Señor Caminos to Mr. Washburn.
Sir: I have received your note dated 29th ultimo, with the list of individuals, including your excellency, for whom you ask passports; and before replying to it I must give an answer to the one of the 13th ultimo, in which you state the motives for which you have not dismissed from the legation Messrs. Bliss and Masterman.
I am obliged to take into consideration some of those motives in order to follow you closely, but I shall not touch them all for fear that you should again complain of the length of my reply. I may be excused from any justification for giving you the trouble of having a great deal to read, since it is due to you that the matter, which was of easy solution on the ground of justice and right, has assumed so complicated a character.
My government, anxious to show its consideration and regard for your excellency, had moreover invited you to come to a verbal understanding, with a view of avoiding these long and unsatisfactory communications, a step which you cannot ignore, although you have not chosen to appreciate it as it deserved.
You were influenced in this by the same motive that induced you to give shelter in your residence to Messrs. Bliss and Masterman. Time will explain all. You have been sufficiently consequent as to extend your protection to these gentlemen in direct opposition to the dictates of a sound judgment, and to disregard any preferential consideration due not only to the justice and right of the case, but also to the peculiar conditions of the country.
In your note containing an explanation of your motives I have failed to meet those I expected, and which might somehow have justified your action in this matter. Far from this, that note is couched in dilatory terms; and I, therefore, consider myself free from the obligation of touching all the points it contains, or to allude more particularly to the profound erudition on the law of nations therein displayed by you.
The case of Bliss and Masterman does not admit of much digression. It is a very simple question. They have sought the asylum of the American legation when called upon by the courts of law to answer the grave charge of being accomplices in a revolutionary complot.
You have replied to the request of this department that they should be given up, stating that you consider them as members of the legation, without, however, justifying this assertion, but merely entering upon charges and arguments that can have but little weight in presence of the motives adduced by this department, more particularly in its note of the 31st of July.
[Page 804]This department certainly said then that if the immunities of a minister extended as far as you pretended, no nation in the world would receive a foreign mission; to which you replied that all nations do receive missions on those terms, and that you have only used a common right in refusing to give up Bliss and Masterman.
It is strange that the minister of a great and honorable nation, so familiar with international law, should allow himself to be so blinded by his anxiety to shield two criminals. I, for my part, must protest against similar assertions, and maintain that no nation can be desirous, as you state, to receive foreign missions that are disposed to protect criminals, by alleging that they belong to them.
I must first call your attention to the above-mentioned note of the 31st of July, referring to every part of its context, and then, by way of compliment, I will remark again that if you, in your note of the 13th ultimo, bring as a proof of Bliss being a member of your legation because you had requested him to go to your house, and had given him the character of being a member of said legation, and that the government had made no objection to his residing in your house, but only to the character under which you had classified him, I must repeat once more that from the beginning Bliss, as well as Manlove, have never been recognized by this government as members of your legation; and that they have only been allowed to reside with you in the same way as other individuals who at the time of the evacuation of the capital took up their abode in your house. No other interpretation can be given to what was stated on this head to your excellency by this department in its note of 23d February last.
You certainly stated in your note of 4th of April, by way of explanation, that you had written an answer to said note of the 23d February, under date of the following day, the 24th, but that you did not send it, as circumstances seemed to render it unnecessary, in your opinion, to occupy the attention of the government with purely personal matters of the legation, and adding that you wrote a note, and tried to forward to Berges a note similar to the one you inclosed. In this note you sent the following as the list of persons belonging to the legation, viz: Charles Meincke, German; Porter Cornelius Bliss, American; James Manlove, ditto; Concepcion Cazal, Paraguayan; Ana Bella Cazal, ditto; Dolores Caballero, ditto; Basilio Jara, ditto; Melchora Jara, ditto; and two washerwomen.
This note, dated the 24th February, was addressed to ex-Minister Berges, and contained an acknowledgment of the receipt of that of the 23d.
This department has not answered the note of 4th of April, and it could much less reply to the one sent as a mere inclosure, and as an explanation that there had been no want of courtesy or forgetfulness in not replying to the note in which the government announced its removal to Luque. On the other hand, Berges being absent from the Foreign Office at the time, obliged you to communicate directly with the chief clerk; and before this department could take into consideration the note of the 23d, it would have been requisite to have addressed it in the proper form. Moreover, you have not stated whether said note was to have been considered as still subsisting, or given any other explanation, whereas changes might have occurred in the very personnel of the legation between February and April. For all this, the note which you declare to have written on the 23d February, but to have sent only on the 4th April, addressed to an absent minister, besides the circumstances already adverted to, was in itself inefficient and defective; and I may add that when said note was received, the Paraguayan women, Concepcion Cazal [Page 805] and Dolores Caballero, were no longer at the legation; and they have stated that they never asked that their names should appear in the list of the personnel of the legation, or knew that they thus figured. I allude to this circumstance only to show to you that if you have been pleased to put their names in that list, no care has been taken to erase their names from it when they ceased to reside in your legation.
From this simple statement it may be clearly seen that you can have no just ground for insisting in considering Porter C. Bliss a member of your legation, as well as George F. Masterman, whom you consider as such from the mere fact of having put down his name in the list contained in the note of 24th February, to which no objection has been made till three months later.
