Mr. Washburn to Mr. Seward.
No. 63.]
Corrientes,
July 26, 1866.
Sir: My previous despatches from this place
have informed you of the repeated applications I have made to the
commander-in-chief of the allied forces to be permitted to pass through
their military lines and reach my post of official duties. They have
likewise advised you of the way I have been put off from time to time,
without receiving any decided answer to my application. In my last
despatch, dated the 9th instant, I mentioned the circumstance that
President Mitre had sent his private secretary to me to make verbal
explanations of his long delay in giving me a final reply, which
explanations were to the effect that as soon as Señor Octaviana, the
Brazilian special minister, who was expected here every moment, should
reach the headquarters of the army, I should be advised whether I should
be permitted to pass through to my post or not. Señor Octaviana arrived
here the same day, and a couple of days after proceeded to meet
President Mitre near his camp in Paraguay, The secretary promised me the
reply within three days at furthest after this meeting should take
place. Instead of three days I waited nearly four weeks—until the 21st
July—and not hearing a word more from General Mitre, I wrote him again,
using language somewhat stronger than I had before employed. I send a
copy of that letter herewith. After reciting the repeated calls I had
made on him for permission in this place for months; a place so crowded
with sick and wounded as to be that had never been fulfilled, but in
faith of which I had been induced to remain to pass through his lines,
and the many times he had put me off with promises
[Page 589]
almost intolerable. I protested in strong
terms not only against the detention as unlawful and discourteous, but
against the manner in which it had been effected.
This letter was despatched on Sunday morning last, the 22d of July, and
probably reached President Mitre’s hands the same day. To-day, the 26th,
I have received no reply. Yesterday, however, the mail from Buenos Ayres
arrived, bringing your despatches Nos. 43, 44, and 45, together with a
circular letter of instructions and a copy of a letter from the
Secretary of the Navy to Admiral Godon, besides copies of the
instructions to our ministers at Buenos Ayres and Rio de Janeiro,
requesting them to ask explanations of their respective governments in
regard to my detention in this place.
I had repeatedly anticipated your instructions in your despatch No. 43,
in which I am directed to apply to President Mitre, the
commander-in-chief of the army, for a safe conduct for myself, family,
and domestics through the military lines. I shall wait a few days longer
for a reply to my last letter to President Mitre, and if I hear nothing
I shall return to Buenos Ayres and make application to Admiral Godon, in
accordance with your instructions.
I am, sir, very truly, your most obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Washburn to President Mitre.
Corrientes,
July 21,
1866.
Sir: On the 26th of last month I had the
honor of receiving, by band of your secretary, Lieutenant Colonel
Don José M. la Fuente, your esteemed favor of the 22d ultimo. In
that letter your excellency informed me that circumstances entirely
foreign to your desire to give an answer to my oft repeated question
whether or not I should be allowed to pass through the lines of the
allied forces to Paraguay, had prevented your giving me a definite
answer; but that, being desirous of showing due consideration to the
matter, you had despatched your secretary to make verbal
explanations of these circumstances.
The explanations made by Colonel la Fuente were these: That the
Brazilian special minister, Señor Octaviana, was expected to arrive
very soon at the seat of war, and it was the desire of your
excellency to confer with him before granting me a final answer. The
secrettary further assured me that within two or three days after
the arrival of Senor Octaviana at the headquarters of the army, I
should have the final reply of your excellency. Within two hours
after this interview with your secretary, a steamer arrived in this
port having on board the Brazilian minister. A day or two after he
left for the army, and though since then nearly four weeks have
elapsed, I have received no such reply as I was promised in two or
three days on your behalf, by your secretary.
It is now nearly six months since I first called on your excellency,
and made known my desire to pass over to the country to which I was
accredited by my government. The opinion you then expressed to me
was that I was entitled to pass through without interruption to my
destination, but that you preferred to get the opinion of your
government on the question before taking any action upon it. I
accordingly waited until such opinion was obtained, and then, as it
corresponded with that previously expressed by your excellency, I
did not suppose I would have any more trouble or difficulty in
reaching the capital of Paraguay. But month after month has passed
since I had the honor of delivering personally into your hands the
letter of Señor Elizalde, in which he, as minister for foreign
relations, requested your excellency to furnish me such facilities
of passing through to Paraguay as he had promised me. Your reply
then was that circumstances had so tar changed since my former
interview that it would be again necessary to consult your
government. Since then I have repeatedly, personally and by letter,
requested your final answer, and each time I have been told that
within a very few days I should have it, so that there has not been
a day for the past four months when I might not reasonably have
expected such a decision from your excellency as would have left me
at liberty to go to Paraguay, or, if the decision was unfavorable,
would have justified me in returning to Buenos Ayres or Montevideo
to await the instructions of my government. But this decision I have
not yet received, and have, as it were, been compelled to remain
with my family in this town of Corrientes, which all the while has
been a city of hospitals, full of sick and wounded, and every way
unhealthy, disagreeable, and very expensive.
To what extent and under what circumstances a nation at war with
another may rightfully, and without giving just cause of offence,
detain the accredited minister of a third and
[Page 590]
friendly power, and prevent him from
reaching the government to which he is accredited, I do not propose
to discuss. That a nation at war has a right to guard its lines and
prevent any one from passing over into the enemy’s territory at a
time when active operations might thereby be embarrassed, I do not
and never have questioned. But as, since my first visit to your
headquarters, there have several times been weeks at a time when
there were no active operations going on, I am unable to see how
that my passing through to Paraguay could in any way cause
embarrassment or affect the result of the war.
