States has
demanded the payment of certain indebtedness to Hollander by the
Government of Guatemala for printing, and the value of certain public
[Page 780]
lands (coffee lands) which
he claims to have paid for and preempted according to law.
These two items have been the subject of previous correspondence. They
are explained in the instruction of May 6, 1893. Guatemala denies that
Hollander did any printing for the Government, and denies that he
preempted or paid for any land. It is fair to say that Hollander’s
proofs are not perfect. His memorial is explicit and circumstantial
throughout, and his previous statement has been supplemented by an
affidavit, which is now inclosed. (It was sent here in a letter from his
counsel, Mr. R. D. Benedict, dated November 8, 1895.)
Mr. Hollander has in his possession, and has exhibited, public documents
(mentioned by title in his affidavit) printed for the Government of
Guatemala, which bear the imprint of Hollander’s printing establishment,
“La Estrella” There is no question that Hollander printed public
documents for the Government of Guatemala. The defect in his proof lies
in his inability to establish the amount and value of the work he did
and the fact of nonpayment of the price of it. This defect is due
largely to the fact and manner of his expulsion and of his enforced
absence from Guatemala. His statement disproves the last reply from
Guatemala, that all the Government printing had been done at another
establishment, and consequently none by Hollander; and in the absence of
a more specific and satisfactory answer than has up to now been given,
this Government must continue to press this item of the claim. Hollander
has made, on oath, an itemized statement of his work for the Government
of Guatemala, and produced specimens of that work. He declares that each
item was worth a stated amount and that he has not been paid.
Circumstances, of which he is the victim and the Government of Guatemala
the cause, prevent production by him of corroborative documentary proof.
I have no disposition to call on Guatemala to prove Hollander’s claim,
but if nothing is due Hollander for printing, that Government must have
at hand accounts and records which will prove conclusively that it owes
nothing, and it is not unreasonable to request that it rebut, if it can,
his prima facie case.
In regard to the coffee lands, the conditions are practically the same.
Mr. Hollander’s sworn statement (inclosed) sets forth in detail what he
paid and each step in the proceeding by which the lands became his,
giving the names of half a dozen men, now supposed to be in Guatemala,
who have personal knowledge of the facts which he alleges. These facts,
being all official acts of the Government, must, if they exist, be
matter of official record and easily ascertainable. Hollander declares
that he surrendered to the land office, in accordance with the land laws
and regulations, all the papers connected with the proceeding, expecting
to get in lieu thereof the Government’s patent or grant of title; that
his expulsion intervened, and when he returned more than a year later,
under special permission limiting his stay to sixty days, he was
informed that his right to the land was forfeited.
The Guatemalan minister has said that the official files contain no
evidence of the facts alleged by Hollander; that he paid nothing and
took up no public land. This is a general denial in response to a
specific and detailed claim naming persons who may be called upon to say
whether the specifications are true or false. In the circumstances this
Government is of the opinion that the Government of Guatemala should at
least take the evidence of the persons named.
These items of Mr. Hollander’s claim for printing and coffee lands would
be withdrawn upon a showing that casts a reasonable doubt upon their
validity. There is no disposition to force on Guatemala an unproven
[Page 781]
claim; but the circumstances
are peculiar. Hollander has been deprived by Guatemala of the means of
perfecting his proof; Guatemala has all the facts in reach, and the
United States is simply acting on the principle which would obtain in a
court of justice in litigation between men where evidence in favor of
the claimant is alleged to be in the possession of the defendant. If the
defendant, having the power, refuses to produce the evidence or fails to
show that it does not exist or is not in his possession, a presumption
is raised that the evidence is unfavorable to the defendant’s
contention. Unless Hollander’s land claim is an entire fabrication,
there must be some record of the proceeding; and if it is an entire
fabrication the five or six gentlemen named by him in his affidavit as
having personal knowledge of the facts can easily refute it by denying
his statement.
It must be apparent that the second and third items of Hollander’s claim
are a fit matter for arbitration, with power in the arbitrator to take
testimony and call for documentary evidence. This Government would be
glad to leave the matter to that form of adjustment, and it would have
no objection to the inclusion of the first item—indemnity for
expulsion—in the arrangement, although no doubt is entertained as to the
liability of Guatemala upon the first item.
Accompanying Hollander’s supplemental affidavit inclosed are other
letters and sworn statements pertinent to the claim. Copies of all of
these may be left with the Guatemalan minister for foreign affairs with
a copy of this instruction, which you are directed to read to the
minister, with an earnest request for early and serious consideration.
The United States wishes to close this matter, and will not insist upon
anything beyond simple justice to Mr. Hollander in accordance with the
facts as they are ascertained or ascertainable, and with the principles
of law which obtain and govern the relations of the two countries.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 263.
]
Mr. Hollander to
Mr. Olney.
New
York, November 8,
1895.
The Department of State has desired me to furnish evidence in
reference to my claim against Guatemala for the coffee lands, to
prove that I “actually did purchase them,” and also to furnish proof
with reference to the printing bill which constitutes another part
of my claim against Guatemala. I beg leave now to furnish to the
State Department such evidence as I can give in reference to each of
the said items of my claim:
First. In reference to the claim for the coffee lands. The following
is a detailed statement of the facts in relation to my application
to the Government of Guatemala for those lands and my payment for
them. And I solemnly swear that the facts as herein stated are
true:
In the month of November, 1887, I made application for a tract of
land situated in the department of Alta Vera Paz, district of Coban,
and more particularly described in the said application, which was
in writing. I addressed my application to the jefe politico, or
governor, of the department of Coban, who was then Col. Juan
Francisco Rubio.
My application was drawn up by a lawyer, Jose Maria Marroquin,
residing then in the city of Guatemala. It was drawn on stamped
paper, in accordance with the law, and it specified the locality of
the
[Page 782]
land, together with
the names of the witnesses to the facts required by section 598 of
the fiscal code, and showed that the property was national land
(terrenos baldios). This application was forwarded by one, through
one Luis Estrany, a resident of Guatemala, to Colonel Rubio, the
governor of Coban, and I received from Colonel Rubio an
acknowledgment of the receipt of the same, stating that the proper
steps would have to be taken in conformity with the fiscal code of
the Republic.
That application should be recorded in the office of the jefe
político of Coban. I have no copy of it, but I have no doubt that if
I were not excluded from the country by the Government of Guatemala
I could obtain a copy of it.
