As a natural consequence of the uncovering of the Haitian situation the apologists have become active advancing various defenses and various justifications for what the United States government has done there. Underlying these various defenses and justifications there is an idea which is almost universally accepted, an idea which colors them all, and it is this - that the Haitians are inately unfit to govern themselves; that they have had a chance and miserably failed. So when the average American hears about wrongs and atrocities committed upon them he shrugs his shoulders, at least mentally, and says, "Well, it is too bad, but if after all these people cannot govern themselves, then somebody else must do it for them, and logically we are the ones." This is the attitude of the average American and when an attitude like this is taken, such things as the seizure and overthrow of a neighboring and friendly republic, tortures and atrocities, the killing of several thousand men, and the rape of women and girls, appear as mere minor incidents in the great benevolent scheme of things.

The charge of inate unfitness for self government brought against the Haitians embraces accusations ranging all the way from illiteracy to cannibalism. Only a few days ago New York papers carried a dispatch stating that a Haitian named Cadus Belgarde, convicted by a military commission last February of cannibalism in connection with the sacrifice of a girl's life in a voodoo performance, was released on order from the United States Navy Department. It was on this Belgarde case that a new impetus was given to the old propaganda of cannibalistic voodooism in Haiti. I have good reasons to doubt that any of it was true. But even if it were, - Here I am reminded of an observation made to me on this point by my friend, Mr. Herbert

- 2 -

J. Seligmann. Regarding the dispatch about Belgarde's release, Mr. Seligmann propounded to me the following question, - which is worse, to eat a human being without cooking him, as is alleged to be the custom in Haiti, or to cook a human being without eating him, as we know to be a custom in Mississippi. I answered that I considered the utilitarian motive connected with the Haitian custom made it less reprehensible.

The reports of the inate unfitness of Haitians for self-government and self-development emanate not from a thorough study but from a superficial observation of the Haitian people. The writer or the traveller who goes to Haiti for "copy" is naturally attracted by what is colorful, by what is exotic and bizarre. So, for instance, when he reaches Port-au-Prince he stops around the waterfront, in the market, in the dingy shops along the Rue d'la Republique, and in the market places where little children of both sexes run around with scanty or no clothing and the merchant women are jabbering away, and there unlimbers his kodak and his notebook and gets the material for his article or his book on Haiti. By this same method any writer can prove any country or people to be whatever he wishes to prove them. A writer could come to New York City and by writing nothing but the truth, by clipping the press with its daily accounts of hold-ups on the public streets, frequent murders, many of which remain mysteries of graft and bribery in the most high places, of violence, mob, flaunting of courts, burning of human beings alive, and could write a story, true in all of its particulars, proving that life and property were not safe in New York and that the United States was not a civilized country.

- 3 -

I could take up the points one by one which are habitually put forward to prove the innate inferiority of the Haitians and of all other peoples who are the actual or contemplated victims of economic exploitation and show that it is all a matter of relativity. Somebody goes down to Haiti and because he finds it is different from New England or the Middle West he at once concludes that it is inferior. He sees the rural Haitian, for example, living in those cùriously built cabins with their whitewashed or tinted walls and their thatched roofs, so well adapted to the needs of the Haitian, and our observer concludes that the Haitian is inferior because he does not live in a painted, board cottage with a tin roof and a mortgage on it. Or he sees the rustic Haitian going barefoot and often hatless, and our observer concludes that he would be far superior if he could be induced to purchase cheap American patent leather shoes and derby hats. But I have not the space to take up these points, as important as they are and as interesting as they might be.

When the facts of the investigation which I made were published, Secretary Daniels of the Navy and Secretary Colby of the Department of State at once sprang to the defense of the government. Secretary Daniels, who is a most exuberant person, so prone to indulge in characteristic, old fashioned southern bombast, indignantly denied that there was any truth in the statement that more than three thousand Haitians had been killed by American marines, and he declared that the statement was a reflection and a libel on the Marine Corps and therefore an attack on American civilization. He ordered a report to be made by General LeJuene to cover the period of General LeJuene's command of the Marine Corps. General LeJuene made a report which was a complete whitewash, but his report was without

- 4 -

value under any consideration because the period of his command of
the Marine Corps dated back only to June 30 of the present year.