It is unnecessary, as it would be improper, for me to remind your
excellency of the system of international law that has in the course
of many generations grown into established usage, and under which
the diplomatic agents of all friendly countries are entitled to
certain privileges and immunities alike in the countries through
which they may pass as in those to which they may be accredited.
Nevertheless, I may allude to the fact that this system or code
recognizes the absolute independence of all diplomatic agents of any
local authority. This immunity results from the necessity that in
time of war there should be some persons who may be independent of
the belligerent powers to pass between them, and who may be at
liberty to reside in the country where they are accredited, subject
only to the laws of their own government, and free from molestation
or hindrance in passing through other friendly countries to or from
their own legation. By reason of these immunities and privileges,
the ministers of foreign countries have often been instrumental in
averting war, and sometimes initiating terms of peace, or mitigating
the evils of war. This exemption from local laws is so important a
privilege that it underlies the whole system of the diplomatic
service of the world, as it is, to a great extent, by reason of the
immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the ministers of foreign and
neutral nations, that they are enabled to exert their good offices
at a time when the subjects of the belligerent nations are exposed
to liabilities and suspicions that may render their interference
dangerous to themselves and embarrassing to their governments. But
if such diplomatic agents may be detained at the pleasure or caprice
of one of the belligerent parties, there is an end to the whole
system, for what minister of a neutral power will venture himself in
the territory of a nation that may prevent his return his post of
official duties? Such an act would not be so much against the enemy
as against the friendly power whose agent it restrained. No nation
has a right to say to another that because it is at war with a
third, therefore this other shall not have a diplomatic agent to
reside near the government of its enemy. The government of the
United States have a right to send a minister to any recognized
nation in the world, and it would not comport with its dignity to
ask permission to do so of a third power with which such nation
happened to be at war. It has as much right to have a minister at
Asuncion as it has at Buenos Ayres or Rio de Janeiro, and when it is
prevented from the exercise of that right, as it has been during all
the time of my detention here, it will not be thought unreasonable
should it regard the action of your excellency with serious concern
as a violation of the undisputed rights of one of its agents.
Supposing at the time this war commenced, or at a laterperiod, our
minister at Buenos Ayres, Mr. Kirk, or our minister at Rio de
Janeiro, General Webb, had found himself within the military lines
of the Paraguay army, and had been detained there as long as I have
been delayed here, what would have been expected of the United
States government in that case? Would it not have regarded such an
act on the part of Paraguay as a great indignity, and would it not
have been justified in resorting to extreme measures in vindication
of its violated rights ? And in what does my case differ from that
of the one supposed ? Will not my government be justified in taking
the same means of vindicating the rights of its humble minister to
Paraguay as it would be were our minister to Buenos Ayres now
detained within the lines of the Paraguay army? It has been the
object and intention of the United States in this war to observe the
strictest neutrality. If it has not done so, it is because your
excellency has denied it the privilege of having a diplomatic
representative in Paraguay the same as it has in Buenos Ayres and
Rio de Janeiro. Of this partiality, however, it is only for Paraguay
to complain.
It is with extreme regret that I find myself compelled to speak,
after so long a delay, of my detention in this place, and to enter,
as I now do, most earnestly, my protest against it. I protest
against the detention as a violation of the laws of nations, and of
all diplomatic usages and courtesies. I protest against the
detention as unnecessary and unlawful in itself, and I protest
against the manner in which it has been effected. If it was your
purpose to thwart the wishes of my government, and prevent me from
doing that which it had ordered me to do, I certainly had a right to
know it long before this. I protest against the repeated intimations
and assurances I have from time to time received that within a few
days a final answer should be given me, when now nearly six months
have passed and such answer has not yet been received. I submit that
the United States have ever shown such friendly sentiments towards
the government and institutions of the Argentine Republic as to
entitle its accredited agents to the customary privileges and
courtesies accorded to diplomatic persons. Such privileges I
consider have not been granted me, and, therefore, I take this
occasion to make my formal protest, and at the same time to express
to your excellency the assurances of my most distinguished
consideration.
CHARLES A. WASHBURN, United States
Minister to Paraguay.
His Excellency General Bartolome Mitre,
President of the Argentine Republic, and
Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Army.
[Page 591]
[Translation.]
President Mitre to Mr. Washburn.
Headquarters.
Tuyuty,
June 22, 1866.
I have had the honor of receiving the esteemed communication of your
excellency of the 14th instant, insisting upon (instando) a definite
answer on the still pending matter of your passage to the interior
of this republic.
Circumstances entirely foreign to my sincere desire of satisfying the
just demand of your excellency prevent my answering definitively the
aforesaid communication of your excellency, but, desirous of
granting it all the importance (estima) and consideration which it
merits from me, I send to your excellency my secretary, Lieutenant
Colonel Don José M. La Fuente, who is authorized to give’ you
verbally any explanations on the matter in question, and at the same
time to repeat in the same manner the sentiments that I entertain in
being your excellency’s attentive and obedient servant,
His Excellency Mr. Charles A. Washburn,
Minister of the United States to
Paraguay.