The practical deduction to be drawn from your notes and pretensions, as far as I can see, is that an individual is to be considered a member of a mission from the mere fact of his being proposed as such to the government by the head of the mission. Acting upon this conclusion, you propose Bliss and Manlove in the list of your domestic servants, and on the day following the receipt of a note from the government refusing to recognize them as members of your legation, and therefore denying to them the privileges that they would enjoy as such by the right of nations, you again inscribed the names of these two individuals on the list, and moreover add to the personnel of the legation Masterman and another.
But if Bliss belongs to the mission as well as Masterman, how is it that they have not enjoyed nor do enjoy the privileges to which they are entitled? This is inexplicable. And why is it that the name of Manlove being alongside those of Bliss and Masterman in your note of 24th February, he has been left on one side, when, according to the principle laid down by you, they must all (or none) be considered as members of the mission? But the precedent of Manlove is a proof that you have only afterwards been pleased to grant to these two criminals the character of members of the legation.
With regard to what you say that Masterman is to be considered in that character in all and for all, because no objection was raised against him before the lapse of three months, I may remark that according to your own doctrine Masterman was from the very first day invested with that character, because if the following day this department had refused to acknowledge him, as was done in the case of Bliss, his name would have immediately appeared in a new list of your excellency’s.
I have thus shown clearly how inexact you are in considering said individuals as members of the legation. It is of little consequence to the question whether they have sought your house, or whether you have sought them to bring them to your residence, but I do not agree with you in looking upon them as refugees, because this would be a denial of a truth too clear and distinct. What are they doing there? Why are they in your house, when they have been indicted and are called upon by a court of law to answer the charges deposed against them?
It is clear they are not there because of their innocence or because they belong to the legation, but under the special protection of your excellency. You state that during several months they have been tacitly recognized as belonging to the mission, and that the refusal came too late from this department to be available. I must repeat that only by following your practice could the justice of this statement be admitted, since the express objection made by my government on your proposing Bliss as a member of the legation has not been considered by you as having any weight whatever. Since the objection made to Bliss on the day following his nomination has been considered too late by you, what [Page 806] wonder is it if the objection in the case of Masterman, which according to your excellency was sent in after the lapse of three months, should also be considered as much too late?
I beg you to reflect upon the mysterious note of the 24th of February, and endeavor to convince me that it meant to convey a legitimate presentation of the personnel of your legation, and that at a most solemn crisis of the republic, assailed as it is to the death by an invading enemy.
As you will understand from what precedes, I am very far from wishing to maintain that a foreign minister cannot claim the privileges of the legation for his servants, secretary, or other members of his family until the government recognizes them individually by name. I agree with your remark that if a minister sends a list of his suite (in due form) and receives no answer, no objection is made by government, which tacitly recognizes the persons included in said list as members of the legation. This is a just interpretation, and is what has happened with regard to the following individuals: Charles Meincke, German; George Hamilton, English; Katharine Leahy, English; Basilio Jara, Paraguayan; and Melchora Jara, Paraguayan, who were tacitly consented to; when, on their names appearing jointly with those of Bliss and Manlove in your note of the 22d February, exception was taken only to the two latter, who were simply allowed to remain in your dwelling with the special condition that if they went out of the legation the policemen would be prevented from carrying out in such a case the orders given to allow no person not invested with, official character to go about the streets; and on the same condition Ana Bella Cazal proposed in the above-mentioned list was also permitted to remain at the legation.
I must remind you once more that in your note of 4th April you alluded to individuals whom this department has not recognized as members of your legation. To whom else could you refer? At all events Bliss was one of them.
However much you may labor to give a forced interpretation to the motives brought forward in opposition to your views on this matter, you will never be able to justify your deductions. It is curious to hear it asserted that this department has only recognized Bliss and Balthazar, the colored servant whom you state was left by Doctor Carreras, but it is still more curious that neither your wife, nor son, nor private secretary, nor the servant you brought with you, have ever been recognized. If you have not chosen to put in the list of the personnel of your legation Mrs. Washburn and your son, this department is not to blame. I nevertheless cannot but admit the import-ant position occupied by the family of the chief of the mission.
You may rest assured that my government has sufficient conscience of its own dignity and duties not to commit itself by sending a notary to your house to examine the criminals, Bliss and Masterman, when they have never been nor are members of the legation, but the government will not hesitate in making them appear before a tribunal, because they are in all and for all merely refugees in your hotel.
You wish to apply in the case of Bliss and Masterman the principle of right that a person must be considered innocent until he is proved to be guilty, and you state that this principle is ignored when they are spoken of as criminals and refugees, whilst no proof of their culpability is forthcoming. I might have wondered greatly at your pretensions and language if in the following line you did not furnish me with the proper key, by saying that you doubted still of the veracity of the informants. Upon the criminality of the above individuals, and alluding to [Page 807] the depositions of Berges and Carreras, you state that you know they contain as many falsehoods as sentences, and that if these false depositions have been given by them with a view of making you appear mixed up in a shameful machination, it may have been done with a design of implicating others.
If you do not choose to credit my words, and can still doubt the veracity of those who have deposed that Bliss and Masterman took a leading part in the complot, I cannot offer to gratify you by showing to you the authentic documents which establish the reality of the fact, and you may act in accordance with the laws of your own country as you may think proper. But I would like to ask you, when is a person to be considered guilty? I understand that the principle of right invoked by you is one universally accepted, but also that the sworn depositions of witnesses are a sufficient proof in cases of more or less gravity. This suggestion may not be thrown away upon you to prove to you that, as this is what has happened with regard to your own protegés as well as to others included in the same accusation, you must not wonder if no attention can be paid to your reference to the above maxim to which you have repeatedly alluded.
