Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1912

File No. 738.3915/115.]

The Dominican Minister to the Secretary of State.

[Translation.]

Dominican Legation,
Washington, June 12, 1912.

Sir: In August, 1910, the Dominican Government, for the purpose of facilitating the transit of its frontier guards, started to open up a road connecting the mouth of the Pedernales River with the Laguna del Fondo. The work of construction of said road was carried out along the entire length of the eastern banks of the Pedernales River—that is to say, on territory belonging to the Dominican Republic and never controlled by Haitian authorities—without any protest being heard from Haiti for over four months.

It was during the month of December—at which time there had already been opened up about 48 kilometers of the road—that the Haitian Government, alleging that the Dominican Government was invading its territory, sent a large force of soldiers to prevent the continuation of the work.¹ These Haitian troops occupied Cabeza de Agua, a small place to the east of the Pedernales River, by which it is separated from the Haitian village of Tête-à-l’Eau. They also occupied the village of Corte Español, which the Haitians call Coupe Espagnol, also on the eastern banks of the Pedernales River, which separates it from the Haitian village called Banane. At those places they struck the Dominican flag and hoisted the Haitian colors instead; they ordered the Dominican laborers to suspend work, and objected to the transit of Dominican frontier guards over the new road.

As soon as these events became known to the Dominican Government, a detachment of regular troops, under General Alfredo Victoria, was sent under orders to oust the Haitian troops from the eastern banks of the Pedernales River and protect the continuation of the work on the road. Upon the arrival of those troops, the Haitian soldiers abandoned the Dominican position they had occupied, which were thus taken without one single shot from General Victoria’s forces.

Since then the work has been renewed, and the Dominican guards entrusted with the prevention of frontier smuggling were enabled to pass freely.

On this account, the Haitian Government requested the Dominican Government to withdraw its troops because the Haitian soldiers had already withdrawn, and to suspend the work on the road; it proposed that there be sent to the place where the referred-to events had occurred a Dominican-Haitian mixed commission for the purpose of ascertaining whether the road under construction came or did not come within Haitian territory;² and that the general boundary question be submitted to arbitration.³ At the same time it requested the United States Government to interpose its good offices in order that a speedy and peaceful solution of the controversy might be reached.

To the request and proposal of the Haitian Government the Dominican Government answered:

(1) Ordering the withdrawal of its forces in view of the fact that the Haitian troops had been withdrawn, but leaving in their former positions on the eastern banks of the Pedernales River the frontier guard charged with the prevention of smuggling and the protection of the works on the road;

(2) Sending to Pedernales to join a Haitian commission, awaiting it in Anses-à-Pitre, a Dominican commission provided with powers to constitute, with the former, a mixed commission that, going over the road under construction, should ascertain whether or not the the same passed through Haitian territory crossing the Pedernales River; and

(3) Signifying its willingness, on general principles, to accept the idea of submitting to arbitration the general boundary controversy.

The mixed commission was unable to perform its duty because, as they themselves confessed, the secret instructions issued to the Haitian Commissioners by their Government forbade them to act.

Under dates of January 24 and 26, 1911, the Honorable W. W. Russell, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in Santo Domingo, informed the Dominican Government¹ that:

In compliance with the express wishes of the Haitian Government, and in its earnest desire that peace be maintained and that settlement both just and honorable may be reached in the present controversy between said Republics, the Government of the United States hastens to offer its good offices to that end; the Government of the United States thinks that the two Governments should come together and conclude an agreement for a speedy settlment of the question under the essential conditions that have been accepted by both; and that mean while the status quo should be maintained, the troops withdrawn from the frontier, and the works on the road discontinued until the question shall have been definitely settled.

