Mr. Washburne to Mr. Seward
Sir: On the following statement of facts I ask instructions:
Some five months after the war between this country and Brazil had commenced, President Lopez asked permission of the Argentine government to pass his troops over the narrow strip of Argentine territory lying between Paraguay and the southern part of Brazil. This request was refused, and war was declared against the Argentine Republic as well as against Brazil, President Lopez alleging that the former, in refusing, to permit his troops to pass over Argentine country while it allowed Brazilian war vessels the free navigation of Argentine waters, had shown such favoritism as to be tantamount to hostilities. This action, however, was unknown outside of Paraguay territory. The frontiers and the river were so strictly guarded that not a whisper of what had been done had reached even so far as Oorrientes, and nobody had suspected that Paraguay would provoke a war with the Argentine Republic, at least till it had disposed of Brazil.
In this state of utter ignorance of impending danger the trade between Corrientes and Buenos Ayres was carried on as usual, till one fine morning five Paraguay steamers were seen coming down the river. When opposite Corrientes they came round near the city shore as if to anchor in the current, the two Argentine steamers in the port giving the customary friendly salute of dipping their flags. But, to the consternation of all, the Paraguay vessels run right alongside the Argentines and began firing into them, at the same time that the Paraguayans jumped on board the surprised steamers and began an indiscriminate slaughter, even firing at such of the crew as jumped overboard and swam for the shore. Some 25 or 30 were killed and about 60 taken prisoners, and of course the vessels fell into their hands. The two Argentine steamers were both owned by, or at least were in the service of, the Argentine government, and had more or less armament. The smaller one, the Gualaguay, being under repair, her crew were all on shore; but the other, the Veinte Cinco de Mayo, had her crew on board and about 25 soldiers, but so little were they expecting an attack that at the time it commenced—7 o’clock a. m.—they were all below taking their morning coffee.
The captives were all brought to Paraguay, and have ever since been held as prisoners of war. Among them were three Americans, named respectively George Watson, George Bowen, and John Moore.
As soon as I learned on my return of their condition I requested their release of the minister for foreign relations, as in my opinion they could not justly be regarded as prisoners of war. I said that even if the taking of the Viente Oinco de Mayo was a legitimate and regular act of war as against the Argentine government, it did not affect the rights of the Americans who were on board of her. Neither of them were soldiers, one being the carpenter, one a seaman, and the other the cook of the vessel, and had entered into the service in perfect innocence, having no idea that they were exposing themselves to the dangers of war.
At first I was given to understand that, being Americans, they would be at once released; but as the French consul here had got into an angry controversy with the government respecting some Frenchmen who were in the same boat, I found my countrymen were not likely to get their liberty, and so when I went to see the President recently at his camp I brought the subject to his attention. He insisted they were prisoners of war, and that he had a perfect right to hold them as such, and said if I made it a question of right he should hold them as they were to the last. I then suggested that he might let me have them as servants, [Page 711] thereby giving them their liberty, and at the same time saving the State the expense of their support; that the (piestion of his right to hold them should be left in abeyance, and their character as prisoners should in no way be affected by being in my service. His object in holding them as prisoners, he said, was to have them for exchange, should an exchange of prisoners ever be made, and if I were to take them it must be with the understanding they would still be available for an exchange. I assented to that, and he said that if I would write him a personal note on the matter he would have them set at liberty. I accordingly wrote him the note, of which the enclosed, marked A, is a copy.
Now, the points on which I ask information are these ;
1. Can American citizens temporarily employed on board a vessel belonging to a foreign government in time of peace be seized as prisoners of war by a nation that has given no previous hint or intimation of hostilities, and be lawfully held as prisoners ?
2. If thus taken and held, has the government thus seizing them the right to compel them to labor for the State, and to flog and beat them as beasts of burden ?
3. If their capture was illegal and in violation of the laws of war, are they entitled to any remuneration for the labor they have performed and the sufferings endured ? If so, to what extent ?
The answers to the second and third questions will necessarily depend on that given to the first; but should the capture of men thus innocent of any intended offence against Paraguay, and taken in the full belief they were serving in time of peace, be considered illegal, then I would like some instructions on the two other questions.
Very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of Stale, Washington, D. C.