With regard to your recommendation of the profession and standing of each of them, I can only say to you that they are almost identical with those which you were pleased to make in favor of Carreras when you were asked to dismiss him from your legation, and now it appears that you have not had much trouble in applying against him the words least honorable to any man.
You are right in thinking that my government has no desire to expose either you or your family to any calamity, and it is well known that during your long stay in the country you have been treated with every consideration, as you yourself have confessed in your correspondence. I cannot, however, conceive how your own convenience is incompatible with the expulsion of those individuals, whereas their stay there must give rise to appreciations less satisfactory from the fact of their being implicated in a vast conspiracy, the depositions with regard to which extend even to yourself.
Since the government of every nation has the right to admit or refuse a foreign minister according to circumstances, in compliance with which right he must be duly presented to the territorial sovereign, it follows as an indispensable consequence that the chief of a mission is bound duly to report the persons that belong to his household and those that may leave him subsequently, both in order to accept or refuse the former and to take note of the latter who may still enjoy the privileges attached to their previous position. And while on this point I beg to remind you that the list you inclosed in the note dated 24th of February comprised among others the names of Concepcion Cazal, Dolores Caballero, and Ana Bella Cazal, besides two washerwomen, whose names did not appear, and that none of those five individuals figure now in your new list, with the exception of Lucia Ribas, who appears to have been one of said washerwomen. But apart from this it would appear that you have not attached to this subject the importance it deserves, as is proved by the fact that after all the individuals, excepting three, contained in your list of the 22d of February, had been admitted, you added others without advising this department of this circumstance, or of your having dismissed any of those persons that were included in the original list.
With regard to Bliss it is satisfactorily shown that he was not a member of your legation, but since you state that Balthazar, Carreras’s [Page 808] servant, had also been recognized a member of the legation, I must point out to you that in your dispatch, of the 12th of July you said of those whose names had been given as not belonging to the legation there only remained Carreras, Rodriguez, his servant, and the wife of Leite Pereira; and although in your note of the following day—the 13th—communicating that Carreras and Rodriguez had left the legation before the appointed hour, you said that the colored servant of Carreras was still with you as a servant, you never alluded to the subject again, and after calling this person first Carreras’s, then Rodriguez’s servant, you only now style that his name is Balthazar. I am not aware how long you have had him as servant, and I have only seen by your unanswered note of the 13th of July that he still remained with you in that character, which leads to the supposition that for some time past he had ceased to be Carreras’s servant. As you seemed to require him, no objection has been raised, but I have only to remark upon the incorrectness of your statement that this individual and Bliss were the only persons recognized as members of your legation.
With regard to the concluding part of your note, to which I am now replying, I beg to refer to what has already been stated on the subject in the course of this correspondence.
Having thus replied to the principal points of the note above alluded to, I have only to beg that you will consider in its true light the one of this department under date of the 31st of July conjointly with this. And I may be allowed to add a few words more, to express frankly to you that if until now no notice has been taken of the ground assumed by you in your correspondence, by even casting a slur upon the good faith of the judicial department of my country, and denying the truth of the official assurances made to you with regard to the guilt of Bliss and Masterman, my government can only view such proceeding as an offense to its honor and its dignity.
The government of this republic, far from wishing that you should forfeit the approval of your government and of public opinion in the community of nations, will, on the contrary, rejoice to see that you do not step beyond the principles of sound policy and the dictates of reason and justice prescribed by the respect due to nations and their governments.
My government has ever been inspired by this wish, and it grieves it to see you advocating for traitors to the country as if you were one of them. They say so, at least, and it behooves you to weigh these assertions, made judicially, which I will here further complement with others.
I shall first bring forward one of the individuals of whom you have stated that you heard of for the first time. It is Benigno Lopez, who, among other things, has deposed textually as follows:
That on account of the first expedition to the north in 1864, they began to talk politics.
Washburn saying to deponent, the country appears to “shake itself.”
Deponent. Yes, but we do not know who will suffer the first blow, although it is probable that in the end we shall fare worse, seeing the power and great elements of our enemies.
To this Washburn perfectly agreed with him.
Then, from that time forward they continued talking whenever they met, condemning the system of government, because the policy of the government was arbitrary, instead of being liberal and constitutional, as befitted a country like Paraguay, rich for its climate and for its natural products of all kinds; that the government of the marshal thought of nothing but making soldiers; and that scarcely any private citizen was to be met with; and that such a state of things could not but help to keep back industry and retard progress and civilization in the country.
That all their conversations were in this tone until on the occasion of his accompanying [Page 809] Washburn in a trip he made to the front in March, for the purpose of crossing over to the enemy’s camp, they went more deeply into the matter, and mooted the idea of the necessity of a change of government to bring to a close the protracted war, due, in Washburn’s opinion, to a violent and inconsiderate act of the marshal, of which he certainly sorely repented.
To this deponent replied, “What he is sorry for is not to have taken the allies, one by one, to make them dance.”
