M. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Bigelow. PARIS, April 13, 1866. SIR: I had the honor to write to you on the 29th and 30th March, to let you know that I had called the attention of the minister of war to the reclamations of Messrs. Todry and François, who were the cbjects of your letters of the 27th and 29th of same month. Marshal Randon has just informed me, and I hasten to let you know, that these two persons have been set at liberty. Moreover, orders have been given for suspension of the judicial action, to which they were subject on the score of the offence of refractoriness, until the civil courts before which MM. Todry and François will have to present themselves shall decide whether they have or have not lost the quality of Frenchmen, and since what time. Accept, &c., &c., Mr. BIGELOW, &c., &c., &c. DROUYN DE LHUYS. No. 308.] Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF the United. STATES, Of SIR: The enclosed passport purporting to have been issued by the governor of Louisiana was presented at this legation a few days since, to be visaed course the application was declined, and the party to whom it belonged was informed that if he wished the protection of the United States government he must procure a passport from the United States government. He accordingly took a new passport from this legation and left his old one, on which is inscribed the visa of the Bavarian consul at New Orleans. I send it to you under the impression that you may, perhaps, think it proper to inquire by what authority a foreign consul residing in the United States visas a passport issued by a governor of a State. I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 26th ultimo, No. 292, enclosing copies of the correspondence which has passed between yourself and Lord Cowley, upon the subject of the payment of the second instalment of the Japanese indemnity. Your proceedings in this matter are approved. The treaty having now been ratified, I have to inform you that in compliance with the suggestion with regard to the disposition of the money to be placed to the credit of the United States, contained in your despatch of the 19th of January, No. 244, Mr. Adams has been instructed to inform Lord Russell of his authority to receive the share of the instalments already paid, which is due to this government, and upon its receipt to place the amount with the Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., at London, to the credit of the Secretary of State. I am, sir, your obedient servant, JOHN BIGELOW, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 311.] Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward: LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Since posting my despatch No. 302, in relation to the arrest and imprisonment of Francis Pierre, a naturalized citizen of the United States, a correspondence, of which I enclose a copy, has passed between the ministry of foreign affairs and this legation. I am promised an early official reply to my last note, which I hope may close the correspondence satisfactorily. I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. JOHN BIGELOW. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Bigelow. PARIS, April 16, 1866. SIR: You did me the honor to write to me the 13th of this month to call my attention to the declarations made at the United States legation in London, by Mr. François Pierre, on the subject of the ill- treatment of which he had to complain on occasion of his imprisonment. I thank you for having repelled any supposition that the hardships of which Mr. Pierre may have been the subject were caused by any ill-feeling in respect of the people or government of the United States. The conduct of the French authorities could not have been swayed by any such motive. It is probable that Mr. François Pierre exaggerated certain circumstances which unavoidably happen when there is a necessity to transfer from one place to another an individual under arrest. However it may be, I send the declarations of Mr. François Pierre to the minister of war, requesting him to order an inquiry on the subject. I shall have the honor at an ulterior date to inform you of the result. But at this time I cannot withhold the remark, that the first use Mr. François Pierre thought he should make of his liberty was to withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the French courts, before which he was to prove the loss of his character of Frenchman by the acquisition of a new nationality. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency's communication of the 16th instant in reference to the arrest and imprisonment of François Pierre at Sarregue mines in March last. Your excellency expresses the opinion that Pierre probably exaggerated the rigors which inevitably attend the transfer of a prisoner from one place to another. I trust your excellency's opinion is well founded, though I regret to say that I am in possession of no evidence tending to invalidate the statements of Pierre and another eye-witness of the treatment of which he complains. Your excellency is pleased to add that the first use that Pierre made of his liberty was "to withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the French tribunals, before which it was his duty to establish the loss of his quality as a Frenchman by the acquisition of a new nationality." I do not know that I entirely comprehend the implication intended to be conveyed by these words of your excellency; but if they were designed to reproach Pierre with a violation of good faith in withdrawing from France when he did, I do not hesitate to express my conviction that they do him injustice. Pierre came to England as the agent of a New England manufacturing company. He thought fit to profit by the opportunity to visit the place of his birth and the friends of his early youth. He arrived there on the night of the 15th of March. On the following day he was arrested and kept a prisoner until the 