Later General Barnett's report came out and more than
substantiated the charges that had been made. General Barnett's
period of command over the Marines extended over the greater portion
of the American Occupation. Secretary Daniels was again shocked by
the Barnett report. The mathematicians in the Navy Department have
since been busy shaving down the 3,250 "indiscriminate killings"
given in this report, but with all the shaving down the number is
still in the thousands; and as the mortalities among the American
marines cannot be increased above thirteen, the discrepancy between
the number of dead Haitians and dead Americans still presents a dis-
concerting contrast.

While Secretary Daniels' defense was rhetorical, Secretary
Colby's defense was misleading. Secretary Colby in a formal state-
ment set up that we went in on Haiti's invitation; he set up the po-
sition of Haiti with her foreign creditors: the eminent danger of
the seizure of the black republic by some European power; the landing
of French troops prior to the landing of American forces. He also
dwelt upon the benevolent intentions of the United States and denounced
the whole expose as a political campaign manoeuvre.

We did not go in by invitation. Haiti resisted to the limit
of her powers. Of course, there is a so-called treaty which was rati-
fied by both governments, but it must be remembered that Haiti signed
literally at the point of a pistol. While this treaty which was rat-
ified September 16, 1915, was being negotiated, President Dartiguenave
issued a proclamation, the first and last paragraphs of which read as
follows:

- 5 -

"Haitians! At the very moment when the Government, engaged in negotiations to settle the question of the presence of American military forces on Haitian territory, was looking forward to a prompt solution in accordance with law and justice, it finds itself faced with the simple seizure of possession of the customs administration of the capital."

"Haitians! In this agonizing situation, more than tragic for every truly Haitian soul, the Government, which intends to preserve full national sovereignty, will be able to maintain the necessary resolution only if all are united in exercising their intelligence and energy with it in the present task of saving the nation."

As to Haiti's position with her creditors, the fact is that in all her 116 years of national independence she never defaulted in any payment of her foreign debt until after and during the American Occupation.

The implication that there was danger of seizure of the black republic by some European power is absurd. The United States intervened in Haiti in July, 1915. We can remember how busy Germany, England, France and Italy were at that particular time- too busy to bother with anything on this side of the Atlantic. When Mr. Colby stated that the French government had already landed troops in Haiti, it was either through ignorance or an attempt to deceive the American public. A few hours prior to the landing of American forces a French gunboat at Port-au-Prince landed eight sailors as a legation guard. The landing of legation guards by the great powers when there is any disturbance ashore in the republic around the Caribbean has come to be accepted as international law although it has no foundation other than that these countries cannot prevent it.

The fact is that nearly a year before forcible intervention on the part of the United States, this government was seeking to compel Haiti to submit to peaceable

- 6 -

intervention. Towards the close of 1914 the United States notified the government of Haiti that it was disposed to recognize the newly elected President, Theodore Davilmar, as soon as the Haitian government would sign "satisfactory protocols" relative to a convention with the United States on the model of the one between the United States and Santo Domingo. The Haitian government refused to consider the proposition. Shortly afterwards this government sent to Haiti the Ford Mission for the purpose of negotiating the convention. The Haitian government declined to discuss the matter with the Ford Mission because that Mission did not have the proper powers. Finally, in May the United States sent to Haiti the Fuller Mission with full powers and with instructions to recognize the Haitian government when an acceptable convention was agreed upon. This convention was being discussed by the two governments through an interchange of diplomatic communications when there occurred the coup d'état which overthrew President Guillaume and resulted in his death and the massacre of a number of political prisoners in the jail at Port-au-Prince. The President was killed on the morning of July 27, 1915. President Guillaume was killed on the next morning. That afternoon American forces were landed at Port-au-Prince from the United States warship Washington and have been there ever since.

From the very first the attitude of the Occupation has been that it was dealing with conquered territory. All the powers of the Haitian government, military and civil, were at once seized. A convention demanding more than was ever contemplated by diplomatic means, a convention in which Haiti virtually foreswore its independence, was forced upon the republic. This was accomplished by September 16, 1915.

- 7 -

that is, a month and a half after the landing of our forces; and although the terms of this convention provided for the administration of Haitian customs by American civilians and officials, all the principal custom houses of the country had been seized by military force and placed in charge of American naval officers before the end of August. The disposition of the funds collected during this period is still a question concerning which the established censorship in Haiti allows no discussion.