That to this and other conversations they held together before and during the journey, deponent understood that Washburn wished that the alliance should triumph, rather than Paraguay, and that he would be disposed to work in this sense, on which account he had no scruple in laying open the plan of endeavoring to effect a change of government, not doubting that the Marquis de Caxias, as soon as he was made aware of the advantages that would follow a successful revolution, would send the bases of a final arrangement to enable them to begin the work.
That in Paso Pucu, and just before Washburn passed over to the enemy’s camp, deponent went to see him in his quarters, and being asked by him about the situation of the army, deponent answered that it was not bad, but that it would be rendered a very difficult one if Caxias stretched a line from Tuyuti as far as the Paraguay River, because it would be then inclosed. That while saying this deponent bent down and described this operation by marking on the ground the various positions of the two armies, and showing that in this way the interior of the republic remained exposed, and that nothing could obstruct a force from reaching the Tebicuari by Caapucu, and by making a rapid movement as far as Paraguay, which was not far, place itself in contact with the revolutionary force, and they both combined would then be able to command the principal departments of the republic and the capital by means of the railway.
That then Washburn, being interested to understand thoroughly the plan proposed by deponent, drew from his waistcoat pocket a pencil, which he handed to deponent, saying at the same time to his private secretary, Meincke, who was in the room, to go out for a short time, which the latter did at once, not, however, before having heard part of the conversation and seen the tracing made by deponent with his finger on the ground. That then, when Meincke was gone out, deponent concluded his description with Washburn’s pencil, after which the latter left for the enemy’s camp, most likely carrying with him the drawing made on paper by deponent.
That it was deponent’s intention, in making a drawing of the intended operation, that Washburn should show it to Caxias, and if he did not say so expressly, it was because he understood that Washburn would be sure to do it, which, in fact, turned out subsequently to be the case, not only because the enemy realized this very plan, but because Washburn himself on his return brought him Caxias’s communication, with the basis for effecting the change of government as deposed to previously.
That subsequently, after deponent came back from the army to the capital, towards the end of September, he went to see Washburn in his house, who asked him how he had left those people, (the army,) to which he answered, “Well in health, but not so as regards their position, which, as I have mentioned before, has become worse,” (alluding to the circular movement.)
That Washburn asked him again, “But are they going to fight?”
Deponent. Undoubtedly, but not much.
Washburn. Why?
Deponent. Because some of them are worn out, and others have little faith in a general action, seeing the elements arrayed against them, and I have not tried to undeceive them. And then went on to say, I see with great pleasure that a great deal has been done here, and well, and that all is ready in anticipation of what may occur, and I think soon.
Washburn. Mr. Berges is a very able man; under his Jesuitism and apparent indifference, he works with remarkable activity.
Deponent. Indeed; I myself never thought he would have done so much.
Washburn. The fact is he has excellent coadjutors, and he is not niggard with his god money.
That then Washburn took up Dr. Graty’s book and they both looked out in the map attached to it for the river Tebicuari and the distances of the various departments from one another, all with reference to the military operations connected with the expected revolutionary movement.
That on the 16th of October deponent met Washburn near the columns of the government-house, and there they spoke of the events that had happened at the seat of war at the beginning of the month, deponent saying that the allies had been worsted, to which Washburn replied: “Unless it is an engagement as those described by the Seminario, in which one or two hundred kill several battalions without the loss of a single man;” that deponent also said on this occasion that the line of the besiegers did not reach yet as far as the river, and more in this sense.
That afterwards, deponent having gone to visit Washburn in his house, they talked [Page 810] about the news that the enemy had reached the river, sinking two vessels. Washburn said that they had done wrong in losing these vessels, because the army could not afford to be without them, and the Brazilian squadron would certainly come up. Deponent answered that these vessels did them much harm. On this occasion deponent also said that soon great events might he expected, alluding to the movement of which he (Washburn, knew, and which was the raising of the siege.
That subsequently, at the beginning of January, when deponent was casually visiting Washburn at the Trinidad House, the latter, after inquiring about the news, as was their wont, said that the situation was becoming every day more critical, and that it was necessary to put an end to this state of things, since there was a talk of even enlisting women to continue the war, and that this revealed the impossibility of arriving at an honorable treaty, (alluding to the different overtures of peace which the marshal had inflexibly rejected.) That such a thing (enlisting women) was ridiculous, and that his wife had told him that if this took place she would not remain any longer in a country that allowed such things; to which deponent replied that these demonstrations had no other object save to strengthen, if possible, the confidence of the public, adding, “If you go, you leave us in a pretty pickle;” and Washburn said, “If I remain, it is because I think that I shall be able to be of some service to you,” (meaning with regard to the revolution.)
That on another occasion they met in the Campo Grande, when Washburn, who was coming from the house of Fidanza, asked deponent what was the news, both at the seat of war and in town, and being answered none, showed himself little pleased with the calm that prevailed, and deponent thought that it was in consequence of the visit he had just been paying, in company with Manlove, to Fidanza, who was one of those implicated in the revolution, when doubtless they had discussed the matter.
That shortly afterwards Washburn proceeded to Tapua. Deponent was there with his mother, whom Washburn went to thank for having lent him a quinta in Trinidad to pass the summer, and say that he intended returning to town. On taking leave of deponent he said to him that the person in charge of the French consulate was a fool, because he talked of things that were compromising.
“What are these things?” asked deponent.
Washburn. He talks about a new order of things; he picks up and repeats everything, and talks also much about local politics.
