P. S.—I have just received from you two telegrams (copies of
which I inclose), which will be acted upon with the least
possible delay.
[Inclosure in No.
401.]
Mr. Eustis
to Mr. Berthelot.
Embassy of the United States,
Paris, November 7, 1895.
Sir: Your excellency has assuredly been
informed of the circumstances of the case of Mr. John Waller, an
American citizen, formerly consul of the United States in
Madagascar, sentenced by a court-martial at Tamatave to twenty
years’ imprisonment under the charge of having corresponded with
the enemy.
Although the trial was public the evidence produced is unknown,
or imperfectly known, through vague and unreliable reports,
which gave the impression in the United States that this
American citizen had been unjustly condemned. The trial had
taken place in a far-distant country and in a locality under
martial law. The judges were military officers, not ordinarily
trained in law, and there are reasons to believe that strong
prejudice existed against the accused.
Under such circumstances, my Government felt that it had the
right to call on a friendly Government for information on the
subject, and to ask for a copy of such record of the case which
would enable it to satisfy itself and public opinion that there
had been no miscarriage of justice in the trial and punishment
of Mr. Waller.
This request, I am glad to say, was received by your honorable
predecessor in the friendly spirit in which it was made and, at
first, I had reasons to believe that it would be granted. Mr.
Hanotaux said that the papers applied for were still in the
possession of the military authorities in Madagascar; that he
did not know their contents, and that as soon as they should
have reached him he would examine them and let me know his
answer. During the long time which elapsed before these papers
could be obtained from Madagascar, the question remained on that
ground. Mr. Hanotaux writing or telling me every time it was
brought up that, with every disposition to give us full
satisfaction, he could not say whether it would be possible for
him to make the desired communication before he had examined the
papers. They arrived at last, and I was then told that the
general principles of the French criminal law did not allow the
communication of a legal procedure which had ended in a definite
judgment, he failing to note what I had repeatedly tried to
impress upon him, that the request of my Government was
reasonable because of the exceptional circumstances attending
the trial of Mr. Waller.
I must say that in informing me of this decision, Mr. Hanotaux
endeavored to present it in the most friendly manner. He said
that although he had to oppose a refusal to my request he was,
nevertheless, extremely desirous of settling this matter, and
suggested that perhaps a compromise could be effected on the
ground of Mr. Waller’s pardon, a proposition I was not in a
position to entertain, and to which he earnestly returned on
other occasions.
Although I felt that Mr. Hanotaux’s language was dictated by a
sincere desire of reaching an honorable understanding, I could
not help thinking that coming after the repeated statement that
no reply could be made to my Government’s request until the
papers were examined, their refusal after they had been
inspected, on grounds of general principles which were
applicable to the case from the very beginning, if applicable at
all, would certainly create the impression, however erroneous,
that the true motive of the refusal was to be sought for, not in
the principle resorted to at the last moment, but in the fear
that the evidence, if made public, might not justify the
sentence of the court.
I do not say that such is the case, and I have such a high
opinion of the ordinary administration of justice in France
that, without positive evidence to the contrary, I would not for
a moment entertain such an opinion; but I must point out to your
excellency the inference which is likely to be drawn from the
decision communicated to me if my Government is denied the
opportunity of examining the record of the trial.
With these remarks, and acting under the telegraphic instructions
from my Government, I submit again this case to your
excellency’s Government; and, appealing
[Page 290]
once more to the sense of justice of the
French Republic, I renew my application for a copy of the record
of the Waller trial.
In bringing up this matter for the second time I do not desire to
be understood as casting any reflection on its treatment by your
honorable predecessor. While we entirely disagreed upon the
question in controversy, I am satisfied that he acted from a
conscientious sense of duty in defending what he considered the
interests of his Government.
I realize that his decision was the decision of the, at the time,
existing cabinet, and if a reconsideration of the case is now
asked, it is because new men, governed by other ideas, may
without inconsistency take a different view of the case. The
question being a very serious one, I sincerely hope that after a
renewed and careful examination of the matter the French
Republic will find that it can properly comply with the
reasonable request of my Government.
I venture to ask your excellency’s immediate attention to this
matter, and trust that it will be found possible to furnish me
with a reply within a few days, to enable me to inform by
telegraph my Government of the result.
I avail, etc.,