But even this convention in which fourteen articles are taken up with obligations assumed by Haiti and one article is devoted to promises made by the United States, was not found adequate for the accomplishment of all our benevolent purposes. It was decided that Haiti must have a new constitution. So a new constitution, the Franklin D. Roosevelt version, was placed before the Haitian Assembly with orders that it be ratified without delay and without reservations. The Assembly balked and as a result, it was dissolved by actual military force and the doors of the Chamber were locked. There has been no constitutional Haitian legislative body since that time.

It was in this manner that the United States government, under an administration that has loudly proclaimed democracy and self-determination and the rights of small nations, seized a neighborly and friendly nation, one in which no American citizen has ever been killed or a dollar's worth of American property harmed - with less justification than Austria's invasion of Serbia or Germany's rape of Belgium, without any other warrant than the one "might makes right."

The *New York Evening Post*, in an editorial criticism of my articles in *The Nation* said that evidently Mr. Johnson was not aware of the fact that there was such a thing as the Monroe Doctrine. I replied to the editor in a letter that I was aware of the existence

- 8 -

of the Monroe Doctrine but had a hazy sort of notion that its purpose
was to keep European nations from doing the very thing that we had
done.

We are still in Haiti by force of arms. The militarists declare that our presence there is necessary in order to put down banditry and preserve order. Banditry is a new word in Haiti as well as a new condition. In fact, what is called banditry is not a reason for our forces being in Haiti but a result of their being there. The greater part of the so-called banditry was created by the most brutal blunder of which the American Occupation has been guilty. That was the cruel manner in which the corvee was enforced. After we had seized all the powers of government and forced the treaty and the new constitution on the Haitian people, we decided that a great highway should be built, from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitien, across the length of the island. This road would serve a double purpose: it would facilitate the transportation of troops and supplies and also it could be pointed to as one of the great practical benefits bestowed by American benevolence upon the Haitian people. It was decided that the easiest, quickest, and mark you, the cheapest way in which it could be built would be by forced labor. The old Haitian corvee, or road law, which required each man to work the road in his vicinity for two or three days in order to keep it in repair was found and enforced with the most extreme marine efficiency. Haitian men were seized everywhere they could be found, taken to distant parts of the country, and compelled to work not only for days but for months. They were kept in military compounds and not allowed to return home. They were urged to strenuous efforts by boot and rifle butt, beaten and terrorized and shot down at any attempt to escape. Many of them, however, did

- 9 -

escape and with others who had avoided seizure went to the hills and mountains and armed themselves. These are the men who are the bandits; these are the men to hunt down whom has become the duty and the sport of American marines. These men are not bandits; they are engaged in a valiant though futile attempt to free their country from the invader. The American of the Revolution would not have termed them bandits but would have called them patriots. And, speaking of banditry, there would not be as much banditry in Haiti in ten years as there occurs on the public streets in New York City in ten days. An American, head of a large concern in Port-au-Prince, told me that for years the merchants have, in order to save exorbitant bank charges, transferred some of money from one city to another by messenger or mule. These messengers often carry sums ranging from ten thousand to a hundred thousand dollars, and he said to me that not a single dollar had as yet been lost by highway robbery.

All of us are naturally shocked at the stories of atrocities and brutalities that have come out of Haiti. But we ought not to be shocked for under the conditions which obtain in Haiti - that is, a forcible military seizure and the maintenance of political domination by force of arms - these atrocities are only what is to be expected. Indeed, thoughtful and intelligent Haitians, themselves, do not give to these individual cases of physical cruelty undue magnitude. There is a form of American brutality which the Haitian regents even more bitterly, and that is the setting up of the American color line. Before the American Occupation, there was no such thing as the American color line in Haiti. Haitians and foreigners, both American and European, met on the same plane. And, indeed, in the first days of the Occupation, when the American officials were fewer in number, this line was not drawn. But since this body of officials, both military and civilian,

- 18 -

One might expect that the public school system had been improved - but such is not the case, not a single improvement, no new schools can be attributed to American rule. There are still native teachers getting as little as six dollars a month.