That, moreover, deponent remembers that even before the evacuation of the capital, talking of the probabilities that this measure would be adopted in consequence of the affair of Tayi, and Asuncion declared a military post, Washburn said to him that such a step would be absurd; that the government had no right to inforce it, and that he could even protest if the measure applied to foreign residents; that, after the evacuation had actually been decreed, José Berges referred in the office, in presence of a third party, that had been the same night on a visit at Washburn’s, and talking about the evacuation of the capital, the latter had formally declared that he for his own part would do no such thing, and on that account he offered Berges an asylum if ever he required one, and begged him to say so to the government people. That Washburn maintained his right to protest against the evacuation, as he said to deponent, inasmuch as it concerned foreigners, and that the consuls were not discharging their duties when they withdrew, and that if he did not protest, it was because his own fellow-countrymen were few. That to declare the capital a fortress, with only one gun, and against iron-clads, running the risk of its being destroyed, was an unjustifiable error.
That deponent knows, also, that Washburn warmly maintained these same ideas with a view of being backed up by the French and Italian consuls, as they themselves said, but that they refused to support him; and the deponent, moreover, says that Washburn spoke in this sense to natives and foreigners, making the revolutionists understand that he did so in their interest; and, to inspire them with more confidence, he rented several houses, in which he began to give refuge to Englishmen, and then to Carreras and Rodriguez, who belong to the revolution.
That he remembers also that Washburn complained to him and others of his living in the capital, and said to him more particularly that the small consideration shown towards his person, and latterly towards his flag, would end by exasperating him and place the government in a situation even more critical than the actual one, letting one understand by this, deponent says, that he might break off abruptly the good relations between the republic and the United States.
That in Paso Pucu, after Washburn’s return from the enemy’s camp, bringing the bases and the letter of Caxias for deponent, the latter said to Washburn, that if they were successful he might reckon upon half a million and something more in order that, instead of going to Chili, he might go where he pleased, and that he said this because Washburn was always talking of going from hence to take charge of the legation in Chili, and that it was only this hope that made him put up with the Paraguayan legation.
That, besides this offer, deponent, about the end of October or beginning of November, delivered to Washburn, in two sums, the amount of one thousand gold ounces and [Page 811] $15,000 currency, telling him that if he required more he should not hesitate to say so, because there were three thousand ounces at his disposal.
That this amount was given to Washburn by deponent personally in Washburn’s house in the capital, where deponent went, carrying it himself, the first time on foot, and the second time on horseback, on both occasions at dusk.
That deponent’s object in giving Washburn this gratuity was on account of his official co-operation in the revolution.
That in the above-mentioned letter of Caxias, Washburn was said to have explained the plan intrusted to him by deponent; that Caxias was agreeable to it, and sent the required bases, urging that action should be taken in that sense; that the bearer (Washburn) would co-operate efficiently, and that he went bein cheio, (well paid.)
That these bases were the same as those proposed to the government by Mr. Gould, with the material difference that the change of government was the first in those received by deponent, whilst it appeared last in Gould’s.
That Washburn, as appears, bribed by Marquis de Caxias, was intrusted to him with the commission of proposing ex-officially to the marshal of his own accord to resign, in order to make peace, which, knowing beforehand that the marshal would not consent, was done in order that Washburn might be at liberty to talk on the matter and popularize the idea that the marshal was the only cause of the war, and consequently that the alliance, far from attacking the nation, had no other object in view except to save it by means of a new government.
That in pursuance of this purpose, Mr. Washburn, wished to take advantage of the army being besieged to offer his services to the marshal on the same basis as Mr. Gould, with only some accidental changes, with a view of being enabled to go over to the enemy’s camp, to hold an interview with the Marquis de Caxias, apprise him of the state of things with reference to the revolution, and urge him to move, in order to profit by the good dispositions of the nation.
That on another occasion Washburn said that probably when the war was at an end the country would give itself a constitution; to which deponent replied that he did not think it would be wise to do so when the nation emerged from so prostrate a condition.
Washburn. Do you intend going on with despotism?
Deponent. No, sir; laws will be given, but neither with the name nor character of constitution, viz., as is done in England.
Washburn. Mr. Berges is more constitutional than you are.
Deponent. That is because he has been in the United States.
That besides these conversations which deponent had with Washburn, the former knew, through Berges, that the latter was prepared to do anything he was asked or that was necessary in support of the revolution so as to secure its success, and Berges himself forwarded to him all the news that came from the army. In a word, that he was on the most perfect understanding with him, (Washburn,) and that the latter received and sent Berges’s and Carreras’s correspondence for outside, that had reference to the revolution, and also communicated all those he himself received.
That, in addition to all this, Washburn was bound, if the revolution was successful, to recognize the new government that should spring out of it, and in a contrary case give an asylum under his flag to the revolutionists.
That all the papers of the revolution which passed through deponent’s hands were put by him into a square envelope, which he closed with gum and sealed, and then took in person to the American minister, after writing upon it “Private papers,” and in a corner the initials “B. L.;” that on delivering this envelope to the minister he told him, “I do not wish to leave these papers in my house, and therefore bring them to you;” to which Washburn replied “Very well;” and taking the envelope, placed it on around table; that this happened when the papers in the government office began to be moved on account of the arrival of the iron-clads at Asuncion. It was about the 20th of February, about midday, deponent entered the drawing-room by the dining-room door, having been announced by the servant Katy; that during the few moments he remained with the minister they talked about the iron-clads, and the latter asked whether the city was to be evacuated. Deponent said, “Yes;” that when deponent entered the drawing-room the minister was drinking gin, and therefore asked him whether he preferred this or brandy, and on deponent saying he preferred the latter, he ordered Katy to bring some. She shortly afterwards came with a small tray, with some brandy and a wine-glass, and deponent took a little. Soon after deponent left, and Washburn accompanied him to the hall.
