No. 667.
Mr. Evarts
to Mr. Baker.
Washington, October 15, 1880.
Sir: Your dispatch of the 8th ultimo, No. 274, in relation to the claim of Mr. John E. Wheelock, and inclosing copy of the correspondence between yourself and Mr. Saavedra, the minister of exterior relations for Venezuela, on that subject, has been received.
Your course in presenting the subject to the Venezuelan government, in pursuance of my instruction of the 28th of January last, No. 62, is approved. When that instruction was dictated the facts in relation to the barbarous outrage perpetrated upon a citizen of the United States by a public officer of the Venezuelan government, acting under color of law, were all before the Department. There appeared no ground for question as to the truth of the statements. They were substantially the same as received from Mr. Wheelock, the victim of the outrage, from Mr. Dalton, the consul at Ciudad Bolivar, and from your legation. Nor do I now find the facts directly controverted by the Venezuelan minister of exterior relations in his note to you of the 24th of August last, a copy and translation of which you inclose in your No. 274.
To characterize this cruel and unusual proceeding in its true light it is only necessary to give a brief recital of the occurrences attending it.
Mr. John E. Wheelock, an American citizen, in the legitimate pursuit of his regular business, visited, in June, 1879, the mines of the Carstal district, situate about 200 miles southeast of Ciudad Bolivar. He remained there until the 13th of September following. On the morning of that day he was arrested, at the instance of an Italian, who alleged that he had had $1,200 stolen from his safe, and accused Mr. Wheelock of the theft. The arrest was made by an officer having the official title [Page 1042] of “commissary,” combining, as it appears in one person the dual functions of a magistrate and police constable. This functionary, as it further appears, acting at once as judge and executioner, directed his subordinates to pinion Wheelock’s arms behind his back, and compelled him to march a mile from the place of arrest—Chilé—back to the mining camp. The cords with which his arms were bound cutting into his flesh, Wheelock paid, to one of the armed guards who were driving him, $5 to have the cords loosened a little. This guard then stepping back a short distance, a second one stepped up and again tightened them, when a third offered to slacken the cords for another $5, which offer was, however, declined by the unfortunate prisoner.
Arriving at the scene of the supposed larceny, Mr. Wheelock was requested by the commissary to confess what he had done with the Italian’s money. Upon replying that he knew nothing of it, his arms were again tightly pinioned behind him by the orders of this same officer, and he was suspended, by the cord with which his arms were bound, from a peg in the wall at a height which took his feet some distance from the ground. Again asked to confess, he protested his innocence. The mode of torture was then changed, a slipnoose was made, the rope was put tightly around his body, and he was suspended in mid air, with the fore part of his body bearing towards the ground. Still refusing the invitations to confess, he was, when nearly dead, taken down. He was then taken to the woods, half a mile distant, and from a strong rope stretched between two trees he was suspended by cords tightly tied around his ankles, with his head down but not so as to reach the ground. Again urged to confess, Mr. Wheelock indignantly denied his guilt. Failing through all these barbarous methods to wring a confession from Mr. Wheelock, this inhuman official committed him to jail, when, after remaining there a few days, his case came in order before the district court, and, after a full and searching investigation before that tribunal, Mr. Wheelock was honorably acquitted and discharged, with the personal assurance from the district judge that “there was nothing whatever found against him, not even grounds for a suspicion of the offense with which he had been charged.”
It is unnecessary to comment on proceedings of the character of these by an officer of a civilized government, perpetrated under the guise of official authority. Such atrocities as resorting to “the torture” to extract a confession of guilt from persons accused of crime, are now, happily, considered by all civilized governments and peoples as belonging to an age long past, and it might well have been hoped that such inhuman cruelties would never have found an opportunity for revival in any of the constitutional governments established on this continent.
