Mr. Webb to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Friday and Saturday of last week were the first days that I was enabled to attend to business, and I devoted them to the examination of what had been done in the legation during my absence. The isolated fact that Mr. Washburn has been prevented passing the blockade of the allies in the river Plate had been reported to me; but no details were given, because, as I now learn from Mr. Lidgerwood, he was cautioned not to trouble me with business in my then very precarious state of health. I was, therefore, both surprised and mortified to discover that so unsatisfactory a response as that made by the minister of foreign affairs, based upon the miserable special pleading of President Mitre, had been forwarded to you. Most assuredly, if I had been here, I should have insisted upon and received a very different response. * * * I also handed him (Mr. do Amaral) for perusal the enclosed despatch, marked A, which I had prepared on Tuesday night, and which it would become my duty to leave with him, unless assured in writing that Mr. Washburn’s passage to Asuncion would not be further obstructed or opposed.
The conversation terminated in his placing in my hands the enclosed letter, marked B, which is as follows:
Private.]
“Rio de Janeiro, August 21, 1866.
“My Dear General: I am sorry to see by your letter of yesterday that you are still unwell, and hope that you may soon recover.
“With regard to Mr. Washburn’s case, I must inform you that interviews which took place between Admiral Godon, Mr. Lidgerwood, Mr. Saraiva, and myself, were expressly understood to be entirely private and confidential.
“It is true that I asked Admiral Godon whether he was going to send a steamer and his instructions to the river Plate immediately. On his asking the reason of my inquiring it, I said frankly, and of course in a private and confidential way, that it might be convenient that the Brazilian government’s instructions should reach their agents before any step was taken in the river Plate, to effect Mr. Washburn’s passage across the blockade. I added, still as a private information, that Mr. Octaviana and Admiral Tamandare would be instructed to let that minister pass under a simple protest. I was not authorized to make that communication, but my act was approved by Mr. Saraiva, and I am empowered by Mr. Ribeiro de Andrada to repeat the same communication to you in the same character as before.
“This is, in substance, all that passed on the subject, but I must add that my [Page 322] intention was merely to obtain a precedence in favor of the Brazilian instructions in order to avoid a conflict, but no more than that. I never afterwards mentioned the case either to Mr. Lidgerwood or Admiral Godon.
“Believe me, my dear general,
“J. T. DO AMARAL.”
It was now 12 o’clock, and our interview terminated with strong expressions of good feeling on both sides. Mr. d’Amaral asked permission to report to the new minister of foreign affairs, Ribeiro de Andrada, all that had passed between us. To this I objected, as I had departed from my instructions in showing what would, in certain contingencies, have been the action of our government but, in fact, I desired, for effect, the whole affair to be known to this government. Mr. d’Amaral said he hoped I would consent to the course he indicated, as it would do good and prevent hasty and imprudent action in the future. I finally yielded with great apparent reluctance, and on condition that my unwillingness to sanction such a proceeding was distinctly placed before the government.
I should have stated earlier that, in reply to my inquiry why protest against our exercise of so palpable a right as insisting that our minister to Paraguay, temporarily absent from his post of duty, should not be hindered in returning to it, he said, “To us the right is not so clear, and we protest simply to keep the question open for argument with you, at a more convenient season.” I declared my readiness to discuss the question whenever he was so disposed, and said that, in my judgment, a solitary case would close the argument. “You are aware that in December, 1862, Mrs. Webb’s health became so seriously impaired that, by advice of her physician, I took her to the river Plate in a national vessel. Now, suppose that during my absence, some six weeks, instead of Mr. Christie’s making reprisals, as he did, on Brazilian commerce, the English squadron had blockaded the harbor of Rio, and that on my return the blockading squadron had refused to let me pass its lines: do you really contend that my exclusion would have been justifiable by international law ? or that the government of the United States would tamely have submitted to the indignity thus offered to it, through their duly accredited representative ?” He laughed, and said, “We will discuss the question at some other time.”
I had barely time before the closing of the Buenos Ayres mail to address Mr. Washburn as follows:
“Legation of the United States, “Rio de Janeiro, August 22, 1866.
“Sir: I have the honor to inform you that instructions have been issued by the Brazilian government to their representatives in the river Plate and its vicinity, withdrawing all obstructions to your passing their line of blockade to your post of duty, whenever it shall be your pleasure to repair thereto. A simple protest against your passing through the blockading fleet will be made, but of that you need not take any notice.
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“J. WATSON WEBB.
“His Excellency Charles A. Washburn, “United States Minister Resident to Paraguay”
I am of opinion that the energy and promptness you evinced in your instructions to me will have a very beneficial influence upon our future relations with Brazil; but the moral influence of your action would have been lost if I had not assumed the responsibility of making these instructions known. My motive in thus acting must be my apology for the course pursued.
With great respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.