Section 599 of the fiscal code requires that in such matters a notice
of the application must be published for thirty days in the
departmental newspaper, if there is one. At that time there was such
a paper published in the department of Coban, and the legal notice
of my application was published in such paper. If I were not
excluded from Guatemala by order of the Government, I could obtain
from the files of such paper copies of the notice so published, of
which I have no copy.
A survey of the land was made, by order of the governor of the
department, by one Mr. Samayoa, his charge therefor being $183.50,
which was paid him, and for which he gave a receipt in October,
1888.
Mr. Estrany, together with the agent of my newspaper at Coban, Mr.
Mejia, attended to various matters connected with the business in
the department, such as paying for the advertisement and the survey,
and sundry other expenses which I can not at this moment recall,
amounting in all to $428.50.
After these requirements had been fulfilled, Governor Rubio, in
accordance with article 614 of the fiscal code, had the property
appraised and put up at public auction, the upset price being $50
per caballeria, at which price 60 caballerias were bought for me,
the sale and the purchase being recorded at Coban in the office of
the jefe politíco.
I received official notification from Colonel Rubio that the land had
been sold to me for $3,000, or $50 for each caballeria. The money
was paid over by me through Mr. Estrany to the jefe politico of
Coban. This amount was paid, $1,900 in silver and the rest in
“pagares,” or bills against the Government for printing which I had
done for it, for which orders on the treasury for payment had been
duly countersigned thereon by the proper officers, which “pagares”
were accepted as cash. The proper receipt, bearing the seals of the
governor of Coban and the collector of revenue, was given for that
money when paid over. There were four other parties who had also
made denouncements of land in the Coban district, one of whom was
Louis Estrany, above named.
On July 23, 1888, I addressed a letter to Colonel Rubio, requesting
him to hasten the dispatch of those five denouncements of land which
had been made, including my own. I have in my letter book a press
copy of that letter, which I will exhibit to the Department with
this affidavit, which letter was written in Spanish and a
translation of which is as follows:
City of Guatemala, July 23, 1888.
Señor Coronel Don Juan
Francisco Rubio,
Jefe
Politíco de la Alta Verapaz, Coban.
My Dear Sir and Esteemed Friend: It
is now many months that I have not seen yon; owing to your
many occupations in Coban, you have not the time to rest for
recreation in the capital. God grant it that you may be able
to send me some data from Coban and from your jefatura, in
order to publish the same in La Estrella.
The principal object of this my letter, after having
affectionately saluted you, is to solicit the quick dispatch
of the live denouncements of lands for Messrs, José Ma.
[Page 783]
Bustamente,
Augusto Mulet Chambo, Luis Estrany, Federico Lanzer, and the
undersigned, because we desire to cultivate cacao (cocoa),
rubber, and sarsaparilla on our lands; and besides, we have
written to the United States in order to bring several head
of cattle, in order to propagate the race in this country,
and we shall have the answer from that place within a very
few days, awaiting solely your expeditious dispatch of the
matter.
Giving you thanks in anticipation for all, and with a
thousand salutations, I am,
Your affectionate friend and servant,
J. H. Hollander.
Thereafter, but after long delay, a communication was addressed to
the Government by Colonel Rubio, stating that all the requirements
of law, as far as his department was concerned and the
specifications of the general laws of the country were concerned,
had been complied with, and that the Government could extend title
to me for the lands. I saw such communication.
All the receipts and necessary documents, together with the official
notice of my having legally acquired the land, were sent to me from
Colonel Rubio, the jefe político at Coban, through Messrs. Estrany
and Mejia. As soon as I had them all, accompanied by Mr. Estrany, I
went to the office of the under secretary of the interior and to the
land office in March, 1889, in order to comply with the law and to
satisfy the Guatemalan Government that the proper title could be
extended to me for the lands that I had purchased. Mr. Mandujano,
the assistant secretary of the interior, went with us to the land
office, and there all of the documents relating to the land,
including the receipts for moneys expended, surveys of the land,
letters from the governor, application, and all other documents,
were handed over to Mr. Flavio Galvez, who was then chief of the
land office.
It is absolutely necessary that every document relating to the
negotiation for the purchase of Government lands be deposited with
the Government in order that a proper deed and title should be
extended to the interested party. I was compelled to comply with
said law and hand over everything I had in order that the Guatemalan
Government might give me the proper title. I did this in the same
manner that our own people here in the United States would deposit
with the registrar of deeds and mortgages a deed or mortgage for
recording purposes, merely having the recording officer note on the
back where and to whom the mortgage or deed is to be returned. No
receipt or memorandum of any kind is ever given for such papers when
deposited, and no receipt or memorandum showing their deposit was
given to me; and I had no more thought of there being any necessity
of my asking for a receipt or taking copies of such papers than I
would think it necessary to take a receipt for or copy of a mortgage
which I should have left in a recording office in the United
States.
In anticipation of delivery of the title deeds to me, I had, with the
permission of the jefe político, had a portion of the land cleared
and planted with coffee trees. This was done under the direction of
Mr. Estrany, and I contributed money to pay the laborers who did the
agricultural work. Mr. Estrany supplied me with a number of young
trees, which were there set out. Owing to this expenditure, the land
in question became enhanced in value, and in view of the fact that
about that time the price of coffee rose nearly 200 per cent in
Guatemala, coffee lands were eagerly sought for, so that the value
of $4.75 per acre placed on the land at the time of my expulsion is
in no way excessive.
My previous relations with the Government of Guatemala had been very
friendly. In the fall of 18871 had been sent by President Barillas
on a special mission to Salvador, and I had free access to visit him
at
[Page 784]
the executive palace at
all times. I filed with the Department of State on or about May 5,
1890, the affidavit of Dr. Charles W. Fitch, who was chief of staff
of President Barillas at Guatemala, to which I refer, from which
will be seen how close had been my relations with the Government
officials. Those relations continued, although not so close, nearly
up to the time of my expulsion. It is true that the criminal charge
had been made against me in February, 1889, but bail in $1,000 had
been given for me, and I was attending to my regular business of
publishing my paper and attending to my printing office during
February, March, and April, 1889, and I had repeated interviews
during those months with President Barillas in reference to
different matters of business.