That the last conversation which deponent had with Washburn was on the 15th March. Deponent came to the capital on his way to the army; Washburn was going out of town, and they met two squares behind the church of San Roque, and stopped a few moments to converse. Washburn asked deponent where he was going, and being answered “To the army,” said, “What can I do for you?” Deponent answered, “I commend to you my family, and wish you may be successful;” meaning that I left my family under his protection, as he had offered to look after defenceless people and their [Page 812] fortunes, and that he might be fortunate in the share he (Washburn) had taken in the revolution.
Now you will have the kindness to listen, for the first time, to another individual who mentions you. Ex-Commander General of Arms Venancio Lopez says what follows:
That on the 1st of April the American minister went to visit deponent at his house in town, and told him, “Humaita cannot resist the iron-clads, and much less can the fortifications improvised do so;” and that “Brazilians being masters of the Parana and of Misiones, it is impossible to dislodge them, and the Paraguayans are so locked in that there is no possible escape; however, in my house, which is at your disposal, you shall be guaranteed, but it cannot hold all. Moreover, it is necessary to preserve what you have acquired,” (referring to the revolution,) “and it would be well for you to write to Caxias that your family and your interests may be saved. It is the only thing that remains to be done.”
That, moreover, he told deponent to let Caxias know that all the leaders of the revolution had been sent to the army, and that therefore the whole plan was discovered. That deponent at first refused, not having any intercourse with Caxias, to which Washburn replied that it did not matter; deponent then asked him by what means he could send a communication, and Washburn replied by way of Caapacu, saying that there was one Tilifer, adding that Vasconcellos (the vice-consul) also knew this individual, and promising that he, together with deponent’s letter, would send one.
That the American minister had stated the point at which the Brazilian advanced posts were stationed.
That deponent received Caxias’s through the American minister, by the Wasp, and its contents were to the effect that he was not to be afraid, since all that was meant was a change of administration to avoid the ravages of the war.
That deponent also wrote another letter to Caxias, dated the 10th or 11th of May, saying that, on the faith of the American minister’s assurance, he continued to work for the revolution, although with faint hopes of success, because the leaders had all been seized and their plans discovered; that it was forwarded by Washburn with his own dispatches, but no answer to it ever came.
That the American minister had taken charge of all the papers as a guarantee, it being understood that these papers are those that refer to the revolution. That those among them that were not thought of any interest were destroyed, as well as the rough copies. That deponent delivered to the minister himself the documents he found in Bedoya’s possession, the same that Benigno had shown him on the afternoon of the day he arrived the last time at the camp, saying that those were the papers of which Bedoya also had spoken when he came; that the deponent had found them when he went to look for some pens in Bedoya’s office, and that after Benigno’s return he had forgotten all about them.
That said documents were under a sealed cover, marked Documentos de Salinares, and that he gave them to the American minister, together with a sheet of paper on which Were written the names of the new administration; that he gave them on the 4th of July, about 10 a. m., in the house of the deponent’s mother, where he lived; that Washburn, on receiving the sealed packet, said, “This will serve as a duplicate,” showing that he was well aware of its contents.
That the words by which Washburn began to talk to deponent, and induce him to take part in the conspiracy, were as follows:
Washburn. What news? None, as usual?
Deponent. I know nothing.
Washburn. It is strange that your brother (the marshal) does not wish peace in spite of all I have done, and I cannot see any hope of victory, knowing the great power of Brazil, and its influence everywhere. Besides, all know the right of Brazil to sustain this war, into which it has been forced, and hence nobody dares offer its intervention, and your brother would be admired as among the most famous and valiant men if he were to resign, not because he is conquered, but for the sake of re-establishing peace, and allow Sanchez to take his place with a view of entering into negotiations. The great republic is the only one that ought to save Paraguay, and secure its autonomy. The secret treaty is ridiculous, and the United States will not recognize it. There are not many men of capacity here, and a few of the most prominent, who enjoy the confidence of the people, may be the means of salvation.
That deponent approved these ideas, and made up his mind to support the revolution, of which the minister was thus the principal promoter, and promised moreover to consent to become the organ of communication between the enemy and the conspirators.
That according to that Washburn himself told deponent, the object of his wishing to have the Wasp at Asuncion was that she might be there to protect his friends, and that he was surprised at Caxias’s refusal to let her pass, which he could only attribute to his unwillingness to establish a precedent for others.
That when deponent asked Washburn how the situation could be saved, now that his [Page 813] excellency knew of the revolution, he was answered, “It is that canaille Couverville, who is incapable of keeping a secret, who has discovered all. But Caxias will not lose any time; he will hasten to take Humaita, then he will send the fleet this way, and move the army towards the Tebicuari, so that you (the conspirators) will be able to save yourselves, because I shall then ask for an armistice and propose the commissioners who are to treat with the allies; that once this is obtained, the situation would depend on the revolutionary movement, and consequently the national army would not be able to act, but must submit, since Caxias is sure to send troops which he will land wherever he thinks best for calling off the attention of the marshal, who being surrounded on all sides, his retreat will be rendered very difficult, and he will be forced into coming to terms not so advantageous as they would have been at first; that with regard to Humaita, it was no impediment to Caxias, and it had not suited his plans to have taken it sooner; besides, he preferred a surrender.”