Believing, as I did, when the transaction was first brought to the attention of this government, and as I do not now allow myself to doubt, that the Government of Venezuela shared in this common sentiment of abhorrence of such practices, and conceiving that the enlightened sense of justice of that government, strengthened by the recollection of the long and unbroken friendship which has heretofore subsisted, and still subsists, between the people and Governments of the United States and Venezuela, would at once prompt it to disavow the conduct of this unworthy official, by degrading him from his office and handing him over to the proper tribunals for trial and merited punishment, and, at the same time, spontaneously making to the victim of his cruelties the only remaining reparation it could for his wrongs by a reasonable pecuniary indemnity, the instruction which I forwarded in January last was conceived in the most friendly spirit toward the Venezuelan Government, [Page 1043] as it was dictated in the most moderate tone. It is, therefore, with the greatest regret and surprise that this government receives the information conveyed to you in the note of Mr. Saavedra of the 24th of August, giving the result of the promised investigation into the conduct of Señor Sotillo, the author of the illegal and cruel acts from which Mr. Wheelock suffered. The minister of exterior relations states in that communication that “Two judges the departmental of Roscio and that of the first instance of the State, had decided in accord and successively that there did not exist merit for continuing the proceeding (sumario), nor for ordering the arrest of Señor Sotillo.” Upon what character of evidence this conclusion was reached does not appear from the minister’s note. It is sufficiently evident that neither the testimony nor deposition of Mr. Wheelock formed any part of it; nor is there any intimation that the facts as first stated by Mr. Wheelock were refuted or even directly controverted, beyond the suggestion that he had exaggerated them. That the successive decisions of the two judges were submitted to the executive authorities of Venezuela, is evident from the further statement of Mr. Saavedra that “Doctor Parejo, actual President of that state, notwithstanding the investigation had terminated, moved (excito) the tribunal, with vivid earnestness, to open it de novo.” “Such,” says Mr. Saavedra, “is the state of the matter,” and he concludes by informing you that the supreme federal government having done as much as has been in its power to bring “the truth to light” and secure “the punishment of the offense which might turn out to be committed,” the minister adds that his government “thinks that if there has actually been a crime, the obligation of the republic is satisfied by the judgment and punishment of its author, and that it would not owe pecuniary indemnification to the offended.”
The general principle here invoked by Mr. Saavedra, that if a crime is committed against the person, property, or character of an alien resident of the country by a citizen of the country in which such alien may be resident, and the government of such country secures the judgment and punishment of its author, its obligations to the government of the party wronged are satisfied, and that it would not in such case owe pecuniary indemnity to the offended, may very well be admitted; but to claim this for the proceedings had before the Venezuelan judges in the case of Commissary Sotillo would seem little less than a mockery of justice.
To the worst features of the outrage perpetrated on Mr. Wheelock (the occurrence in the woods) there were no witnesses but the perpetrators and the victim. Mr. Wheelock’s evidence was not before the judges, and there is, therefore, every reason to believe that Sotillo’s alleged vindication rested solely on his own testimony and that of his subordinate instruments.
To denominate the proceedings against the officer Sotillo as a miscarriage of justice, is the mildest form of denunciation that can be applied. The sanction of the executive government of Venezuela imparts to them the character of an absolute denial of justice. Were such an outrage as that perpetrated by Sotillo on Mr. Wheelock possible—as fortunately it is not—in the United States, and Venezuelan citizens were the subject of it, the offending officer would be instantly dismissed from the public service and handed over to the proper tribunals for trial, and, if found guilty, subjected to the severest punishment denounced by the laws of the country against an offense at once so abnormal and inhuman. It is unnecessary to invoke the principles of the treaty of amity and friendship (1860) existing between the United States and Venezuela, of the [Page 1044] 3d article of which these acts are in clear contravention. It is no less an offense against the principles of public law and the civilization of the age. This government would be wanting in that duty which it owes to its citizens, and regardless of its own dignity, were it lightly to pass over so flagrant an outrage.
You will lose no time in bringing these views to the attention of Mr. Saavedra, expressing at the same time the earnest wish entertained by the President that the subject may receive the early and earnest tttmsid-eration of the Venezuelan Government, and result in a speedy adjustment of Mr. Wheelock’s claim for pecuniary indemnity. When the Government of Venezuela shall signify its willingness to make such reparation the amount of that indemnity may properly become a matter for further consideration by this Department.
I am, &c.,