And I had not the slightest idea when I deposited my papers in March,
1889, to obtain the title to the coffee lands, that there would ever
be any difficulty about it, or that I should ever need a copy of one
of the papers which I so deposited, all the more, as I was assured
by Sen or Galvez at the time that the office would dispatch the
matter and that the title would be furnished me as quick as
possible.
And I further aver that when I went to the land office on my
temporary return to Guatemala in November and December, 1890, and
demanded of Señor Mandujano, the under secretary of the interior,
that the title should be given to me for the land in question, the
answer that was given to me by Señor Mandujano was not a denial of
my having denounced the land, but a statement that, as I had been
expelled from Guatemala, the Government would not allow the title to
the land to be given to me. I demanded of him that my papers which I
had deposited should be returned to me or a receipt given me, but
this was refused. I reported this demand of mine and this refusal to
Mr. Mizner, the American minister.
I have a memorandum, which I made in a small memorandum book, as to
the papers which I deposited for the purpose of obtaining title to
the lands in question. I can not, after this lapse of time, tell
when I made it, except that it was made while I was in Guatemala and
before I was expelled from that country. That memorandum gives a
list of such papers as follows, in Spanish:
[Cohan terrenos—Memo. Marzo, 1889.]
Documentos dados al Sr. Estrany para la espedieion de los
títulos.
- 1.
- Suplica al Sr. Rubio.
- 2.
- Reconocirniento y aviso al público en periódico
oficial de Coban.
- 3.
- Medida por el Ing. Samayoa, Octubre 1888, con su
correspondiente recibo, $183.50.
- 4.
- Recibos, varios gastos de testigos, y viajes á la
capital, 8 recibos, $428.50.
- 5.
- Recibo por $3,000 del Sr. Rubio á razon cle $50 por
cada caballería.
Entregados al Sr. Mandujano quien se les entregó al Sr.
Galvez encargado de la seccion de tierras.
Translated it is as follows:
[Coban lands—Memorandum, March, 1889.]
Documents given to Sr. Estrany for tbe procuring of the
titles.
- 1.
- Application to Sr. Rubio.
- 2.
- Acknowledgment and notice to the public in the
official paper of Coban.
- 3.
- Measurement by the surveyor Samayoa, October, 1888,
with his corresponding receipt.
- 4.
- Receipts, various expenses of witnesses, and travel to
the capitol; 8 receipts, $428.50.
- 5.
- Receipt for $3,000 from Sr. Rubio at the rate of $50
for each caballeria.
Delivered to Sr. Mandujano that they might be delivered to
Sr. Galvez, in charge of the land office.
[Page 785]
I have not been able to find among the papers in my possession any
copy of any of the above papers, or any other papers in reference to
the said coffee lands. But I solemnly swear that I paid, as above
stated, $3,000 at the office of the jefe politico of Coban for that
land, besides the expenses, and that I did deposit the papers in
said memorandum mentioned for the purpose of procuring the land to
which I was entitled. The written evidence of my right still exists
in Guatemala in the records of the Government, unless it has been
destroyed. And the destruction of the same, if it has been
destroyed, or the suppression of the same, if it still exist, is
only a continuation of the oppression from which I have been so long
suffering at the hands of the Government of Guatemala.
The Government of Guatemala has taken my money for land. It has aken
my papers which I deposited with it for the purpose of procuring the
title which I was entitled to have, relying as I did on the duty and
honor of the officers of that Government. It now refuses to give me
the land or return me the money or return the papers. Such an act by
an individual would be an act of dishonesty, if not a robbery. I am
powerless to help myself. And if the Government of the United
States, of which I have always been a faithful subject, will do
nothing to aid me against such oppression—if it will take the word
of the spoliator against mine, if it will allow the fact of my
having no written evidence, which the Government of Guatemala by
force prevents me from procuring, to avail to overthrow my solemn
oath as to the truth of the facts which I aver—I shall have only to
submit to the oppression and injustice, but under solemn protest. I
shall not believe until I am compelled to that the Government of the
United States will suffer such injustice to be successfully
perpetrated.
Second. I now speak of my bill for printing done by me for the
Government of Guatemala.
I understand the minister of foreign affairs of Guatemala, in his
letter of January 10, 1895, to intend to be understood as denying
that I did any printing whatever for the Government of Guatemala,
and alleging that a printing office called La Union was the only one
which did any printing for the Government.
I think it proper, therefore, to give a somewhat full statement of my
relations with the Government of Guatemala, out of which arose the
various works of printing which I did for that Government.
In the month of June, 1885, I published the first number of my
newspaper, La Estrella, in the city of Guatemala, under a special
permission from the Government of that Republic, a copy of which has
been already submitted to the Department. The paper is a weekly one,
printed in both Spanish and English, and printed in a local printing
office of the capital. The success of my paper was assured, and
within less than a year I had transformed it into a daily, with an
English edition once a week. I had obtained a sufficient outfit
wherewith to publish the paper myself, besides having a job printing
office. Toward the beginning of 1887 I had further enlarged my plant
into a first-class printing office. Toward the middle of 1887 a
complete change in the Government of the country and its political
views brought into the cabinet of President Barrillas many men whom
I had personally befriended through my paper, and it rose in the
favor of the President himself. And thereafter I began to do
considerable work for the Government of Guatemala through orders
given by the President and by members of the cabinet who were
personal friends of mine.
[Page 786]
A special instance of really important work done by me for the
Government was on or about the 6th day of September, 1887, at a time
when opposition was made by the archbishop, Cassanova, regarding the
civil marriage act, which resulted in the expulsion of the said
archbishop from the country. A secret cabinet council was held,
lasting until close upon midnight, as a result of which special
executive decrees were issued in writing for the expulsion of the
archbishop, and which, in order to be thoroughly legal, would have
to be printed before 6 o’clock on the following morning. The
Government applied at the printing office of La Union, formerly El
Progreso, to have these decrees printed and to have a special
edition of El Guatemalteco (the official newspaper) printed in time
for distribution at 6 a.m. The aforesaid printing office flatly
refused, on religious scruples, to have anything to do with the
printing of any matter connected with the archbishop’s expulsion.
President Barrillas sent for me that night at 11 o’clock, and I
appeared there before him and his cabinet. He asked me if I could
publish the decree and the special edition of El Guatemalteco,
referring to the archbishop’s expulsion, and could have the paper
and decrees ready before 6 o’clock in the morning, as the archbishop
was to leave the country, escorted by General Jose Maria Eeina
Barrios, of the Guatemalan army, who is now the President of
Guatemala, leaving the capital city for the seacoast that night. I
agreed to the President’s request, got my employees together, and
was able to hand to the Government corrected proof sheets of the
decree before 1.30 a.m., so that a certified copy of the same could
be placed in the archbishop’s hands before he left for the seacoast.
