claim made upon this government in connection with the alleged sacking of the legation of the United States at Asuncion by troops in the service of the empire of Brazil.

*

I have since received no communication from this government on the subject. In my said dispatch I ventured the hope that you might judge it best to take no further action in this matter until I should be able to send you the report of the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs. This I have now the honor to do, under separate cover, as well as to transmit herewith a translation which I have made of an interesting memorandum presented by the minister of foreign affairs to the Italian minister.

I have, &c.,

ROBT. CLINTON WRIGHT.

Memorandum accompanying the note of Mr. Manoel Francisco Correia, minister of foreign affairs, to the Italian minister, dated 11th of May, 1871.

[Translation.]

Baron Cavalchini, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Majesty the King of Italy, at a conference on the 19th of April, 1869, stated, by order of his government, that his government had received from Mr. Chapperon, consul in Paraguay, a report upon the entry of the Brazilian forces into Asuncion and Luque, and consequent outrages embracing the sack of his houses and the consulate itself, and damages to many Italian subjects. Mr. Cavalchini added that his government was obliged to give the greatest attention to this matter, but that it awaited a second report from Mr. Chapperon that it might again address itself to that of Brazil. In a note of the 1st of June, Mr. Cavalchini observed that from the documents annexed to the report of this department in the said year 1869, it is seen that the complaints he had presented at the conference of the 19th of April were not devoid of foundation, as in fact Asuncion and Luque had been sacked. In the first of these cities the Italian consulate was sacked on the 5th of January, notwithstanding it had been occupied by the Brazilian army since the 1st, and in the second the event occurred also on the 5th, npon the entry of a force commanded by Colonel Vasco Alves. Finally, with his note of the 6th of December, Mr. Cavalchini presented, by order of his government, a statement of the damages which the royal consulate and some Italian subjects resident in Asuncion and Luque allege that they have suffered when those cities were occupied by the Brazilian troops.

Before presenting the information and evidence which nullify the complaints made, it is necessary to consider the arguments upon which they are based. Mr. Chapperon, as well in the documents accompanying the said note of the 1st of December, 1869, as in his dispatch of the 6th of February, of the same year, addressed to Marshal Guilletme Xavier de Souya, presents only, in support of his claim, his own assertions. In opposition to these appear statements of the general and other officers of the Brazilian arty. In view of two contradictory statements, and without regard to the greater or Lesser credit which each one may merit, it becomes necessary for the discovery of the truth to make a vigorous analysis of both. Mr. Chapperon states that the alleged sacking of his houses in Asuncion and Luque took place on the 5th of January.

Mr. de Cuverville, ex-consul of France in Paraguay, who occupied at Luque part of the house in which Mr. Chapperon resided, and who also made accusations against the Brazilian troops similar to those under consideration, disagreeing in an essential point, serts that the alleged sacking of his house, at the said city, took place on the 6th, and that of his house in the capital on the 7th. In a memorandum of the 2d instant, the imperial government shows that the imputation of Mr. de Cuverville is unfounded, confronting it with notorious facts, and taking into consideration dates cited by the Brazilian generals.

The same system will be pursued in this memorandum. One cannot but feel surprise that he who mentions the date of the alleged sacking at Luque and in the capital should not state, at the same time, why he did not remain there, whither he retired, and what the motive of his not being present at those points in which he could have watched over his own interests and those which had been confided to him, and of his being where there was nothing to protect. "The absence of the consular agents from Asuncion, at a moment when it was about to be subjected to military rule," said the Duke of Caxias, in his reply of the 26th January, 1869, to Mr. de Čuverville,

" was

naturally a grave difficulty in the way of the regular and orderly occupation of the enemy's capital, because there was wanting even those who might point out the residences of the said agents, and in general the houses which, containing merchandise or objects of value, might demand special protection."

