Office of the Historian

838.00/2375: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Haiti (Gross)

Washington, August 23, 1927—6 p.m.

61. Your 97, August 18, 1 p.m. Department does not understand your question. As stated in No. 60, the Department cannot withdraw its objection to the suppression of Article 99. This prevents the legislature from passing upon the constitutionality of the laws but does not prevent it from passing any law containing explanation or interpretations when it may please to do so. It does not seem necessary to expressly provide for this right in the Constitution and to do so may cause confusion.

Your despatch 1054, August 1, 1927.16 To summarize: The Department has no objection to the extra amendment proposed by the Council of State to Article 36 of the Constitution but would point out that it now being proposed that the Presidential term shall be extended to 6 years it would seem preferable to leave the term of senators unchanged. Also it is possible to provide for renewal by one-third every 2 years with a 6 year term. The Department does object to part 4 of the new amendment proposed by the Council of State to Article 42 of the Constitution as stated in the Department’s 46, of July 18. The Department approves the text as submitted in your despatch of amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and amendment 12 if the term is changed to 10 years.

  • Amendment 5. See objections contained in Department’s 46 of July 18.
  • Amendment 6. The Department hopes that the President will see fit to accept the text as suggested in the Department’s 60 of August 16. Additional paragraphs should be discarded. The Department considers that Article 77 of the Constitution takes care in the best possible way of the emergency created by a vacancy in the Presidential chair.
  • Amendment 8. Please follow the Department’s suggestions contained in Nov 60 of August 16 and submit final text to the Department by cable.
  • Amendment 9. Department cannot approve this amendment for the reasons stated in its No. 46.

As stated above and in the Department’s No. 46 the Department is firmly convinced that neither Article 77 nor 99 of the Constitution should be suppressed. The Department has consented to the suppression of Article 95. See Department’s 60. The Department does not object to the suppression of Article 119 since this appears to be covered by amendment 11.

Kellogg
  1. Not printed.↩