That after this revelation Washburn persuaded deponent to write to Caxias, saying that he and Comandante Fernandez were the only ones that could save the situation.
Next comes José Vicente Urdapilleta, ex-judge of second instance, who makes the following references to you:
That the American minister was compromised to guarantee the transmission of the communication which Benigno held with the enemy, who was to operate in combination with the revolutionary forces, and protect the movement by sending to Asuncion the iron-clads, with a landing force that was to be disembarked in the capital itself, or any other convenient spot, following the plan of operations to be agreed upon later on. That, moreover, Mr. Washburn undertook to employ his best efforts, and even go so far as to obtain the support of his government and make use of the material force at his disposal in the river Plata to assist in the realization of the intended movement, since among his instructions from his government was that of laboring for the maintenance of freedom among the South American nations.
That the moment or time when the revolution was to break out was to be announced by Mr. Washburn, as he had to come to an agreement with the commander-in-chief of the allied army, either by letter or by an interview.
That on another afternoon, about twenty days later, the deponent met, near the house of the Figueredos, Benigno Lopez, who was coming from his house in the Recoleta, and walked with him as far as the center of the town. On this occasion deponent asked how the revolution was getting on, and Benigno said that of all those who took part in it Mr. Washburn deserved more praise than all, and was lending very valuable services to the revolutionary cause, and that he was therefore entitled to great consideration both from the conspirators and the nation in general; and that in consequence he had given Mr. Washburn 1,500 gold ounces and $25,000 currency, to which deponent remarked that it was a great deal, and he must be well pleased, since he only received $5,000 annually from his government for his mission, which, according to his own declaration, was all the fortune he possessed. That then Benigno said that Washburn’s deserts were also very great, since he was disposed to favor the conspirators by all the means at his disposal, and that he had said that he intended to get two or three men-of-war of the United States stationed at Asuncion, in order to be able to protect under his flag the insurgents in case they were defeated or that their plans miscarried. That upon all those grounds he (Benigno) had given the above sum to Washburn, and would, on the termination of this transaction, give him an equal or larger sum, (this deponent does not recollect well,) and that for the $25,000 in notes he could purchase a piece of land well situated for a country residence, and for which purpose he might dispose of government land at a moderate price.
That a few days afterwards deponent met Mr. Washburn coming from his house in Trinidad, near the house of Belilla, who asked him the news of the war.
Urdapilleta. I know nothing these last days; do you?
Minister. No more do I; but I am going to the government house, and if I hear anything I will call on my way back at your house. He then went on: “D. Benigno tells me that you are initiated into the revolution, and I am happy that men like you should take part in such things.”
Urdapilleta. It is true; and you also have taken part in it to guarantee the communications with the enemy.
Minister. Yes; and something more than that. I have much pleasure in exerting myself for the project, and I shall even engage the name of my government, if necessary, because by instructions I am requested to do all I can to secure freedom to the nations of America. I propose going down the river to fetch my communications, which I have not received for some time past, and at the same time I will arrange matters between them, (Benigno and the enemy.)
Urdapilleta. I am glad to hear it, and hope you will do as you say.
Minister. Never fear; it shall be so.
That on another occasion, when deponent was standing at the door of his own house, [Page 814] and Washburn, as he frequently Used to do, passed by, deponent asked him how matters were going.
Minister, (rubbing his hands.) I am awaiting anxiously for my dispatches from my government, and with them the other, (from the enemy.)
Urdapilleta. And will this bring us any good?
Minister. Of course.
That after exchanging a few more words, they talked of the actual state of things, and Washburn said that it was well that Marshal Lopez should have rendered his country famous by his heroic defense of it; that when the war was over, many capitalists would come on a visit, and for the purpose of trading with it on account of its riches; but that, in spite of all this, and of Marshal Lopez having brought to light Paraguay, the government of the marshal in no way suited the nation, because a military chief is constantly inclined to war, and the alternatives of peace and war obstruct the progressive march of the country, because war destroys the wealth produced by peace; on the other hand, the country offered a large field for exploration, and by introducing improvements from abroad—such as machinery, &c.—great and rapid progress might be made if the government were not a military one.
That in one of their conversations Mr. Washburn told deponent that Saturnino Bedoya had offered him his quinta at Ibiray, a handsome two-story building, with furniture and everything necessary, even a servant, without charging anything for it. Deponent thought that this was not of mere friendship, but as a sort of return for Mr. Washburn’s services in the cause of the revolution.
Francisco Rodriguez Larreta, who according to your own testimony is known to have been on terms of intimacy with you, says as follows:
That with regard to the conditions of the secret treaty of the “triple alliance,” Minister Washburn said that although they were too harsh, Paraguay would sooner or later have to submit to them, because the Brazilians were very strong; and if this was later, the sooner it took place the better.
