Mr. Eustis to Mr. Olney.
Change in my dispatch did not modify our contention or attitude in the case. I understood your cable, asking me to ascertain if compromise for Waller’s release suggested by former minister could be effected by present minister, and your cable informing me that French ambassador had telegraphed to urge Waller’s pardon on grounds of humanity and ill health as presenting the question of Waller’s pardon as most urgent. My refusal to modify my note must have caused much delay and possible impediment regarding this question. As I considered the objections to note captious, I could not take the responsibility of postponing, as I thought, unnecessarily, the pardon of Waller, if it [Page 294] could be effected by the change of my first dispatch. This I consented to do, when I was informed that the refusal of the papers would be adhered to, and that an immediate reply would be made to my substituted dispatch, proposing the pardon of Waller. I did not feel that I could do otherwise under the circumstances. In compliance with your instructions, I have consulted Waller with reference to his pardon, but had to send my letter through foreign office, as I found it impossible to telegraph him, and as permission to communicate again in person with him might not be easily obtained, and surely not without delay. I am expecting the promised reply to note of 7th at every moment.