The balance of the work was completed, printed, and distributed by
me at the Government’s request, to the extent of 6,000 copies,
before 6 o’clock in the morning. My own paper, La Estrella, also
devoted several columns to the matter, at the request of the
Government. I was complimented by the President for the quick work
and the annoyance that it saved him and the Government through my
prompt action.
This action of mine, with others, put me on still more friendly
relations with the President and members of his cabinet, such as are
set forth in the affidavit of Dr. Fitch, before referred to, of
which I attach a copy marked Exhibit 1, which led not only to my
being sent as a confidential agent to Salvador by the President of
Guatemala, but as a matter of course led to the giving to me of
considerable printing to be done for the various departments.
As to the statement, incorporated in the letter of the Guatemalan
minister of foreign affairs, by Señor Mandujano, that at some time
(the dates he does not state) “a contract with the owners of the
printing establishment, La Union, was in force, according to which
the establishment was to do the official printing for all the
Government departments of the capital, and neither Mr. Hollander nor
any other person, except the owners of the aforesaid establishment,
was to do any work of this kind,” I have this to say: The alleged
contract is not set forth, and in view of the amount of the printing
which I actually did for the Government, I do not believe that any
such exclusive contract ever existed. I know that the establishment,
La Union, did printing work for the Government; but I also know that
my own establishment also did work for it.
And whether the work which my establishment did for the Government
should be paid for by the Government in no way depends upon any
contract between the Government and La Union. Notwithstanding that
contract, if it existed, a large amount of Government printing was
done at my establishment, La Estrella; for some of which work I
[Page 787]
have been paid by the
Government of Guatemala, and for the rest of which I ought to be
paid.
Before going into the details of the printing work done by me for the
Government for which I claim to be paid, I pause to refer to a part
of the statement of Senor Mandujano, embodied in the letter of the
foreign minister, as to an alleged gift to me of “several presses
with their appurtenances,” in return for which he states that I
agreed “to write in favor of the Government of Guatemala in the
Estrella de Guatemala.”
Señor Mandujano has forgotten or misstated the facts. I beg leave to
give herewith a correct statement of them, and the Department of
State will find in them strong corroboration of my statements as to
my friendly relations with the Government and as to the fact of my
doing printing work for its departments.
In the year 1887 I began the printing for the Government of a paper
called La Democracia, which was of a semiofficial character. For the
work of printing and publishing this paper the Government agreed to
give me the sum of $600 per month. This paper was published until
the 1st of January, 1888, when the name of the publication was
changed to El Dia, under a new editor. The same arrangement was made
with me for the printing and publication of El Dia, which continued
up to the time of my expulsion.
During the year 1887 the Government had in its possession a press
which was not in use, and this press was furnished to me by the
Government, not with reference to my paper La Estrella, but for the
purpose of facilitating the printing of the papers in question. In
order to use it I was compelled to put repairs on it to a
considerable amount. And it was used as well for the printing of La
Democracia as for the printing of El Dia.
In the spring of 1888 one Dr. Juan Padilla, with others, was planning
the starting of another paper, and in pursuance of that proposition
they obtained from the minister of the interior (gobernacion y
justica), Senor Anguiano, an order that I should deliver that press
to Dr. Padilla. I annex a translation of that order (marked Exhibit
2), dated May 24, 1888, of which I have the original, written on
department paper, and signed by Minister Anguiano himself. On
receipt of it I wrote a letter to the minister, stating the
circumstances, and that the press was in use in the printing of El
Dia; moreover, that it was not just to take the press from me
without the repayment to me of the sums which I had expended to put
it in condition. I annex a copy of that letter, taken from my press
copy letter book, marked Exhibit 3.
I thereupon received a second letter from the minister, under date of
28th of May, 1888, a translation of which I also attach (marked
Exhibit4), and the original of which, on department paper, and
signed by the minister himself, is in my possession, by which the
minister withdrew the previous order and stated that I might retain
the press until further orders. And thereafter the press remained in
use in my printing office until the time of my expulsion from
Guatemala.
The Department will easily see that here is proof over the signature
of the minister of the interior himself that I was printing for the
Government. The printing of La Democracia and El Dia are items on
account of which the Government of Guatemala is still indebted to
me, and if my relations with the Government had not been more than
usually friendly it would certainly never have allowed me the use of
that press, as it did, for about a year and a half.