It is interesting to note in connection with our altruistic efforts in Haiti, our efforts at disinterested and brotherly love, the part played by the National City Bank of New York. Mr. Roger L. Farnham, Vice-President of the National City Bank was effectively instrumental in bringing about American intervention in Haiti. With the Administration at Washington the word of Mr. Farnham superseded that of anybody else on the Island. Mr. Bailly-Blanchard was its representative in name, but Mr. Farnham was its representative in fact. He came and went aboard U. S. Navy vessels. His bank controlled the National Bank of Haiti. He was president and later receiver of the National Railway of Haiti. And only a few months ago was making a demand on the Haitian Government through our State Department for complete control of the finances of the country by the exclusive right to the importation and exportation of foreign money.

When we strike the National City Bank of New York and its allied interests, we put our finger on the key to the whole Haitian situation. All the talk about wanting to help the Haitian establish "orderly" government and develop their country is sheer hypocrisy and humbug. The motive behind and underneath all of what has transpired in Haiti within the last five years and a half, is nothing more or less than economic exploitation. The capitalistic countries once exploited so-called backward peoples under the guise of giving them the Christian religion. Nowadays, it is done under the guise of developing the country, giving them railroads and factories. It is true these countries are "developed", but what is

- 12 -

the real object behind all of this altruism of capitalistic powers. Why does one country undertake to sacrifice itself for another? Why does one country labor to develop another? Is it for the good of the developed country, or for its own good? It is quite evident that every country so developed has paid dearly for the service. The men who wish to force railroads and factories upon Haiti have only their own interest at heart. The best that the native Haitian could get out of such a transaction would be the privilege of being a railroad or a factory hand.

James Meldon Johnson, secretary of the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored People, 70 Fifth Avenue, New
York.

Mr. Johnson's charges against the American Occupation of
Haiti, which he made after he was sent there by the National Associa-
ciation to investigate, were reiterated by Senator Harding, and
have resulted in the appointment of the Mayo Naval Board of In-
quiry, a charge of "indiscriminate killings" by General Barnett,
and the promise of a Congressional investigation.

Mr. Johnson in his speech at Commodore Hall, said in part:

"As a natural consequence of the uncovering of the Haitian situation the apologists have become active advancing various defenses and various justifications for what the United States government has done there. Underlying these various defenses and justifications there is an idea which is almost universally accepted, an idea which colors them all, and it is this- that the Haitians are inately unfit to govern themselves; that they have had a chance and miserably failed. So when the average American hears about wrongs and atrocities committed upon them he shrugs his shoulders, at least mentally, and says, "Well, it is too bad, but if after all these people cannot govern themselves, then somebody else must do it for them, and logically we are the ones." This is the attitude of the average American and when an attitude like this is taken, such things as the seizure and overthrow of a neighboring and friendly republic, tortures and atrocities, the killing of several thousand men, and the rape of women and girls, appear as mere minor incidents in the great benevolent scheme of things.

"The charge of inate unfitness for self government brought against the Haitians embraces accusations ranging all the

- 2 -

the way from illiteracy to cannibalism. Only the day before yesterday New York papers carried a dispatch stating that a Haitian named Cadya Belgarde, convicted by a military commission last February of cannibalism in connection with the sacrifice of a girl's life in a voodoo performance, was released on order from the United States Navy Department. It was on this Belgarde case that a new impetus was given to the old propaganda of cannibalistic voodooism in Haiti. I have good reasons to doubt that any of it was true. But even if it were, - Here I am reminded of an observation made to me on this point by my friend, Mr. Herbert J. Seligmann. Mr. Seligmann and I were in Haiti together; in fact, we fought, bled and died together in the campaign for publicity on Haitian conditions. Mr. Seligmann is also thoroughly familiar with the various phases of what is known as the Negro problem in America, as he has shown in his book, "The Negro Fades America," one of the very few scientific books ever written on the race question. Regarding the dispatch about Belgarde's release, Mr. Seligmann propounded to me the following question, - "Which is worse, to eat a human being without cooking him, as is alleged to be the custom in Haiti, or to cook a human being without eating him, as we know to be a custom in Mississippi?" I answered that I considered the utilitarian motive connected with the Haitian custom made it less reprehensible.