On January 26 and 27, 1911, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic answered Mr. Russell as follows,² in substance: That the Dominican Government sent soldiers to the southern frontier merely because the Haitian Government had placed strong detachments of troops in the same section of the country with the ostensible purpose of preventing the continuation of the work on a road that the Dominican Government is opening up in territory over which its jurisdiction is indisputable, in order to facilitate the transit of its guards for the prevention of smuggling; but that as the Haitian Government withdrew its soldiers and reported this action to the above-mentioned Secretary through the medium of its Minister in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Government issued orders for the recall of its troops; that, placing the utmost faith on the representations of cordiality, and eagerness for peace, recently made by the Haitian Government, and upon the invitation of that very Government, the Dominican Government accepted, on general principles, the submission of the whole boundary question to arbitration; that, considering the relations of unalterable friendship that have always bound the Dominican people with the people of the United States and the spirit of fairness that has always in similar cases guided the conduct of the great Republic, from the good offices offered nothing can be derived but a suitable and lasting settlement between the two countries which share the domain of the Island; that on this consideration the Dominican Government accepted those good offices, with no reservations except those arising from the limited powers with which it is vested by the Constitution, within which limitations the Government would make all possible efforts to find a final solution for the vexatious problem of its boundary questions; that since, through the valuable offer of the United States Government’s good offices, the boundary differences seemed to near a speedy solution, the Dominican Government agreed very willingly to suspend the work on the road during a period sufficient for the rendering of an arbitral award, because, bearing in mind the great injury that the unsettled condition of the boundary question causes to the Dominican Republic, its Government would be compelled to resume the said work if, for any cause attributable to the Haitian Government, the definite settlement should be delayed; and finally, that the status-quo implied the domain and control by the Dominican Republic over the territory situated on the eastern banks of the Pedernales river.

In accordance with the last statement, which has never been disputed, the Dominican Government, on withdrawing its troops, stationed at various points on the eastern bank of the Pedernales river its frontier guards charged with the prevention of smuggling, with posts at Boca de Pedernales, Corte Español, Cabeza de Agua, and the lower section of Federico, opposite Bois d’Homme, which guards had, until November, 1911, been constantly patrolling that bank along the road recently constructed, without any opposition from the Haitian Government.

In November, 1911, at the time of President Cáceres tragic death,¹ the detachments of guards stationed at Corte Español, Fuerte Victoria in Cabeza de Agua, and Federico, gathered together at Boca de Pedernales, and the detachments stationed at Las Guásimas, Bois Tombé, El Número, and Agua Dulce, gathered at Jimani, near Laguna del Fondo, their Chief believing that such concentrations would be sufficient to pursue the assassins.

As soon as the Haitians found our posts abandoned they took possession of them² and hoisted at the above-mentioned points their own flag on the very poles that flew our colors; the Haitians even went so far as to destroy the Dominican barracks of Las Guásimas and Bois Tombé, and with the materials taken therefrom they built two cabins for their own troops further to the east near El Limon; they billeted soldiers in the house of a Dominican citizen near Jimani, and they stationed a heavy guard on a hill opposite La Florida, and at El Naranjo, a place on the road from La Florida to Puerto Escondido.

The occupation by Haitian troops of the first points, was done under pretext of maintaining order and of cooperation in the arrest of the murderers of President Cáceres; but the occupation of the latter points was accomplished without reason or pretext, and with an abundance of violent acts against the property of the Dominican inhabitants of those places, as the Haitians killed cattle and swine belonging to Dominican farmers in those sections.

On January 3 of the current year, and in answer to a communication dated December 23, 1911, from the Dominican Minister in Port-au-Prince, requesting the evacuation of the Dominican territories recently occupied by Haitian forces, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Haiti made the following statement:

“I beg to confirm what I previously had the honor of stating to you, to-wit: That we have not in effect established any posts in any portion of the Dominican Territory. Tête-à-l’Eau, Bois Tombé, Bois d’Orme have always been considered Haitian possessions, as proved by the map of de Moya, officially adopted by the Dominican Republic. The Haitian Government has therefore the indisputable right to occupy said points; and on this matter, at least so I believe, there can be no possible misunderstanding.”