I have already stated that I did considerable printing for the
Government of Guatemala for which I have been paid. I do not take
time to
[Page 788]
specify it. A
considerable amount of it was schoolbooks printed for the department
of public instruction, and a considerable part of that for which I
have not been paid was of a similar character. The following is a
list of the various publications printed by me for the Gautemalan
Government for which I have not been paid and for which I claim
payment:
1. |
Act of Independence, printed in black and
gold, size 27 by 36 inches, 14,000 copies, at 10
cents |
$1,400.00 |
|
This was ordered by Señor Angniano, the
secretary of the interior (gobernacion y justica), in
accordance with instructions from President Barillas
himself, as the President himself informed me. It was
ordered about January 1, 1889, to be ready about March
1, at the opening of the annual session of the
Legislative Congress. The copies were delivered at the
office of the secretary of the interior. |
|
2. |
Four schoolbooks for the department of public
instruction: |
|
|
|
Eclectic Sillabary, 40.000 copies, at 15 cents |
$6,000.00 |
|
|
First Reader. 20,000 copies, at 22 cents |
4,400.00 |
|
|
Second Reader. 10,000 copies, at 37½ cents |
3,750.00 |
|
|
|
14,150.00 |
|
|
Less royalty to José M. Vela, the author, deducted by
Government order |
2,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
12,150.00 |
|
Compendium of Universal History—this was to be in two
volumes; only one of them was completed—5,000 copies, at
$1.20 |
6,000.00 |
|
|
On account of this I have been paid |
2,800.00 |
|
|
|
|
3,200.00 |
3. |
Message of President Barillas of October 1, 1887, with
a translation, to be submitted to the Legislative
Assembly on March 1, 1888: |
|
|
|
1,000 copies, in gold |
250.00 |
|
|
4,000 copies, plain |
600.00 |
|
|
|
850.00 |
|
|
Less paid on account |
250.00 |
|
|
|
|
600.00 |
4. |
Special ordinances and programmes for the
Government polytechnic or military school, 5,000 copies,
at 40 cents |
2,000.00 |
5. |
Monthly circular of the minister of foreign
affairs, addressed to the consuls and others, with
translation, at $60 per month for ten months, beginning
with July, 1888 |
600.00 |
6. |
Tratado Sobre Derecho International Privado,
3,000 copies |
25.00 |
7. |
Fortnightly memorial for the polytechnic school from
November 30, 1887, to May 1, 1889, afterwards changed to
a monthly edition. The Government was to pay me $300 a
month for 5,000 copies, making |
$5,100.00 |
|
|
On which they paid |
700.00 |
|
|
Leaving a balance due me of |
|
4,400.00 |
8. |
Reprint of the decree No. 394, regarding the
settlement of national debt, with translation, in March,
1888, 10,000 copies |
500.00 |
9. |
Report of the Guatemala School of Arts and
Sciences, July 13 to September 18, 1887, 500
copies |
80.00 |
10. |
In March, 1889, amendment to the penal code,
10,000 copies, ordered by the minister of the interior
(gobernaction y justcia) |
300.00 |
11. |
Collection of Government circulars, from July, 1887,
for presentation to assembly on March 1, 1888, based on
decree No. 380, wherein President Barillas declared
himself dictator of the country and ordered by the
President himself. 7.000 ponies, art 60 cents |
$4,200.00 |
|
|
From which is to be deducted |
2,200.00 |
|
|
|
|
2,000.00 |
[Page 789]
Besides the works above mentioned there was also newspaper printing
done by me for the Government, as follows:
12. |
The Government gave to my own paper, La
Estrella (The Star), a subvention at the rate of $200,
which was afterwards increased to $300 a month; at the
time of my expulsion there was due me from the
Government of this account |
$400.00 |
13. |
La Democracia, a daily semiofficial
newspaper, printed for the Government from July, 1887,
to the end of the year. I was to receive for this $600 a
month, and there still remains due on this
account. |
100.00 |
14. |
At the end of the year 1887 the title of the
paper was changed to El Dia, and I continued to publish
it from January, 1888, to May, 1889, under a similar
arrangement at $600 a month. Of this amount there
remains due the sum of |
2,344.00 |
15. |
There was also on my books at the time of my
expulsion several small bills for various work done for
various departments, as follows: |
|
|
January 1, 1889. School of Arts |
$32.00 |
|
|
January, 1888. Police department |
75.00 |
|
|
August and October, 1889. Polytechnic school |
70.00 |
|
|
October 3, 1888. National treasury |
10.00 |
|
|
February 8, 1888. Commandancia de armas |
4.00 |
|
|
April and May, 1889. National Assembly |
58.75 |
|
|
January 1, 1889. Ministry of foreign affairs |
40.00 |
|
|
January 22, 1889. Ministry of fomento (public
works) |
37.50 |
|
|
January 11, 1888. El Dia jobs |
10.00 |
|
|
|
|
337.25 |
I had no written contract for any of the above work. The
orders for it came to me from the various departments and from the
President himself.
It will easily be imagined that I could not obtain so large an amount
of printing as this, and that which I had previously done, for which
I was paid, without being compelled to share the profits of it.
I have no wish to specify the persons to whom I was compelled to pay
over part of the profits which I received, although I can do so if
it is insisted upon by the Department.
By reason of this fact it was necessary to keep the details of that
Government business out of the general books of my business, which
must, of course, be open to the inspection of my employees; and I
kept the details of that business, therefore, in a separate book, in
which I made the entries myself. I regret to say that I am unable to
produce that book. I was compelled, of course, to leave it behind
when I was expelled; but on my return to Guatemala in the fall of
1890 I had it and used it in making up the account of the printing
done for the Government, which I gave to our minister, Mr. Mizner,
and I supposed that it was brought away in the confused mass of
books and papers which I hastily gathered together, boxed up, and
brought away from Guatemala. Whether in some way it got into the
mass of refuse books and papers which I sold as waste paper there,
or whether it has in some way been mislaid during the various
changes of my habitation and movings of my furniture since my
return, I am unable to say. I have made diligent search for it and
for other papers, in corroboration of my statements, but I have not
been able to find it.
I have, however, been able to find and I am ready to produce the
following original papers and documents in reference to the
foregoing items of work, which I state by numbers as follows:
- No. 1. I present a copy of the work itself, in black and
gold, for the inspection of the Department.
- No. 2. I present copies of the Eclectic Sillabary, and of
the Second Reader, and of the Compendium of History.
- I present also a receipt signed by S. Sta. Cruz, chief
clerk of the department and under the seal of the department
of public instruction,
[Page 790]
for the last 1,100 of 20,000 copies of
the Eclectic Sillabary, which were delivered in April, 1888,
a copy of which is annexed, marked Exhibit 5.
- No. 3. I present three copies of the document in question,
one printed in gold and the two others in different styles,
with the imprint of La Estrella.
- No. 4. I present a copy of the work as printed with the
imprint of La Estrella. It has on its face the coat of arms
of the Government, which is never allowed to be used except
on official documents. The electrotype of it was furnished
to me by the Government.
- No. 5. I present a copy of the work printed for the month
of July, 1888, with the translation.
- I present also the original copy sent me from which to
print, written on Government paper by Jorge Prado, the chief
clerk in the ministry of foreign affairs, and signed by him
with his rubric.
- I present also a receipt for 500 copies of it, signed by
Manuel Montufar, the undersecretary of foreign affairs, with
the seal of the department of foreign affairs. I annex a
copy, marked Exhibit 6.
- No. 6. I present a copy of the pamphlet with the imprint
of La Estrella.
- No. 7. I present a copy of the pamphlet for January 1,
1889, with the imprint of La Estrella.
- No. 8. I present a copy of the decree and the translation
with the imprint of La Estrella upon it.
- No. 9. I present a copy of the memorial with the imprint
of La Estrella.
- No. 10. I present a copy of the amendment with the imprint
of La Estrella.
- No. 11. I present a copy of the collection of circulars.
The title page is missing, but upon it was the imprint of La
Estrella.