That, as a general principle of international law, Minister Washburn considered inadmissible the pretensions of the allies that his excellency Marshal Lopez should resign the supreme rule of the republic, and believed such a demand an attack on the independence and sovereignty of a constituted country; but in the present state of things he thought such resignation would afford the most efficacious means of bringing the war to an end, and that on this occasion he had resolved to support the revolution.
That when the minister came back from San Fernando he said that he had been able to do nothing with respect to the fate of Benigno Lopez and Saturnino Bedoya, and that he had only heard that Berges had been taken unwell in crossing the Chaco, which led him (Washburn) to believe that if Berges was ill in his house, it was so far reassuring as indicating that he was not a prisoner, and that therefore the revolutionary project was not to be considered as having fallen through, but, on the contrary, still practicable.
That, on the occasion of Leite Pereira presenting himself at the American legation for shelter, Washburn consulted Carreras and deponent as to what point the protection of his house could avail said Leite Pereira under present circumstances. That both deponent and Carreras said that he had in no way the right to give him shelter if he was claimed by the tribunal as being charged criminally; and in order more fully to convince him, they referred him to the principal authors on international law that treat this point, such as Vattel, Martens, Wheaton, Hausefeuille, and Andres Bello; and that, notwithstanding his conviction that he had no right to do so, and knowledge that he (Pereira) was implicated in the revolution, Washburn admitted him into his house.
That Minister Washburn has guaranteed to the revolutionary committee the protection of his house, and promised those who had already taken refuge with him that he would not deliver them up to justice unless compelled to do so by force, as he said himself to deponent, which proved the fact that up to the very moment when deponent and Carreras went out into the streets to place themselves in the hands of justice, Washburn repeated to them that if they did not wish to deliver themselves up they had only to say so, and he would never consent to their being taken away except by main force.
That Minister Washburn entreated deponent and Carreras not to reveal that he had any knowledge of the affairs of the revolution, and not to compromise him in their depositions, offering them every possible assistance in case they remained in Asuncion; that both deponent and Carreras assured him they would not reveal the secret, or in any way betray him.
That in different conversations they had during deponent’s stay at the legation, Washburn expressed his concern in the event of the revolution falling through without their being able to attain the end they sought, in order to put an end to the war, and lamented the probable fate of all those who had taken a part in the plot.
That Minister Washburn received the sum of $140,000 in notes, according to what [Page 815] Washburn himself revealed to deponent; that this money was given to him by Benigno Lopez, in the last days of February or beginning of March, (deponent does not recollect the date exactly;) that the money was carried by two women-servants of Benigno himself on their heads, in two journeys, about dark; that deponent was present once when one of these servants came in with the money; and that the minister placed the sum of $40,000 at the disposal of deponent and Carreras, according to a request he said he had received from Benigno himself. Deponent and Carreras, however, did not take the money, not knowing what to do with it at the time, and consequently the whole amount remained in the minister’s possession.
Dr. Carreras says also:
That Mr. Washburn maintains in principle that although the government of Paraguay is not bound to give in to the pretensions of the allies with regard to the resignation by his excellency Marshal Lopez of the presidency of the republic, still in the present state of things, and owing to the prolongation of the war and the consequent annihilation of the country, it is advisable to make a spontaneous and personal sacrifice, so long as the national independence is sacred; and since the marshal is determined not to give in, and is inspired by a fanaticism to carry on the war until the country is totally distroyed, he (Washburn) thinks that any means is good which will save the nation from so complete a sacrifice, and consequently has approved the plan of the revolution and taken part in it to overturn the marshal by hunger or by the dagger.
Your excellency is also alluded to by Leite Pereira, Antonio Vascon-cellos, and others of the revolutionary party, who have been more or less aware of the important part they say you have taken in it.
But I shall conclude these quotations with one more of ex-Minister Berges’s, who says that when you complained of the want of the necessaries of life, such as sugar, brandy, coffee, wine, and even clothes, as you could find nothing but aguardiente of the country, Berges had remarked that with money and yerba one might get on, (alluding to the fact that Berges himself supplied you with yerba and Benigno with money.) To this deponent goes on to say the minister replied, “It is true that you supply me with yerba, and Benigno has given me some money.”
Deponent said, “It cannot have been a small sum.”
The minister replied, “What Benigno gave me is, at the present rate of exchange, approximately equal to what you gave in North America to Ward and Carlisle.”
For all this, and for the antecedents of which your excellency is aware, my government would have been justified to have broken off some time back all intercourse with a minister who, in the critical circumstances through which the Paraguayan people is passing, figures, by the testimony of the infamous traitors of the country themselves, as one of them. My government, however, ever anxious to give the most unequivocal proofs of its high consideration and regard towards the government of the great American republic, has done no such thing, but only confines itself to remitting to you the passports which you have repeatedly solicited in order to leave the country, and I am happy to inform you that the Wasp, which has come to fetch you, is waiting for you in Villeta, and that a steamer will be in attendance in the port of Asuncion for you and your suite.
Among the individuals of the legation the accused Bliss and Masterman, as not belonging to it, cannot obtain their passports, and they must remain to answer the charges that are hanging over them before the local courts of justice. Neither can Balthazar, Carrera’s servant, leave the country, for which reason his name does not appear in the passport.
Having thus also replied to your note, dated 2d instant, relative to the arrival of the Wasp, I avail myself of the opportunity to renew to your excellency the assurances of distinguished consideration.
His Excellency Charles A. Washburn, Minister Resident of the United States of America.