To these evasive statements, tending to produce confusion in facts and names, and to infer from de Moya’s map juridical consequences which it cannot have, and containing the confession that the occupation of the places at issue was effected by the Haitians after the offer of the good offices of the United States Department of State, the Dominican Minister in Port-au-Prince answered by a note dated January 15, last. This note explained with perfect clearness the facts and names which were misrepresented by the Haitian Foreign Office; it showed how exaggerated and erroneous is the importance attached by the Haitian Government to the Map of de Moya, which, aside from containing errors as to the position and names of certain places, does not and can not show boundaries that no convention or arbitration has fixed, and merely indicates by means of an arbitrary line the extent of the Dominican territory wherein some Haitian families have established themselves, with absolute omission of all indications as to its occupation by Haitian forces or authorities; and, finally, the note showed that the attitude of the Haitian Government “is not in keeping with the spirit of the last status-quo, a preliminary necessary for the negotiations that are to be undertaken in Washington.”

This note was answered in February last, by the Haitian Secretary of State, Mr. Léger, in these terms:

Mr. Minister: I have not failed to give my best attention to the note with which yon have honored me under date of January 15, last, concerning some neighboring points in our frontiers, in which, according to your Government, Haitian posts have been unduly established. It is gratifying for me to thank you for the information you have been so kind as to convey to me. From said information there is inferred what I already supposed, to-wit, that different places have frequently the same name, which naturally contribute to produce confusion and lead to the belief that Haitian posts are occupying Dominican territory, when in reality said posts are established in places which have never ceased to be Haitian possessions. My Government’s attitude during the last incident at Pedernales in January, 1911, was caused only by the attempt to open a road and maintain Dominican posts in Haitian territory. The status-quo agreed to at that time can mean only reestablishment of the state of affairs existing before the incident. On the other hand, there is nothing in the present situation that could cause the slightest interruption in the excellent and cordial relations that happily exist between our countries. And I cherish the profound conviction that these relations could not but be made closer and closer by the speedy settlement of the boundary question. Thus believing, my Government has unhesitatingly given its representatives in Washington the necessary powers to reach this happy result. It gratifies me to hope that I will soon be informed that the Dominican Republic has authorized its agent in the United States to renew the negotiations that were suspended through unforeseen circumstances.

It is not necessary, for the purpose of this statement, to present now the various proofs my Government possesses, that the places Haiti has occupied since November, 1911, to the east of the above-mentioned line, have never ceased to belong to the Dominican Republic and were never owned by the Haitian Government. To show how groundless is the assertion of the Haitian Secretary of Foreign Affairs that said places “have never ceased to be Haitian possessions” is a matter proper to a fundamental discussion, which the North-American Government does not need to hear in order to form an exact opinion of the points of fact and law which interest it in its capacity as Mediator.

But it is absolutely necessary to point out two most important circumstances originated by the above-mentioned note from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Haiti:

First circumstance. The note referred to does not deny, but on the contrary implicitly and explicitly acknowledges the fact that at the time when the United States Government tendered its good offices the Dominicans were occupying the points to the east of the line from Laguna del Fondo to the mouth of the Pedernales river, which the Haitians have been gradually invading since November, 1911. The tacit acknowledgment is contained in the evasive and roundabout way in which it pretends to attribute to the similarity of names of different places the motive of the last Dominican complaint. The explicit confession is contained in the paragraph that says: “My Government’s attitude during the last incident at Pedernales in January, 1911, was caused only by the attempt to open a road and maintain Dominican posts in Haitian territory.” It was not indeed possible to deny the Dominican jurisdiction over that region in January, 1911, when the offer was made of the good offices of the United States Government; because one single material fact, the construction of a road which still exists, for 48 kilometers along the eastern bank of the Pedernales river, without the Haitian Government knowing anything about it during the long period of over four months, on which a large number of laborers worked, is a fact which by itself is incontrovertible evidence that Haiti had not to the east of the Pedernales river any authorities that could have objected to or opposed the said work of construction; that it did not enjoy the possession of said territory; and that because it sought possession without being entitled thereto, its Government provoked the conflict that originated the friendly mediation of the United States Government.