"The reports of the inate unfitness of Haitians for self-government and self development emanate not from a thorough study from a superficial observation of the Haitian people. The writer or the traveller who goes to Haiti for "copy" is naturally attracted by what is colorful, by what is exotic and bizarre. So, for instance, when he reaches Fort-au-Prince he stops around the waterfront, in the market, in the dingy shops

- 3 -

along the Rue d'la Republique, and in the market places where little children of both sexes are around with scanty or no clothing and the merchant women are jabbering away, and there unhimbers his kodak and his notebook and gets the material for his article or his book on Haiti. By this same method any writer can prove any country or people to be whatever he wishes to prove them. A writer could come to New York City and by writing nothing but the truth, by clipping the press with its daily accounts of hold-ups on the public streets, frequent murders, many of which remain mysteries on the public streets, (one hundred of them in this year), of graft and bribery in the most high places, of violence, mobs, flaunting of courts, burning of human beings alive, and could write a story, true in all of its particulars, proving that life and property were not safe in New York and that the United States was not a civilized country.

"I could take up the points one by one which are habitually put forward to prove the inate inferiority of the Haitians and of all other peoples who are the actual or contemplated victims of economic exploitation and show that it is all a matter of relativity. Somebody goes down to Haiti and because he finds it is different from New England or the Middle West he at once concludes that it is inferior. He sees the rural Haitian, for example, living inthose curiously built cabins with their white-washed or tinted walls and their thatched roofs, so well adapted to the needs of the Haitian, and our observer concludes that the Haitian is inferior because he does not live in a painted, board cottage with a tin roof and a mortgage on it. Or he sees the rustic Haitian going barefoot and often hatless, and our observer concludes that he would be far superior if he could be induced to purchase cheap American patent leather shoes and derby hats. But

- 4 -

I have not the time to take up these points, as important as they are
and as interesting as they might be.

"When the facts of the investigation which I made were
published in *The Nation* and reiterated by Senator Harding on the
stump, Secretary Daniels of the Navy and Secretary Colby of the De-
partment of State at once sprang to the defense of the government.
Secretary Daniels, who is a most exuberant person, so prone to in-
dulge in characteristic, old fashioned southern bombast, indignantly
denied that there was any truth in the statement that more than
three thousand Haitians had been killed by American marines, and he
declared that the statement was a reflection and a libel on the Ma-
rine Corps and therefore an attack on American civilization, because
the American marines represent American civilization. He ordered a
report to be made by General LeJuene to cover the period of General
LeJuene's command of the Marine Corps. General LeJuene made a re-
port which was a complete whitewash, but his report was without
value under any consideration because the period of his command of
the Marine Corps dated back only to June 30 of the present year.

"Later General Barnett's report came out and more than
substantiated the charges that had been made. General Barnett's
period of command over the Marines extended over the greater portion
of the American Occupation. Secretary Daniels was again shocked by
the Barnett report. The mathematicians in the Navy Department have
since been busy shaving down the 3,250 "indiscriminate killings"
given in this report, but with all the shaving down the number is
still in the thousands; and as the mortalities among the American
marines cannot be increased above thirteen, the discrepancy between
the number of dead Haitians and dead Americans still presents a dis-
concerting contrast.

"While Secretary Daniels' defense was rhetorical, Secretary
Colby's defense was misleading. Secretary Colby in a formal statement
set up that we went in on Haiti's invitation; he set up the position
of Haiti with her foreign creditors; the eminent danger of the seizure
of the black republic by some European power; the landing of French
troops prior to the landing of American forces. He also dwelt upon the

5

We did not go in by invitation. Haiti resisted to the limit of her powers. Of course, there is a so-called treaty which was ratified by both governments, but it must be remembered that Haiti signed literally at the point of a pistol. While this treaty which was ratified September 16, 1915, was being negotiated, President Dartiguenave issued a proclamation, the first and last paragraphs of which read as follows:

"Haitaans! At the very moment when the Government, engaged in negotians to settle the question of the presence of American military forces on Haitian territory, was looking forward to a prompt solution in accordance with law and justice, it finds itself faced with the simple seizure of possession of the customs administration of the capital."

The implication that there was danger of seizure of the black republic by some European power is absurd. The United States intervened in Haiti in July, 1915. We can all remember how busy Germany, England, France and Italy were at that particular time - too busy to bother with anything on this side of the Atlantic. When Mr. Colby stated that the French government had already landed troops in Haiti, it was either through ignorance or an attempt to

6

deceive the American public.