- No. 12. As to this, I present a decree of February 2,
1886, awarding to me a subvention of $200 a month, and the
decree of April, putting an end to the subvention. And I
annex copies, marked Exhibits 7 and 8.
- No. 13. I present one number of La Democracia.
- No. 14. I present the two letters of the minister of the
interior, stating that the press was furnished to me and
used by me for the publication of El Dia, of which I annex
copies marked Exhibits 2 and 4.
- No. 15. The various bills included in this item of $327.25
are all of them taken from my ledger, which can be exhibited
if desired.
In addition to the above, as confirmatory of my statements in it as
to the amount of printing done by me for the Government, I beg leave
to refer also to the letter of Col. James B. Hosmer, who was
consul-general of our Government and secretary of legation in
Guatemala at the time, addressed to my counsel, E. D. Benedict,
esq., of which letter I attach a copy, marked Exhibit 9.
All of the above amounts, which together amount to $30,436.25, are
justly due me from the Government of Guatemala, together with
$11,835 interest thereon from May 12, 1889, the date of my
expulsion, amounting in all to $42,271.25.
And to the truth of the above averments I solemnly make oath.
United States of
America,
City, County, and State
of New York, ss:
I, John H. Hollander, being duly sworn, do depose and say that
the allegations of the foregoing statement by me subscribed are
true.
Sworn to before me this 8th day of November, 1895. Witness my
Land and official seal.
[
seal.]
Wm. B. Jones
Notary Public for Kings County, N
Y.
[Page 791]
Exhibit 1.
Affidavit of Charles Wellington Fitch.
State of
Connecticut,
City of Bridgeport,
County of Fairfield, ss:
Charles Wellington Fitch, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I have resided for more than ten years in Central America, and was in
the States of Guatemala and Salvador from the time of the arrival,
in January, 1885, of J. H. Hollander in Guatemala, up to the end of
January, 1889, and was during all that time intimately acquainted
with the said Hollander.
My present occupation is that of the practice of medicine (being a
graduate of Yale Medical College in 1874), at No. 151 Fairfield
avenue in this said city of Bridgeport. I was also acting assistant
surgeon in the United States Regular Army, at the time of my going
to Guatemala at the request of the late President J. R. Barrios, and
held respectively from him my commissions of lieutenant-colonel,
colonel, and acting surgeon-general of the Guatemalan army. I was on
the personal staff of General Barrios and also on the staff of the
present President, General Barillas, holding the position as chief
of staff under the latter for a considerable time, from April, 1885,
until the middle of 1887, when I accepted service under the
Government of Salvador, receiving my commission there as a
brigadier-general. I was chief of special service in Salvador, and
resigned my post to return to my home in New Haven, Conn., of which
State I am a native. I knew Mr. Hollander very well in Guatemala.
There was no one, either among the foreigners or natives in the
place, who was more universally liked and respected and received
more consideration from every one than Mr. Hollander; he was on most
intimate and friendly terms with President Barillas, who had
constant intercourse with him.
In my capacity as chief of the President’s staff, it was my duty to
permit or refuse audience to visitors to the President, according to
the orders of the latter, and one of my special orders was to admit
Mr. Hollander to the President’s presence at whatever hour of the
day or night he might call. And I know of repeated occasions when
Mr. Hollander has been specially sent for to be consulted by the
President of Guatemala, and have also been personally present when
President Barillas, upon the announcement that Mr. Hollander wished
to see him, has left his cabinet council to confer with Mr.
Hollander. I also have been present when the said President spoke of
Mr. Hollander, and it was always in the most glowing and friendly
terms. There was no change in this regard as long as I was in
Guatemala. In October and November, 1887, while in my capacity as
general in Salvador, and in the confidence of President Menendez, of
Salvador, I was personally present and know of my own personal
knowledge that Mr. Hollander visited the Republic of Salvador, sent
upon a very delicate diplomatic confidential mission by President
Barillas, in a matter where the latter was loath to confide in a
native of Guatemala. Mr. Hollander was there and then received with
every honor, both by the President of Salvador and by his cabinet;
and President Menendez, in speaking to me on more than one occasion
about Mr. Hollander, referred to him in only the highest terms of
praise, and said that Guatemala had done well in trusting the
mission to Mr. Hollander.
During my entire stay in Central America I never heard Mr.
Hollander’s character impeached in any way whatsoever; he had always
been regarded both by myself and everyone I knew there as one of the
men in that country who would not lend himself to do a mean or
dishonorable action. In 1887, as I personally know, Mr. Hollander
was mainly instrumental, both through his paper and personally, in
effecting an amicable arrangement with the British bondhonders and
the Government of Guatemala by effecting a recognition of
Guatemala’s debt to Great Britain, and thus avoiding a threatened
rupture between the two countries.
Mr. Hollander was also on very friendly terms with nearly everyone
connected with the Government of Guatemala.
I have repeatedly visited Mr. Hollander’s printing establishment in
Guatemala, and knew it very well during my stay in Guatemala, which
place I last visited at the end of January, 1889, shortly before Mr.
Hollander’s first arrest.
Mr. Hollander, during his sojourn in Salvador, there bought and
carried with him to Guatemala two “plants” of printing material,
consisting of several printing presses and type, etc., from printing
offices which were compelled to close from lack of business.
And besides the foregoing property, Mr. Hollander had other printing
machinery in Guatemala of his own, and when the whole property was
placed in working order, some little time after his return from San
Salvador, I considered it the finest private printing establishment
in all Central America, and as far as I could judge it was worth
from $50,000 to $60,000. Every description of work could be done,
and his machines were run by steam power.
[Page 792]
It is only quite recently that I learned of Mr. Hollander’s troubles
with Guatemala, and having communicated with his lawyer, Mr. Robert
D, Benedict, I make this statement because I desire to see justice
done.
Sworn to before me in Bridgeport, this 1st day of May, 1890.
[
seal.]
Stiles Judson, Jr.,
Notary Public.
Exhibit 2.
[Translation.]
Palace of the
Government,
Guatemala, May
24, 1388.
Mr. Anguiana to Mr. Hollander.
[Imprint of the Secretary of the Interior.]
Sr. Don J. H. Hollander,
Present:
You will please deliver to Sr. Don Juan Padilla M. the press, with
its corresponding accessories, belonging to the Government, and
which from the National Institute was delivered to you for the
printing of the newspaper El Dia.
I am, your obedient servant,
Exhibit 3.
Mr. Hollander to Mr. Anguiana.
