Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward
No. 311.]
Legation of the United States,
Paris, April 27, 1866.
Sir: Since posting my
despatch No. 302, in relation to the arrest and imprisonment of Francis
Pierre, a naturalized citizen of the United States, a correspondence, of
which I enclose a copy, has passed between the ministry of foreign
affairs and this legation. I am promised an early official reply to my
last note, which I hope may close the correspondence satisfactorily.
I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant,
Hon. William h. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Translation.]
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Bigelow
Sir: You did me the honor to write to me
the 13th of this month to call my attention to the declarations made
at the United States legation in London, by Mr. François Pierre, on
the subject of the ill-treatment of which he had to complain on
occasion of his imprisonment.
I thank you for having repelled any supposition that the hardships of
which Mr. Pierre may have been the subject were caused by any
ill-feeling in respect of the people or government of the United
States. The conduct of the French authorities could not have been
swayed by any such motive. It is probable that Mr. François Pierre
exaggerated certain circumstances which unavoidably happen when
there is a necessity to transfer from one place to another an
individual under arrest. However it may be, I send the declarations
of Mr. François Pierre to the minister of war, requesting him to
order an inquiry on the subject.
I shall bave the honor at an ulterior date to inform you of the
result. But at this time I cannot withhold the remark, that the
first use Mr. François Pierre thought he should make of his liberty
was to withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the French courts,
before which he was to prove the loss of his character of Frenchman
by the acquisition of a new nationality.
Accept, sir, the assurance, &c., &c,
Mr. Bigelow, Minister
of the United States of America at Paris.
Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys
Legation of the United
States, Paris,
April 24,
1866.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your excellency’s communication of the 16th instant in
reference to the arrest and imprisonment of François Pierre at
Sarreguemines in March last.
Your excellency expresses the opinion that Pierre probably
exaggerated the rigors which inevitably attend the transfer of a
prisoner from one place to another. I trust your excellency’s
opinion is well founded, though I regret to say that I am in
possession of no evidence tending to invalidate the statements of
Pierre and another eye-witness of the treatment of which he
complains.
Your excellency is pleased to add that the first use that Pierre made
of his liberty was “to withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the
French tribunals, before which it was his duty to establish the loss
of his quality as a Frenchman by the acquisition of a new
nationality.” I do not know that I entirely comprehend the
implication intended to be conveyed by these words of your
excellency; but if they were designed to reproach Pierre with a
violation of good faith in withdrawing from France when he did, I do
not hesitate to express my conviction that they do him
injustice.
Pierre came to England as the agent of a New England manufacturing
company. He thought fit to profit by the opportunity to visit the
place of his birth and the friends of his early youth. He arrived
there on the night of the 15th of March. On the following day he was
arrested and kept a prisoner until the 28th of March, when he was
liberated, and his
[Page 300]
passport and naturalization papers returned to him. Then, instead of
avalling himself of his liberty, as your excellency intimates, to
withdraw from France, he came to Paris, where I first saw him. After
a sojourn here of two days he left for London to join his wife,
whose anxieties he was naturally anxious to relieve, and to attend
to the business for which he had been sent to Europe. He assures me
that when his papers were returned to him he had no suspicion that
there was any further question of his right to his freedom, nor did
he receive any intimation from any quarter that he was expected to
abide the result of any further investigation. If the fact be
otherwise, and if Pierre entered into any engagement, formal or
implied, to remain in France after his liberation, I should esteem
it a favor if your excellency would inform me of the nature and
terms of such engagement. I am at a loss to comprehend upon what
principle such terms could have been imposed, or if imposed, that
Pierre, with his presumed tendency to exaggerate his grievances,
should not have added this to the list.
But whether the rigors of Pierre’s confinement were exaggerated or
not, and whether he took refuge from his persecutors in England or
not, are, I suppose, in this case, secondary questions. It is not
disputed that he was arrested with ample evidence of his American
citizenship upon his person, and detained a prisoner for nearly a
fortnight without any charge or pretence of crime. With all the
presumptive evidence of his nationality in his favor, he was treated
like a felon. This is so inconsistent with the privileges which, by
the comity of nations, are usually accorded to strangers fortified
with the ordinary evidences of their nationality, that I venture to
believe your excellency will agree with me in thinking that a more
precise definition of the authority and value of an American
passport in France would have a most desirable tendency to prevent
misunderstandings.
I avail myself of this occasion, &c., &c.
His Excellency Monsieur Drouyn de
Lhuys, Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