A few hours prior to the landing of American forces a French gunboat at Port-au-Prince landed eight sailors as a legation guard. The landing of legation guards by the great powers when there is any disturbance ashore in the republics around the Caribbean has come to be an accepted international law although it has no foundation other than that these countries cannot prevent it. The fact is that nearly a year before forcible intervention on the part of the United States, this government was seeking to compel Haiti to submit to peaceable intervention. Towards the close of 1914 the United States notified the government of Haiti that it was disposed to recognize the newly elected President, Theodore Davilmar, as soon as the Haitian government would sign "satisfactory protocols" relative to a convention with the United States on the model of the one between the

United States and Santo Domingo. The Haitian government refused to consider the proposition. Shortly afterwards this government sent to Haiti the Ford Mission for the purpose of negotiating the convention. The Haitian government declined to discuss the matter with the Ford Mission because that Mission did not have the proper powers. Finally, in May the United States sent to Haiti the Fuller Mission with full powers and with instructions to recognize the Haitian government when an acceptable convention was agreed upon. This convention was being discussed by the two governments through an interchange of diplomatic communications when there occurred the coup d'état which overthrew President Davilmar and resulted in his death and the massacre of a number of political prisoners in the jail at Port-au-Prince. The President was killed on the morning of July 27, 1915.

7

President Guillaume was killed on the next morning. That afternoon American forces were landed at Port-au-Prince from the United States warship Washington and we have been there ever since.

From the very first the attitude of the occupation has been that it was dealing with conquered territory. All the powers of the Haitian government, military and civil, were at once seized. A convention demanding more than was ever contemplated by diplomatic means, a convention in which the Haitian government virtually foreswore its independence, was forced upon the republic. This was accomplished by September 16, 1915, that is, a month and a half after the landing of our forces; and although the terms of this convention provided for the administration of Haitian customs by American civilians and officials, all the principal custom houses of the country had been

But even this convention in which the fourteen articles are taken up with obligations assumed by Haiti and one article is devoted to terms made by the United States, was not found adequate for the accomplishment of all our benevolent purposes. It was decided that Haiti must have a new constitution. So a new constitution, the Franklin D. Roosevelt version, was placed before the Haitian Assembly with orders that it be ratified without delay and without reservations. The Assembly balked and as a result, it was dissolved by actual military force and the doors of the Chamber were locked. There has been no

It was in this manner that the United States government, under an administration that has loudly proclaimed democracy and self-determination and the rights of small nations, seized a neighborly and friendly nation, one in which no American citizen has ever been killed or a dollar's worth of American property harmed - with less justification than Austria's invasion of Serbia or Germany's rape of Belgium, without any other warrant than the one "might make right."

The *New York Evening Post*, in an editorial criticism of my articles in *The Nation* said that evidently Mr. Johnson was not aware of the fact that there was such a thing as the Monroe Doctrine. I replied to the editor in a letter that I was aware of the existence of the Monroe Doctrine but had a hazy sort of notion that its purpose was

We are still in Haiti by force of arms. The militarists declare that our presence there is necessary in order to put down banditry and preserve order. Banditry is a new word in Haiti as well as a new condition. In fact, what is called banditry is not a reason for our forces being in Haiti but a result of their being there. The greater part of the so-called banditry was created by the most brutal blunder of which the American Occupation has been guilty. That was the cruel manner in which the corvee was enforced. After we had seized all the powers of government and forced the treaty and the new constitution on the Haitian people, we decided that a great highway should be built from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitien, across the length of the island. This road would serve a double purpose: it would

facilitate the transportation of troops and supplies and it would also be pointed to as one of the great practical benefits bestowed by American benevolence upon the Haitian people. It was decided that the easiest, quickest, and mark you, the cheapest way in which it could be built would be by forced labor. The old Haitian corvee, or road law, which required each man to work the road in his vicinity for two or three days in order to keep it in repair was found and enforced with the most extreme marine efficiency. Haitian men were seized everywhere they could be found, taken to distant parts of the country, and compelled to work not only for days but for months. They were kept in military compounds and not allowed to return home. They were urged to strenuous efforts by boot and rifle butt, beaten and terrorized and shot down at any attempt to escape. Many of them did escape and others who had avoided seizure went to the hills and

