Mr. Eustis to Mr. Olney.
It is proper to state that before examining the evidence I had been inclined to believe, from the information I could gather, that Waller was, perhaps, convicted on insufficient evidence, and that on account of the prejudice against him he might not have had a fair trial. After examining the original letters of Waller, I have no doubt whatever of his guilt.
It was not a case of inadvertent or imprudent writing, but was a deliberate attempt to give information to the enemy to the prejudice of the military situation of France. The evidence fully sustains the charge. The whole tenor of the correspondence discloses his guilty intention, and no court could have hesitated to condemn him. Will communicate more fully by mail.
Now, that by access to the record my Government has obtained the information desired as to the evidence, it seems to me that we ought to reach a speedy solution of this matter. Being satisfied of Waller’s guilt, the proposition of the French Government as to his pardon, in my judgment, ought to be accepted. In the face of the evidence establishing his guilt, Waller’s pretension to a claim for indemnity, on the ground of his innocence, could not for a moment be seriously considered. The proposition of the French Government could not be viewed as a compromise or as conditional, for we have nothing to compromise. We waive no rights, because we have no such rights. The French Government desires only an assurance from us that his pardon will terminate the matter. I can see no other possible solution.
Our Government has done everything in its power. It has obtained the needed information, and secures the pardon of a guilty man.
As to Mr. C.’s opinion, I do not see that it changes the aspect of the case. The French Government, in my opinion, will not admit that the court was illegally constituted. Any prolonged controversy on the question will accomplish no result. I do not believe that it will even discuss the question. It will, in my judgment, maintain that the decision of the council of revision, whose particular jurisdiction it is to decide such questions, is final. Even if it were to admit that the tribunal was illegally constituted, the only effect would be the liberation of Waller by a pardon, which is now offered. The fact of his guilt would be an argument with the French Government against a claim of indemnity. I therefore can see no other solution except the pardon.
This is Mr. C.’s opinion, that that is the only remedy to be resorted to, and I concur with him, and therefore recommend that I be instructed to accept the pardon offered by the French Government as a solution of the case. This answers to the questions raised in your cable received this morning.