Mr. Olney to Mr. Eustis.
Washington, December 6, 1895.
Your cable 5th received. Is not martial-law proclamation referred to now in Paris and accessible at war office or elsewhere? Are not defects in composition of court and other irregularities indicated jurisdictional, so that judgment and sentence were always void and can now be so treated by the United States in an issue between the United States and France? Whether Waller can now so treat them is a different question, though, if he has lost rights by delay, it is through the neglect or unskillfulness of counsel appointed by France, and therefore justly imputable to France and not to Waller. It would seem that demands for Waller’s release should now be made for want of jurisdiction apparent on face of record. In view of Clunet conclusion, what are his views and yours as to next step to be taken?