Mr. Hovey to Mr. Seward
Sir: In my despatch No. 4, dated December 28th, 1865, I addressed the Department of State in relation to the question of diplomatic asylum, stating that I should refuse to exercise that power until I was otherwise directed. I have not as yet received an answer to that communication, and have concluded from your silence that the government approved my course.
On the 12th day of the present month I received a note from his excellency Señor Don Toribio Pacheco, minister of foreign affairs, inviting me to a conference for a definite agreement as to the principles of international law in relation to this important subject. (See enclosure No. 1, copy of original and translation.) Being indisposed at the time I addressed a note to his excellency, in which I reiterated the substance of my No. 4, above referred to, alluding therein to the authorities of Wheaton, Woolsey, and Polson, denying the doctrine of asylum, but saying to his excellency that if other foreign ministers were permitted to exercise the right in Peru, I should expect to be entitled to the same. (See enclosure No. 2.)
[Page 737]Being invited to a diplomatic conference on the 21st instant, I attended the same, and offered the following resolutions:
1. The diplomatic body here assembled resolve that they, and each of them, jointly and severally, acknowledge and recognize Peru as a Christian nation.
2. As each Christian nation should, by international law, be entitled to all of the rights properly claimed by others, therefore—
Resolved, That Peru is entitled to the same rights and privileges, through her diplomatic agents abroad, that we, as representatives near the government of Peru, are respectively entitled to here, and that we cannot, in justice, claim more than our respective governments accord to the representatives of Peru.
3. Therefore resolved, That we recognize the law of nations, as relating to the question of asylum, to be the same as practiced in the United States, and in England, France, and other Christian nations of Europe.
The representatives present, of France, England, Brazil, Bolivia, Chili, and Italy, contended for the right of asylum, and opposed the resolutions.
The Peruvian government insists on being placed upon a footing with civilized nations of the world. You will thus see that I have alone supported the position assumed by the authorities of Peru. I do not believe that the history of Peru can furnish a single example where the innocent have been shielded by asylum; nearly all the cases of which I have heard are those applying strictly to citizens of Peru charged with conspiracy or treason.
One case, that of Captain Carwell, an Englishman, turned upon the point of his contempt of court in an order made for the delivery of property. Refusing to obey the warrant of the court, he fled for protection to the English legation, from whence, after eleven months, he made his escape, still refusing to obey the orders of the court, and taking with him the property in dispute.
Another case, which transpired shortly before my arrival, was that of General Canseco, vice-president of the republic, charged with conspiracy against the government; he remained in the legation of the United States some three or four months, where he was in daily communication with his co-conspirators. At length he agreed with President Pezet to exile himself to Chili upon the payment of one year’s salary; he received the pay, was permitted to depart, landed in two days upon the coast of Peru, and a few weeks afterwards returned with an invading army to the walls of Lima.
The third case involves the question now pending between France and Peru, and arose by asylum being given by the French legation on the 20th of December, 1865, to three Peruvians, charged by the central court with peculation, conspiracy, and treason.
Two of the same gentlemen applied to me and were refused. This gave rise to my despatch No. 4, already alluded to, on this question.
The French chargé d’affaires, Mr. Emlle Vion, refused to acknowledge the right of the government to arrest them, although the officers of the law demanded them under writs from the central court. The chargé d’affaires referred the case to the Emperor of France, and his action was approved; but the chargé d’affaires was ordered to solicit the settlement of the question of asylum by the Peruvian government and the diplomatic corps resident in Lima. As no person arrested by the government upon any charge has as yet suffered the extreme penalty, it is apparent that the plea of cruelty or barbarity cannot be sustained as the cause for giving asylum. Peruvians were dealing with Peruvians, and should, in my opinion, have been left to their own laws and courts. The practice of giving asylum has been and still is a prolific source of revolutions in, and the instability of, the South American republics. The traitor, who would for his own ambition steep his country in blood, feels assured that if he fails in his rebellion he has only to flee to the house of some minister, and that there he will find a refuge beyond the reach of justice. Thus encouraged, and the high crime of treason varnished over with the soft name of “political offence,” he launches recklessly into his ambitious schemes, and the country is kept in continual commotion. If there should be a single unfriendly minister to the government here, (and there [Page 738] always is,) his legation at once becomes the asylum and headquarters for the conspirators against the government. Is it strange, then, that revolutions here are so common? In my opinion, that man will prove a benefactor to South America who breaks down this ancient relic of barbarism and aids in bringing the guilty to the quick punishment of the laws against which they may have offended.
With childlike faith Peru trusts, at least for moral aid, to the United States, and I submit that, by placing her upon a level with other Christian nations, the chances of her advancement would be greatly increased, as permanent government would more securely follow.
* * * * * * *
The policy of the United States lately adopted in regard to the Chincha islands has made a strong impression in our favor upon this government. Can we not, on this occasion, by a general order given to our representatives, and conforming to the law of nations, add still more to our moral influence in Peru? It need not be feared that the innocent would suffer; these people are peculiarly mild in their punishments, and crime is not as common in Lima (excepting conspiracy) as it is in Europe or in the United States. Since I have resided here not a single execution has taken place, although five or six several attempts have been made to revolutionize the government or kill the President. I really regard the mildness of the authorities as an injury to the country.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.