Second circumstance. For the purpose of explaining the violation by the Haitian Government since November, 1911, of the status quo agreed to in January, 1911, thanks to the good offices of the North American Government, the above quoted note from the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs states that “the status quo agreed to at that time can mean only reestablishment of the state of affairs existing before the incident”. The Dominican Republic can show that before the time of the incident the possessions of the two Republics on the southern part of their boundaries were the same that they had been at the time in which the meditation was offered, and that therefore there never was a status quo, previous to the incident, which established possessions other than those known to the Mediator. The Dominican Republic, therefore, is not afraid of the scarecrow of the previous status quo; but in order to clear the way of all that may obstruct it, the Dominican Government states that, even if the alleged previous status quo had existed, such an assertion as that of the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs would be absolutely indefensible, and the status quo agreed to in January, 1911, could mean only the maintenance of the possessions held by the two adjoining Republics at the time when the United States tendered its good offices; for the following reasons:

1st. Because it was impossible for the United States to propose and secure the acceptance of a previous status quo, since it was unknown to the American Government, besides being made uncertain and confused by the dissenting allegations of the contending parties, and impossible to define without a minute study and a careful investigation, which should be undertaken by a judge and not by a mediator. The status quo agreed to at the time of the mediation has a line, drawn by Nature and which can not be effaced—the Pedernales River; and a conventional, historical line, which likewise can not be effaced—the line fixed by the Treaty of Aranjuez—running between Laguna del Fondo and the Pedernales river, susceptible at all times of being reproduced on the ground itself. With such characteristics, and further evidenced by the presence of Dominican soldiers, during the incident, on all the eastern side of Pedernales river and in Las Guásimas, Bois Tombé, EI Número and Agua Dulce; and of the frontier guards, before and after the incident, that status quo line will always be locatable at any time and the respective possessions demarcable on any map. On the other hand, could anybody have convinced the Mediator—with the urgency required by the strained relations between the adjacent countries—as to which were the respective status quo possessions previous to the incident, in case they were different from those that existed at the time of the mediation; as to which was the line separating them; as to when the instant came in which such alleged previous status quo acquired the proportions of a juridical fact worthy of consideration?

2nd. Because if, upon the acceptance of a status quo, either by the determination of a previous date, or by the expression “previous status quo,” it is not clear that the parties understand that it refers, as regards the possession of territories, to a past state of affairs, it will be logical to conclude that the parties meant that the status quo should be respected from the moment in which it was agreed to. And if this is so when the insufficiency of written expressions providing for a status quo does not throw the light necessary for ascertaining the purpose that the contending parties had in mind, it is more reasonably so when, as in the case of the status quo accepted by Dominicans and Haitians in 1911, the written expressions and the acts committed at that time do not leave room for doubt. The note No. 37, that the Dominican Minister for Foreign Affairs, under date of January 27, 1911, addressed to the Honorable William W. Russell, United States Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, reads thus, as regards the status quo: “Finally, I wish to explain to your excellency that the status quo also implies the jurisdiction and control of the Dominican Republic over the territory situated on the eastern bank of the Pedernales river.” And this declaration—which was accepted without discussion by the Mediator and for his purposes, therefore, defines the status quo in relation to the possession of territories—was fully agreed to by the Haitians, who consented, without protest, that the Dominican Government, upon withdrawing its troops, might leave a body of its frontier guards to maintain its jurisdiction over the region under dispute. The Haitians did not invoke their alleged right to said region until after ten months had elapsed, on the occasion of the disturbances produced among the Dominicans by the assassination of President Cáceres, and under pretext that their only aim in occupying said territory was that of cooperating in the capture of the authors of the crime, even though subsequent facts have shown that some of those criminals were not captured precisely because they found easy and comfortable shelter in the Republic of Haiti.