the mountains and armed themselves. These are the men who are the bandits; these are the men to hunt down whom has become the duty and the sport of American marines. These men are not bandits; they are engaged in a valiant though futile attempt to free their country from the invader. The American of the Revolution would not have termed them bandits but would have called them patriots. And, speaking of banditry, there would not be as much banditry in Haiti in ten years as there occurs on the public streets in New York City in ten days. An American, head of a large concern in Fort-au-Prins, told me that for years the merchants have, in order to save exorbitant bank charges, transferred sums of money from one city to another by messenger or mule. These messengers often carry sums ranging from ten thousand to a hundred thousand dollars, and he said to me that

10

not a single dollar has an yet been lost by highway robbery.

Some of us are naturally shocked at these stories of atroci-
ties and brutalities that have come out of Haiti. I shall not go into
these in detail. When I first began to talk about Haitian conditions
I had to go into detail because many of these atroities were unbe-
lievable and I had to prove them all. But since the Barnett report
and the incidents that have trickled through from the Naval Court of
Inquiry, it is hardly necessary. The knowledge which I gained about
atroities came not only from Haitians but from American marines.
The marines talked freely about what they "did" to Haitians in the
outlying districts.

Cite: Instance of Captain of Marines story of "caco hunt."

Cite: Instance of Captain of Marines' treatment of Haitian,
member of Assembly

Cite: Diagnosis of Haitian situation by marine officer.

But, granted the conditions in Haiti, that is, the forcible
military seizure and the maintenance of political domination by
force of arms, these atrocities are natural sequences.

"But to the Haitian there is a form of American brutality which he resents as bitterly as he does the individual cases of physical cruelty. And that is the setting up of American color prejudice.

"The Wilson Administration, following its natural policy, has sent only Southerners to Haiti in the capacity of civilian officials. This was more than a blunder. The idea of sending Mississippians to civilize Haitians would be an ironical joke, if it were not that an actual effort were being made to carry it into effect.

"Over against these brutalities and cruelty which many regard as regrettable but unavoidable, are placed the "material benefits" which American rule has bestowed on Haiti. I do not believe that any degree of material benefit could justify what we have done in Haiti. But what are the material benefits that the American Occupation can point to?

"I made diligent and open-minded inquiry and could find just three: The building of the road from Port-au-Prince to Cape Haitien; the enforcement of certain sanitary regulations in the larger cities, and the improvement of the public hospital at Port-au-Prince. I have already spoken of the road. The sanitary regulations are not so important as they might sound because Haiti even under exclusive native rule has always been a remarkably healthy country, and has never suffered from such epidemics as used to sweep Cuba and the Panama Canal region. Moreover, these regulations were purely of a minor character.

"The hospital has been improved, but before the Occupation it was an effectively conducted institution. This represents the sum total of material benefits bestowed on the Haitians after five years of American rule, and American collection and disbursement of Haitian Revenues.

"One might expect that the public school system had been improved - but such is not the case, not a single improvement, no new schools can be attributed to American rule. There are still native teachers getting as little as six dollars a month.

"It is interesting to note in connection with our altruistic efforts in Haiti, our efforts at disinterested and brotherly love, the past played by the National City Bank of New York. Mr. Roger L. Farnham, Vice president of the National City Bank was effectively instrumental in bringing about American intervention in Haiti. With the Administration at Washington the word of Mr. Farnham superseded that of anybody else on the Island. Mr. Bailly-Blanchard was its representative in name, but Mr. Farnham was its representative in fact. He came and went aboard U.S. Navy vessels. His bank controlled the National Bank of Haiti. He was president and later receiver of the National Railway of Haiti. And only a few years was making a demand on the Haitian Government through our State Department for complete control of the finances of the country by the exclusive right to the importation and exportation of foreign money.

"In order to force this later demand, which the Haitian Government refused to grant, the salaries of the President, his cabinet, and other officials were held in abeyance.

"Secretary Cobly denied any close connection between the State Department and the N.C.B. Mr. Cobly in his formal statement declared, "No assistance or support has been given the N.C.B. in Haiti other than that which would be extended to any first class American bank in any foreign country." Of course, we do not know what assistance the present State Department extends to first class American banks in foreign countries. Refer to