Mr. Van Limburg to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note dated yesterday, through which you have been pleased to inform me that the President deeply regrets the conflict which has occurred at New Orleans between the military authorities and the consul of the Netherlands. It is with a real satisfaction—which accords fully with what I was to expect from the high sense of justice of the President and of the government of the United States—that I have seen, in the course of the note, that they view the conduct of the aforesaid authorities as a violation of the law of nations; that they disapprove of it; that they disapprove of the sanction which was given to it by Major General Butler.
After having thanked the President and the government of the United States therefor, I must permit myself to remark, Mr. Secretary of State, that a circumstance which, from the inception, the consul of the Netherlands is reproached with, must evidently be attributed to a want of clearness in the statement made by Major General Butler.
According to your note he says “that he had been informed that a very considerable sum belonging to insurgent enemies was secreted in a certain liquor store of the city;” whereupon you observe “that he sent, very properly, a military guard to make searches at the place indicated.” But it appears to be proven that the money and articles in question were not by any means in this liquor store, but in a very different place in the city. If, therefore, Mr. Conturié was accosted in the aforesaid liquor store, his commercial establishment, he might have said, with truth, that all that was in that store was his personal property. There would, therefore, be want of clearness on the part of Major General Butler in making the declaration of Mr. Conturié bear upon the kegs, &c. Upon other allegations of Major General Butler, differing (contrary to) from the allegations of the consul, I would not desire more than yourself, Mr. Secretary of State, to express an opinion. Major General Butler makes a very serious charge against the consul, which involves a proceeding deserving of removal from office of the one or the other—that of the consul, if he has in reality received “with connivance,” as Major General Butler pretends, (alleges,) a “fraudulent” deposit; that of Major General Butler, if he fail to prove that charge—for to take from one his honor is no less culpable than to take from him his property, his life. Let the government of the United States, Mr. Secretary of State, in order to throw light upon its knowledge, or (information) have the affair examined and investigated, (“investigate the transaction which has been detailed,”) before it pronounces between the accuser and the accused. This could not be impugned by me; but that I appoint some one to take part—to assist—in this species of inquest, which by the proceedings themselves of the military authorities can no longer take place upon a state of things untouched, the kegs and the boxes having been carried off without any seals, having been, as it appears, opened by Major General Butler—this I could not do without granting in some measure a bill of indemnity to that which has occurred. It is what I could not take upon myself without receiving upon that point the instructions of the government of the King. There are, besides, in this affair circumstances which strike me. It seems to me that when the question relates to “fraudulent deposit,” to “connivance” in acts of high treason, one should not impute, as Major General Butler does; one should rather accuse; one should not limit himself to seize upon the proofs. It would also be natural to make sure of the accused persons. And notwithstanding the consul to whom they [Page 628] impute so serious an act was under arrest but during a few hours—during the searches made in his vault—whilst the agent of the house of Hope & Co., who, if the consul be guilty, must be so, at least as much as he, has not been, to my knowledge, arrested. These are circumstances, Mr. Secretary of State, which seem to me of a nature to cause one to rather presume the innocence of the agent of the house of Hope & Co., and of the consul of the Netherlands, than to indicate that they are believed really guilty. You should not therefore be surprised that I recoil from the supposition of culpability, and that, as for myself, I could not consider the deposit otherwise than as legitimate until the contrary be proved. It is for Major General Butler to prove what he alleges. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, (the burden of the proof lies upon him who asserts, not upon him who denies,) say the Pandects. It is not for me, it is not for our consul, to prove that he is innocent. Prima facie the money delivered by the “Citizens’ Bank” to the agent of the house of Hope & Co., to be transmitted to that house, or to be deposited with the consul of the Netherlands, is a legitimate money legitimately transferred. I could not, without having received (obtained) the orders of the government of the King, participate in any manner in an investigation which would tend to investigate that which I could not put in doubt—the good faith of the agent of the house of Hope & Co., the moral impossibility that that honorable house should lend itself to any culpable underplot, the good faith of the consul of the Netherlands. Quilibet proesumiter Justus, donee probitur contrarium, (every one is to be presumed honest until the contrary is proven,) saith the ancient universal rule of justice; and this rule is true, especially where it applies to persons such as those as are in question here.
Consequently, while awaiting the orders of the government of the King, I reserve all the rights and all the demands (claims) which may be based, either by the royal government or by the Netherlands consul, or by individuals, upon the seizure of values, titles, or papers deposited at the consulate of the Netherlands at New Orleans, and more especially upon the reprehensible censured manner in which this seizure has been made. But if, on the other hand, Mr. Secretary of State, I must reserve in their entireness all the demands which the government of the King, the consul of the Netherlands, and the persons interested might hereafter have to sustain, I am happy to give you the assurance that the government of the King, upon an eventual representation on your part against the conduct of the consul at New Orleans, will receive it with all the consideration, and will right it with all the promptness, which the excellent relations which for so many years exist between the two countries may lead to expect from the government of the august sovereign who maintains, and will ever maintain, the motto, “Justicia regnorum fundamentum” (Justice is the foundation of kingdoms.)
I have the honor, Mr. Secretary of State, to request you to be pleased, at an early day, to acknowledge the receipt of this note from me, and I avail myself of this new opportunity to reiterate to you the assurances of my high consideration.
Hon. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States of America,