No. 96.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoffman.
Washington, December 28, 1872.
Sir: Referring to Mr. Washburne’s dispatch No. 689, of September 25, 1872, and to the reply of this Department of the 19th of October last, No. 450, I have now to state that the subsequent communication of Mr. Holzer, forwarded in your dispatch of the 12th ultimo, does not change the aspect of the case from that in which it appeared when first presented.
The precautionary measures adopted by the French government during its late war with Prussia, in reference to foreigners found within its [Page 241] territories, do not seem to have differed in any substantial particular from those to which other governments have felt it necessary to resort under similar circumstances, especially when the country in which such war measures are found to be necessary is itself the theater of hostilities. In the enforcement of such measures mistakes must often occur, and it will sometimes happen that in the execution of orders for carrying them out the vigilance and zeal of subordinates will involve treatment of the person arrested which, under ordinary circumstances, would be considered unnecessarily harsh if not cruel; but it does not thence follow that the government which has felt compelled to resort to such measures in the interest of their country are to be held to account for the consequences of every such mistake.
Mr. Holzer, according to his own statement, was fully informed in regard to the system of surveillance on foreigners which had just then been instituted by the committee of public safety. Common prudence would have dictated the propriety of Mr. Holzer reporting himself to that committee, and (having in his possession the best evidence of his American citizenship) obtaining from this highest local authority such formal recognition of his national character as would have afforded to him certain protection against arrest and imprisonment. Instead of pursuing this obviously safe course, he contented himself with the verbal assurance of the prefect, a subordinate officer. Consequences followed which, however-much they are to be regretted, Mr. Holzer must himself be held in some degree responsible, for so soon as his imprisonment was brought to the attention of General Osterhaus, the consul of the United States at Lyons, that officer promptly took steps to secure his release. Mr. Holzer’s own words best state the result of the consul’s efforts: “The next day he claimed me, and thus secured my release.”
This action of the consul was in complete accordance with the uniform policy of this Government in extending protection to citizens of the United States, wherever they may be. No reason is perceived, however, for further action by this Government in Mr. Holzer’s case.
I am, &c.,