Sr. Dr. Don Francisco
Anguiana,
Minister of the Interior,
Guatemala, present:
Sir: Under date of to-day I received the
attentive note of your department, which literally says as follows:
“You will please deliver to Sr. Don Juan Padilla M. the press, with
its corresponding accessories belonging to the Government, and which
from the National Institute was delivered to you for the printing of
the newspaper El Dia,” and in reply to it I have to say:
- First. That I have received no press from the National
Institute, but I have from the School of Arts and
Trades.
- Second. The press, to which the foregoing article refers,
was not given to me only for the printing of the newspaper
El Dia, but it was also given for such other uses which I
might have for it, in consideration of the services that I
have lent to the Government during the affair of the
reactionary party; and with the stipulation that I should
put the same in good order at my own expense, and that it
would remain in my possession with the intention of the
Government to give it to me as my property or to reimburse
me for the expenses of repairs which the press
needed.
- Third. I have spent nearly $600 in repairing the press,
placing new wheels, new rubbers, and other things, besides
having to replace several portions of said press that were
lacking.
- Fourth. I am constantly using the aforesaid press, and its
removal from my printing office will cause much injury to my
printing office.
- Fifth. And besides all that has been said, I have the
honor to remind the señor minister the words addressed by
your excellency to me last week relative to favoring my
printing office in all that was possible, whereas the
withdrawal of the said press will injure me
considerably.
For all that I have now said I hope that you will be pleased to
reconsider your letter of today, in view of what I have explained to
you.
I am, your excellency, your attentive and obedient servant,
[Page 793]
Exhibit 4.
[Translation.]
Palace
of the Government,
Guatemala, May
28, 1888.
Mr. Anguiana to Mr. Hollander.
[Imprint of the minister of the interior.]
Sr. Don J. H.
Hollander:
There has been given to you the order that you deliver to Sr. Don
Juan Padilla M. the press which, with its corresponding accessories,
belongs to the Government, and in the conception that it was no
longer of any use to you, as this office of the minister was
informed; but as this is not so, as you manifest in your note of the
24th instant, you can continue with it.
In order to avoid mistakes and difficulties which in the future might
arise, I manifest to you that the Government never has had the
intention to make you proprietor of the said press, but that it has
placed you in charge of the same to hold it on deposit and at its
order. You can use it as long as you like, but you should deliver it
immediately, and always when it (the Government) might require it,
to the person to whom the Government might send for it.
The expenses which you assure having made in improvements to the same
will not be credited to you, because nothing was agreed at the time
it was given to you; neither should you retain it for one moment in
your possession in order to reimburse yourself for such expenses
(repairs) when the order is given to return it.
With these elucidations you can, as I have already said in the
beginning, continue to make use of the aforesaid press until the
Government shall dispose otherwise, and I subscribe myself,
Your attentive and obedient servant,
Exhibit 5.
[Translation.]
Guatemala, April 7,
1888.
Sr. Director de la Imprenta de Estrella:
There have been received in this office of the minister 1,100 copies
of the Eclectic Sillabary, by Don Juan Ma. Vela, by which is
completed the quantity of 20,000.
S. Sta.
Cruz.
[Seal of the minister of public
instruction.]
Exhibit 6.
Received of La Estrella printing office 500 copies.
[Rubric]
[Secretary of state and of the office of foreign relations. Coat
of arms of the Republic of Guatemala, Central America.]
Exhibit 7.
[Translation.]
Guatemala, February 2,
1886.
Concessions to Mr. Hollander.
[Republic of Guatemala, office of the secretary of
public works, palace of executive power.]
The solicitation presented by Mr. J. H. Hollander asking certain
special favors for the paper owned by him, called La Estrella de
Guatemala, having been duly noted and believing it convenient to
authorize such concessions, the general in charge of the Presidency
decrees:
- First. The superintendent of telegraphs will communicate
with Mr. Hollander, without exacting any remunerative
therefor, the cables and news that he may receive.
- Second. The copies and special paper which may be sent to
the departments of the Republic or abroad shall be charged
no postage.
- Third. There is hereby conceded to the same paper the
subvention of two hundred dollars monthly which will be paid
by the national treasury.
- Fourth. Mr. Hollander will place at the disposal of the
Government two hundred copies of his paper during the time
such appears as a weekly sheet, reducing said number to one
hundred copies if he deems it convenient to publish his
paper daily with a weekly edition.
- Fifth. The concessions and privileges authorized by this
decree will cease whenever the Government deems it
convenient.
Let it be communicated.
Rubricated by the General President. Herrera (minister of public
works.) Stamp of the office of the Government and justice. Republic
of Guatemala, C. A.
Exhibit 8.
[Translation.]
Government Palace,
Guatemala, April 26, 1889.
Mr. J. H. Hollander, present:
Yesterday the following decree was issued, saying: “Owing to the
difficulty and circumstances of the national treasury, the President
of the Republic decrees that the effects of the Government decree of
the 6th of July last, relative to taking subscriptions of the
newspaper of this capital, called the La Estrella de Guatemala and
Guatemala Star, do hereby cease. Let it be communicated. Rubricated
by the President. Anguiana.”
I am, your obedient servant,
Exhibit 9.
New
York, September 16,
1895.
Mr. Hosmer to Mr. Benedict.
Robert D. Benedict, Esq.,
Counsellor at Law.
My Dear Sir: Referring to our interview
this morning in relation to Mr. Hollander’s claim against the
Guatemalan Government for printing in behalf of that Government, I
beg leave to say that during my official connection with Guatemala
as one of the representatives of our Government, I frequently
visited the printing establishment of Mr. Hollander, and remember to
have seen there a large mass of printed matter which related to the
educational branch of its Government.
Mr. Hollander informed me on more than one occasion that the
Guatemalan Government had employed his services in that connection,
and that a considerable sum of money was due to him for such
services rendered.
This printed matter covered a variety of subjects, some of which were
in leaves for binding in book form, and some, as near as I can
remember, were apparently official documents emanating from that
Government.
Should it be required, I am ready and willing to make an affidavit as
to the above statements.
I am, dear sir, yours, faithfully,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
263.]
Mr. Benedict to
Mr. Olney.
New
York, January 3,
1896.
