No. 337.
Mr. Bassett to Mr. Fish.
Fort au Prince, October 12, 1875. (Received October 29.)
Sir: Although Boisrond Canal and his brother, late refugees under our flag here, have been amicably embarked for neutral territory, as will be explained in my No. 399 of even date, yet it may be desirable to place upon record the explanation requested in Department’s No. 237, relative to certain alleged proceedings of those persons while at my house, which are adverted to in Mr. Preston’s note of August 26, 1875, [Page 733] to Mr. Hunter, and I take pleasure in furnishing the requested explanation.
In his note, with a copy of which, under cover of No. 237, I am favored, Mr. Preston reports his government as affirming that Boisrond Canal and his brother were in the habit of showing themselves “at the windows and even under the balconies of the house of Mr. Bassett;” that “they even received their friends there, and have constant visits in the presence of the minister, so that the residence becomes as it were a rendezvous where the enemies of the government conspire openly.”
At daylight, on the morning of the 3d of May last, I gave the refugees a suit of three rooms over my gallery. Neither Boisrond Canal nor his brother ever left these rooms during all the five months they were iu refuge at my house, except on two or three occasions: once when during a terrible tropical rain late one evening, an American gentleman and myself being the only other persons in the house, which then had every door and window firmly closed, we invited him to come down into the saloon, where he spent a half hour in conversation on ordinary topics, and again when he and his brother came down stairs to proceed to their embarkation, just after midnight on the morning of the 4th of October instant. In addition to this, my family, with some emotions of dissatisfaction at the occurrence, informed me that once, when I was in town at my office, he came down stairs, as if by a strange fancy, and went to the other dwelling upon my premises, a few yards off, occupied by the family of the late Emperor Solouque, who have for years lived on terms of intimacy with my own family. There is a gallery fronting the suite of rooms alluded to, but the refugees were never, as far as I know, in the habit of going there except after nightfall. The windows and doors on three sides of the suite of rooms lately occupied by the refugees are shaded by trees. The other side opens upon the roof of the main building and upon the yard between the two dwellings. The entrance from the high road to the house is, 1 should judge, at least fifty yards from the balcony. After receiving your No. 237, I went on the upper balcony several times expressly to satisfy myself if any one could be seen from that position outside of the habitation. Perhaps some sharper eyes than I have could do so, but I could see no one on the street from any point on the upper balcony. Mr. Preston himself knows perfectly well the location and surroundings of my residence, and could not fail to recognize the substantial correctness of this statement. That a very few persons who called on me and my family at my house went up stairs to see the refugees is true. But no one was allowed to see them without the special permission of myself, my wife, or our housekeeper. With the exception of our family physician I do not remember a single instance in which any male citizen of the country not connected with my habitation, visited them. Indeed the absurdity of this part of the charge contained in Mr. Preston’s note becomes apparent when the truth is told, that no citizen of the country, and for that matter seldom any one else, was allowed to enter my premises while the refugees were there, without the formal permission of the military authorities. * * * *
My action in all these particulars was dictated by a sense of delicacy toward this government in its irritation and sensitiveness relative to the affair of Boisrond Canal and his brother, and not by any disposition to cede my right, as I understood it, to invite, if I should wish to do so, a gentleman like General Canal, who might find himself, under whatever circumstances, at my house, to a seat at my table, which he has never had, or to mingle with my household, which he has never done.
What Mr. Preston writes in his note is not half the story. This goveminent [Page 734] has many times fallen into paroxysms of displeasure at reports from spies in its employ, some of them my own servants, as I was informed, as to the alleged conduct of the refugees. One report was that Boisrond Canal, in smoking his cigar, was in the habit of spitting upon the soldiers, whereas the truth is that he never smokes at all. Another was that he had the custom of talking with them to win them over to his control, whereas no soldier while on guard around my premises was ever within fifty or sixty yards of his apartments. Another was that he was accustomed to promenade at pleasure in my yard and swim in my bath, whereas he has never yet done either the one thing or the other.
But I will not continue these details. I may say, in one word, that there is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no foundation whatever for the allegations in Mr. Preston’s note. These allegations are only another illustration of the manner in which conduct on our part, dictated by a sense of delicacy or by a desire to pursue a generous and liberal line of policy toward this particular people, may at times be expected to be received by them.
I am, &c.,