In the second conference [of the plenipotentiaries at Washington], held on April 30th last, with Mr. Solon Menos, and which was attended by Mr. W. T. S. Doyle in your behalf, I had the honor to state, in the name of the Dominican Republic, that since we are now merely resuming the negotiations initiated on April 27, 1911,¹ through the good offices of the United States, it seemed essential—in order not to impair said good offices, and for the purpose of establishing a precedent of respecting the status quo which, through the same good offices, was agreed to by the two Republics last January—that it should be previously recognized that it was necessary for the Haitian Government to evacuate the territories which it has been gradually occupying since November last, to the east of the line which, from the mouth of the Pedernales River to the Laguna del Fondo, separated the possessions held by the two Republics at the time when the status quo was stipulated, and which was being maintained by both when, about the middle of the same year, the aforesaid negotiations were suspended.

The honorable Haitian plenipotentiary did not deny the fact of the occupation to which I allude; but he alleged that the point raised by the Dominican plenipotentiary might have been made the subject of a different negotiation, for which each plenipotentiary should previously apply to his Government for instructions; also that such a point should not be made the subject of a motion the sustaining of which could have no other effect than to delay the solution of the general boundary question; and finally that the plenipotentiaries had met to draft and conclude a protocol of arbitration, and would deviate from their mission if they should subordinate such protocol to the discussion of a point the solution of which—implying an agreement on the meaning and scope of the status quo and an impartial and minute verification of the facts relating to the alleged occupation or reoccupation—might not be reached until after a considerable lapse of time, while it is to the interest of both countries to come as soon as possible within arbitral jurisdiction.

The Dominican plenipotentiary is not in accord with these views of the Haitian plenipotentiary, for the following reasons:

1st, because he believes that, since both plenipotentiaries are provided with sufficient powers to negotiate, conclude and sign any treaty, convention, act or agreement that may be considered necessary for the submission to arbitration of the boundary question, both are empowered to agree to reestablish the state of affairs that existed when the negotiations of 1911 were suspended; and he further believes that such a reestablishment is necessary in order that neither contracting party may fear that the other will change its position before the final award shall have been made.

2d, because he considers it essential to the efficacy of the good offices of the United States that Haiti abandon the territory it has occupied since November, 1911. Otherwise, should both contending parties become convinced that it would be possible for them, without affecting the Mediator, to change the positions that each held at the beginning of the mediation, and should the party bent upon acquiring new possessions by all possible means profit thereby, at least for the period prior to the final award, its eagerness to encroach upon the territory of the other would provoke unavoidable conflicts.

3d, because he is convinced that the abandonment by Haiti of the territory it has occupied since November, 1911, is a question that should be settled prior to the signing of the treaty, convention, act or agreement submitting to arbitration the boundary question; for it is obvious that if such a document should be signed before such evacuation, the Haitian Government might feel inclined to delay its ratification as a means of securing additional opportunities to continue enlarging that Government’s unsanctioned occupation.

In view of the above reasons, and accepting the suggestion made by Mr. W. T. S. Doyle at the session of April 30th last, I have the honor to request that your excellency, by virtue of the implicit attributes of the Government of the great North American nation in its capacity as friendly Mediator, cause appropriate representations to be made to the Haitian Government in order to secure its abandonment of the territories it has occupied since November, 1911.

Accept [etc.]

Fran’co J. Peynado.

Note. Accompanying the above note are six inclosures, and translations of them, not here printed. They are: three letters from the Dominican Minister to Haiti to the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated Dec. 18, 1911; Dec. 23, 1911; Jan. 15, 1912; two letters from the latter to the former, dated Jan. 3, 1912, and Feb. 3, 1912; and a report by the engineer A. Buonpensiere to the Dominican Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated March 13, 1912.

1. See For. Rel. 1911, p. 151.
2. See For. Rel. 1911, p. 152.
3. See For. Rel. 1911, pp. 153–155.
1. See For. Rel. 1911, pp. 154, 155.
2. See For. Rel. 1911, pp. 156–157.
1. See For. Rel. 1911, p. 174.
2. See For. Rel. 1911, p. 166.
1. For. Relations 1911, p. 162.