28th of March, when he was liberated, and his passport and naturalization papers returned to him. Then, instead of availing himself of his liberty, as your excellency intimates, to withdraw from France, he came to Paris, where I first saw him. After a sojourn here of two days he left for London to join his wife, whose anxieties he was naturally anxious to relieve, and to attend to the business for which he had been sent to Europe. He assures me that when his papers were returned to him he had no suspicion that there was any further question of his right to his freedom, nor did he receive any intimation from any quarter that he was expected to abide the result of any further investigation. If the fact be otherwise, and if Pierre entered into any engagement, formal or implied, to remain in France after his liberation, I should esteem it a favor if your excellency would inform me of the nature and terms of such engagement. I am at a loss to comprehend upon what principle such terms could have been imposed, or if imposed, that Pierre, with his presumed tendency to exaggerate his grievances, should not have added this to the list. But whether the rigors of Pierre's confinement were exaggerated or not, and whether he took refuge from his persecutors in England or not, are, I suppose, in this case, secondary questions. It is not disputed that he was arrested with ample evidence of his American citizenship upon his person, and detained a prisoner for nearly a fortnight without any charge or pretence of crime. With all the presumptive evidence of his nationality in his favor, he was treated like a felon. This is so inconsistent with the privileges which, by the comity of nations, are usually accorded to strangers fortified with the ordinary evidences of their nationality, that I venture to believe your excellency will agree with me in thinking that a more precise definition of the authority and value of an American passport in France would have a most desirable tendency to prevent misunderstandings. I avail myself of this occasion, &c., &c. His Excellency Monsieur DROUYN DE LHUYS, Minister of Foreign Affairs. JOHN BIGELOW. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Seward. [Translation] DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MY DEAR MR. BIGELOW: I have the honor to send you herewith, under the character of a private note, some details on the subject of the arrest of Mr. Francis Pierre. Yours, very sincerely, P. S.-The details are given to me by the minister of war. DROUYN DE LHUYS. [Translation.] Mr. François Pierre, charged with refractoriness, was regularly arrested by the gendarmerie of St. Louis, (Moselle.) The mayor of St. Louis and the local gendarmerie had not the duty to appreciate, to judge of his remonstrances, and to pass upon the question whether he was freed from the obligations of the law on recruiting. Their duty was to cause him to be taken at once, as the law directs, to the general commanding the fifth military division at Metz. So, in accepting as true the recital of the remon strance, he could not have been the object of any abuse of power. If François had with him papers of value, which were damaged on the way, the administration is not responsible for this accident; he could have left these papers with his uncle, at whose house he was arrested, or have intrusted them to the gendarmes of the escort. For the rest, it was in an open wagon, and at his cost, he says, that he was taken to Bitche. The prison at Bitche is a military house of correction in which there is no canteen, (public house.) This explains why François Pierre could not get what he wished, although he was shut up in a hall set aside especially for passengers. The principal agent was right in objecting to his receiving from without aliments other than those fixed by the rules. There would be too many abuses to contend with if every one detained could at his pleasure modify the regulations of the prison. In fine, if at Bitche François received only half a loaf of bread and water, it is because he chose to go before the dinner hour; for in fact the military who are detained, have every day a ration of meat and a strong soup. He says himself he only stopped one night. The remonstrance again says, that at his expense he travelled by railroad from Bitche to Sarreguemines. It is because he would have a place that pleased him; because, according to the regulations, all men travelling under escort of gendarmerie must travel by rail. The prison of Sarreguemines, where François passed two days and two nights, is a civil prison, receiving military men passing on, but subject to the supervision of the imperial advocate; thus it is explained that the declarant, although arrested simply for a military offence, would have been searched and his papers temporarily taken from him. 66 In fine, arriving at Metz, François was regularly shut up in the military prison of justice. As he says himself, he was there subjected to the rules, as other prisoners; and when he adds that he asked in vain that they would furnish, at his expense, something he could eat," that evidently signifies that he wanted something besides ordinary prison fare. This ordinary, established by regulation of 6th February, 1865, consists also of a ration of meat and a good soup every day, and may be improved by buying in the kitchen certain provisions, the sale of which is allowed. In brief, Mr. François, who was used to comforts, may have suffered more than another the consequences of his arrest, but in reality was not the victim of any ill-treatment. Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward. No. 312.