Since my interview with Mr. Faison, Solicitor of the Department? on
the 16th of December, in reference to the claim of John H. Hollander
against Guatemala, my attention has been called to the decree of the
President of Guatemala, No. 491, in relation to the status of
foreigners in Guatemala, published in Foreign Relations of the
United States for 1894, on pages 317 to 331.
This appears to be only an Executive decree, and not a law passed by
the legislative department of Guatemala, and, as a matter of course,
[Page 795]
it can have no binding
effect in relation to the case of Mr. Hollander, which occurred five
years before the adoption of the decree. But, nevertheless, there
are various portions of that decree to which I beg leave to call the
attention of the Department, for it may well be considered as being
an Executive declaration by the Government of Guatemala as to what
ought to be the rights of foreigners and their status in Guatemala,
and as such it throws a reflected light upon the action of that
Government in Mr. Hollander’s case.
T beg leave to point out some of the articles of this decree 491,
commenting upon them as I proceed, with reference to their bearing
upon Mr. Hollander’s case.
Title 2, article 9: Foreigners in Guatemala may be (1) residents
or domiciled persons, (2) nonresidents or sojourners, and (3)
immigrants.
Mr. Hollander, at the time of his expulsion, had been resident and
domiciled in Guatemala for several years.
Title 2, article 12: The law recognizes no difference between a
Guatemalan and a foreigner, as regards the acquisition and
enjoyment of civil rights.
Under this provision, it is plain that the civil rights of a
Guatemalan, under the constitution of Guatemala, and the civil
rights of a foreigner should be the same. And there is no question
that under the constitution of Guatemala no such action could be
taken by the Government against a Guatemalan as was taken against
Mr. Hollander.
Title 4, article 43: Foreigners residing in Guatemala as
domiciled persons or sojourners shall have their rights
guaranteed, to the security and protection of their persons,
property, dwellings, and correspondence, in the same manner as
native citizens. * * * To have justice administered to them by
the courts and authorities in such cases and in such ways as are
provided for by the laws which define the competency of the said
courts and authorities.
Under the first of the above provisions, Mr. Hollander would have had
the same right to the security and protection of his person and his
property as a native Guatemalan citizen; but, as has been above
stated, no native Guatemalan citizen could have been treated as Mr.
Hollander was, under the constitution of Guatemala. Moreover, Mr.
Hollander did not have justice administered to him by the courts in
such ways as were provided for by the laws. In proof of this, allow
me to recall to the attention of the Department dispatch No. 970 of
Mr. Hosmer, our chargé d’affaires in Guatemala, dated in Guatemala
on the 18th of May, 1889, in which it was stated that Mr. Hollander
was detained in jail for eighteen days before the bail he had
offered at the time of his arrest was accepted; that he was
afterwards again arrested by two policemen, without their showing
any warrant for his arrest; that Mr. Hosmer 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 (whereas it was a matter of right under the
constitution of Guatemala); that Mr. Hollander was removed from the
jail to the penitentiary; that new bail was offered, including an
offer to deposit a sum of money equal to the amount of bail, and
that “although the law distinctly permits it, bail was refused,” and
the judge informed Mr. Hosmer 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.
For further particulars as to unlawful proceedings taken in Mr.
Hollander’s case, I beg leave to refer to his own memorial, sworn to
on June 18, 1889, and on file in the records of the State
Department.
[Page 796]
It can not be pretended that these proceedings against Mr. Hollander
were the administration of justice to him by the courts in such ways
as are provided for by the laws of Guatemala.
Title 5, article 47: Foreigners shall enjoy in Guatemala all the
civil rights that the laws grant to Guatemalans.
Here is another statement under which it is plain that the rights of
Mr. Hollander were violated by the Government of Guatemala, for,
under the constitution of Guatemala, no citizen of Guatemala could
be lawfully either treated as Mr. Hollander was by the courts of
Guatemala or expelled from Guatemala by its Government as he
was.
Title 6, article 72: There is a denial of justice * * * when any
law has clearly and undoubtedly been violated, and, legal means
of redress having been exhausted, it has not been possible to
secure a reversal of the decision or reparation of the damage
done.
As I have before stated, the law of Guatemala was clearly violated in
the proceedings taken against Mr. Hollander, and all legal means of
redress were exhausted, or rather prevented, by the expulsion of Mr.
Hollander from the country. And it has not been possible as yet to
secure a reversal of the decision or reparation of the damage
done.
Title 8, article 96: The Government exercises over foreigners all
the rights of inspection and vigilance which belong to it
according to the laws and police regulations, which foreigners,
without exception, are required to obey.
So should any right of inspection and vigilance over Mr. Hollander
have been exercised “according to the laws and police regulations;”
but the proceedings against Mr. Hollander were not in conformity to
those laws.
It is not pretended that Mr. Hollander ever refused to obey the laws
of Guatemala.
Article 97: If foreigners who have taken refuge in Guatemala
shall (misusing the right of asylum) conspire against the
country or endeavor to overthrow or modify its institutions, or
to disturb in any way the public tranquillity or peace of a
friendly nation, the Government may order their expulsion from
the national territory.
This article has no application whatever to Mr. Hollander’s case, for
he was not a foreigner who had taken refuge in Guatemala. But there
is no pretense that any act of Mr. Hollander was such as is
forbidden by this article.
Article 99: A foreigner temporarily residing in the country, or
an immigrant who endangers public tranquillity by his conduct,
or who has been prosecuted for or convicted in any country of
one of the crimes for which extradition is granted, may be
compelled by the Government to leave a determinate place, or to
reside in such place as may be assigned to him, or finally to
leave the Republic.
Mr. Hollander was a foreigner temporarily residing in the country” of
Guatemala, but it is not pretended that in any way his conduct in
the slightest degree endangered public tranquillity. Eo suggestion
of that kind is contained in the decree of his expulsion.
Article 106: The person whom the order of expulsion concerns
shall in all cases be notified thereof, and at least twenty-four
hours shall be allowed him in which to obey it.
The matter is small, but as characterizing the action of the
Government in his case, you will note that while the decree for Mr.
Hollander’s expulsion was only communicated to him on the night
before he was taken from Guatemala, he was, as stated by Mr. Hosmer
in his letter before referred to, taken from the city of Guatemala
at 3 o’clock a.m., on the following morning.
[Page 797]
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.”
[Page 798]
Mr. Young states that he went to the minister of war, who accompanied
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.
[Page 799]
[Inclosure 4 in No.
263.]
Mr. Darr to Mr.
Benedict.
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,