Mr. Eustis to Mr. Olney.
Paris, January 10, 1896.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 6th instant, calling my attention to the difficulty of accepting unreservedly the offer of the French Government to settle the Waller case by immediately releasing the prisoner, if it is true, as Waller states, that he has been subjected to cruel treatment.
No time was lost in presenting the question under that light to both the minister, whom I saw day before yesterday, and to the official having charge of the matter at the foreign office, and I regret to say that the result of these conferences is that the French Government is determined not to pardon Waller unless it is well understood that this pardon ends definitely the matter between the two Governments.
The French Government contends that Waller was tried by impartial and competent judges with due regard for the rights of the defense; [Page 311] that he was treated with indulgence, for he might have been tried as a spy, which would have brought upon him a sentence of death; that he is actually the recipient of exceptional favors extended to no other convict, and that the offer of Mr. Hanotaux to pardon him was made, not because it was felt that he had been impartially treated or because he was entitled to any sympathy, but simply to be agreeable to the United States Government.
With regard to the statement that Waller was subjected to cruel treatment after his conviction—a statement not heard of before at the foreign office—Mr. Berthelot would not admit the possibility of its being true, and said that even if such was the case the only way Waller could obtain an indemnity would be to bring a civil action against the officers culpable of such an offense. As for the Government, the only thing it could do would be to investigate the matter, if we made a request to that effect, and to punish the officers responsible for the bad treatment complained of by Waller if it was found that such bad treatment had been inflicted.
Mr. Berthelot’s declaration was so positive that the French Government would not modify its proposed pardon that even if I had presented the affidavit of Waller I am convinced that it would not have influenced in the slightest degree his determination.
Mr. Hanotaux had expressed to me, when permission was granted to take Waller’s deposition, that it was contrary to all precedent, and he realized that he assumed a serious responsibility. We must take into consideration that a request to allow us to take the affidavit of a man condemned to solitary confinement, to be used against the Government, is such a relaxation of prison discipline that the ministry may well hesitate to grant such a request.
Inasmuch as Waller’s affidavit would be utterly useless for the purpose intended, I have delayed making the request until further instructed.
In conclusion I may say that in my opinion the French Government would not consider our unreserved acceptance of the pardon of Waller under the terms offered as a bar to any action Waller would take, after his release, to obtain from the courts of justice damages for the treatment of which he complains. I am satisfied that Mr. Berthelot would consent to investigate, officially, the matter, and that the French Government would not hesitate to apologize if the facts sustained Waller’s charge, and to punish the offenders.
I have, etc.,