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Paris, April 28, 1866. SIR: I have the honor to enclose a copy of a note, this day received from the minister of foreign affairs, in further reply to my last communication to him in reference to the arrest and imprisonment of Francis Pierre. Though his reply is far from satisfactory, I shall consider the correspondence closed, unless another case of a similar character is reported to me, which I think is not very likely to occur. In a conversation with Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys upon the subject, a few days since, he said he would give orders to have the inquiry into the genuineness of passports and papers henceforth made more promptly. Meantime if naturalized citizens of the United States, liable to conscription in Europe but for their naturalization, could be notified in some way to go at once, upon their arrival in France, and report at the maire of the district in which their. names are enrolled, producing their evidences of nationality, and ask to have their names erased from the conscription list, it would then probably be their own fault if they experience any of the rigors of which Pierre complained. I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. JOHN BIGELOW. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Seward. [Translation.] PARIS, April 27, 1866. SIR: I hasten to answer the letter relating to François Pierre, which you did me the honor to write me on the 24th of this month. From the information furnished me by the minister of war, it appears that the policemen who arrested François Pierre, not being empowered to decide the question whether or not he was subject to military service, were obliged to take him before the general commanding the division of Metz-accidents of the journey, such as damage to his papers by bad weather, being unavoidable, the department is not responsible for them. The treatment of the plaintiff in the prisons of Bitche, Sarreguemines, and Metz, of which he complains, must have been similar to that of the other convicts, and he must have wanted something more than the ordinary prison fare, which he did not get; and this is the cause of his complaint. But these details, as you must acknowledge, are of small import; the chief point which you specify, and I agree to, is to determine what value is put upon an American passport in France. In regard to this, you state, that François Pierre, proved to be an American citizen by his papers, was arrested and treated as a criminal, without the form of a proper trial. If that were so, I would be the first to say with you, that such a proceeding is inconsist ent with international customs; but the case is somewhat complicated. The fact is, the person named François, a Frenchman by birth, was included in the quota for 1849, and as he did not respond to the summons, he has been considered as an insubordinate since the year 1850. Now, when François came back to France, he was still in insubordination, and as guilty of that offence, he was arrested. True, he was the bearer of an American passport; and no official in France will think of disputing the respect due to it. If François had been an American by birth, or a citizen of the United States, under other circumstances, his passport would certainly have protected him from prosecution for the offence in question; but when a person returns to his native country with foreign naturalization papers, it is not just to lay aside his nativity and admit his new nationality as protecting him, by a retroactive effect, contrary to every principle of law, against former acts, and particularly against offences of which he was guilty, a Frenchman, as in the present case. His presence in his native country obliges him to explain his case by the laws of the land; and as long as he has not done that, he is considered to have preserved his primltive citizenship. Now, who is the competent judge of the question of nationality? The government of the Emperor has more than once had occasion to discuss that point with the United States legation. I will refer in particular to the correspondence of 1860, with Mr. Faulkner, your predecessor, in regard to Zeiter's case. In France the departments have no right to judge of cases of military recruiting; that jurisdiction being reserved by law to courts of justice. This, so far from offending foreign countries, is the best security we could offer against arbitrary decisions. Such is the justice of our statutes, and it leaves no cause of action to the departments. Fortunately, difficulties of this kind do not often occur; and I will promise to use all the moderation compatible with the meaning of the law in the settlement of these questions. Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, your very humble and most obedient servant, SIR: I enclose herewith, for your information, copy of a letter, of the 11th ultimo, which I addressed to the Hon. William Dennison, the Postmaster General, in reply to his inquiry for my opinion in regard to the offer of the French government of their line of steam ocean packets to convey the United States mail between New Orleans and Vera Cruz. I am, sir, your obedient servant, JOHN BIGELOW, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Dennison. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 11, 1866. SIR: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 10th of April. By that paper I am informed that the general post department of France has advised you that the service of the French line of steam ocean packets, running between Vera Cruz and Matamoras, touching at Tampico, will be extended to New Orleans on or after the 11th of April instant, and that the employment of said packets on the line from New Orleans to Vera Cruz has been tendered to your department for the transmission of such correspondence as the United States may, with advantage, forward to Mexico by that route, under an equitable arrangement for the division of the postage thereon between the two governments. You submit to me the question, whether there is any political objection to the arrangement which has thus been proposed? Having conferred with the President, I have now the honor to state that a French postal steam vessel running between the ports of Matamoras and Vera Cauz, can be deemed by |