Mr. Chapperon knew, and argues therefrom, that the Brazilian general, as soon as he entered the place, began to police it, posting guards at certain houses, and taking other measures for the protection of life and property. Nothing more natural, therefore, than that Mr. Chapperon, consul of a friendly nation, should seek military authority, point out his own residence and those of his fellow-countrymen, asking such measures as he might deem best adapted for the protection of those habitations. Thus proceeding, Mr. Chapperon would have maintained the strict neutrality of his government, and, at the same time, would have fulfilled his duty in watching over Italian interests. But that agent only appeared when he thought it opportune to accuse the Brazilian troops of having sacked his residences. And this grave accusation rests alone upon the assertion of the claimant, who did not take a single step for the protection of the interests under his charge. And the responsibility of the Brazilian army for the alleged sacking is deduced precisely from the facts of its generals and officers, immediately upon entering Asuncion, having taken all the precautions humanly possible to protect the houses where it was supposed there might be objects of value. How could the Brazilian chiefs know which were the houses of the consular agents, and of the subjects of neutral nations, and those which contained objects of value and of commerce! In the entire absence of information from the parties interested, or from any other source, the military authority, when exploring the place, had to post sentinels, not at the houses where they knew articles of value existed, but at those which it seemed might contain them. Of course, under such circumstances, the precautions taken could not be complete, above all considering that the Brazilian army entered a city which was entirely unknown to it, and where no one was to be found to furnish the indispensable information needed to enlighten it as to the protection of neutral property. It was thus arguing, that Baron Cotegipe, in the said conference on the 19th of April, 1869, repelled the responsibility imputed to the Brazilian troops for the alleged sacking, whether this occurred before or after the occupation of the Paraguayan capital. Neither the belligerent who occupies a "place forte "nor he who abandons it to another belligerent can be responsible for the losses which may be suffered by the subjects of neutral nations, during the interval which intervenes between the retiring of one and the regular establishment of the other. It can be understood that during this interval the place may remain at the mercy of unscrupulous adventurers. This was precisely what occurred in Asuncion, abandoned by the Paraguayans a long time before the Brazilian troops entered it. When one of the belligerents occupies any "place forte," or city which may be under a proper administration, little inconvenience can arise from this fact so long as the principles of modern international law shall be observed. But if the occupant, as in the present case, finds everything disorganized and does not meet any one who can enlighten him or furnish the information necessary under such circumstances, irregularities must occur, which will be repeated at all times, in all countries, in all wars, the same causes being present. The Brazilian army cannot, therefore, be responsible for the criminal or reprehensible acts perpetrated whilst it did not control the place, or whilst, after having entered it, it was not possible for the Brazilian generals and officers to carry into effect the measures which they considered indispensable. The first care of the Brazilian generals upon entering Asuncion was to take measures for the protection of property.

It is therefore strange that this worthy procedure, in place of praise, should provoke accusations that these generals should not have prevented depredations committed without their knowledge, and which, moreover, occurred, as everything would induce the belief, before the army had occupied the capital and the city of Luque. He who, in a city, in a normal condition, charges himself with the safe-keeping or deposit of certain property, does not hold the local administration responsible, if by chance such property shall be stolen, he has rather to prove before the tribunals that there was no want of due care on his part, without which he is not relieved of responsibility for the loss of the property, even in the case of vis major, “Depositarius omnis qui dicit se rem amicisse, probare id debit." Doneau upon law, 7th Cod. Deposité. Such is also the doctrine laid down in note No. 5 to the art. 1845 of the Italian civil code, with notes by Vincenzo Cattaneo, vol. 2, page 1451. The alleged sacking might have been one of the accidents of vis major, of which the cited article 1845 treats; but inquiry must be made if the depositary took measures to guard what was confided to his safekeeping, or if he abandoned without just cause the places where the deposits existed. In a dispatch of the 12th February, 1869, published at page 98 of the report of this department of the same year, Colonel José Pereira de Silva, jr., says: "After our battalions had entered, I passed along some of the streets, and observed that in front of the houses which showed the arms of foreign consulates guards had been posted by order of Colonel Hermes Ernesto da Fonseca, who, on the night of the 1st January, had landed at this port, and asking why they were there, the respective commanders replied that

1

it was to prevent those houses from being violated; afterwards, it was known that from the interior of adjoining houses they had been entered and robbed, but it could not be discovered by whom, because on the said night of the 1st a Paraguayan force was here, and since the said night a multitude of sutlers and adventurers who accom pany the expedition by sea and land, were already here." In dispatches of the 17th January, 10th February, and 4th March, published at pages 89, 95, and 104 of the cited report, Colonel Hermes da Fonseca states the precautions he took to police the place as soon as he arrived there, and the difficulties he encountered in the execution of this commission from the total absence of any one who could furnish him with the necessary information. In these dispatches the purpose to repress any attack upon private property is clearly demonstrated.

As regards the measures taken at Luque, Colonel Vasco Alves Pereira states them in the following manner, in a dispatch of the 5th February, published in the said report, at page 91: "His excellency the marquis, marshal and commander-in-chief having ordered me to occupy this point, and that I should carefully examine all the houses in order to ascertain if they contained any material of war, as soon as I received this order I sent Major Ioão Baptista Barreto Seite, assistant deputy adjutant general, attached to this command, to examine the whole settlement, with the view of ascertaining if he could find any houses showing any indication or sign that they belonged to any other nationality than that of the country, and if he should find any such to post guards at them. Upon his return he reported that he had executed my order, and had found no houses of such description. At the same time that I sent Major Barreto Seite, I dispatched a police force of two officers and twenty men to prevent the touching of any article, even belonging to the people of the country." It is thus seen that the Brazilian anthorities occupying Asuncion and Luque, notwithstanding they had no knowledge of what existed in those cities, took every precaution for the protection of private property. Mr. Chapperon, who did not appear in time to watch over the property and interests of Italians, nor furnished from the place of his residence any information, holds, nevertheless, the Brazilians responsible for losses which, if they could have been prevented, certainly would have been if the depositary had fulfilled his duty. The Brazilian army enters Asuncion and Luque, and giving another proof of the constant regularity of its procedure, seeks with zeal to preserve the property existing there. As, notwithstanding the precautions taken, it did not succeed in preventing the robbery of all that is alleged to have existed in the said cities, this is laid to its charge. But it would be extraordinary that, precisely on account of these praiseworthy precautions, it should have to answer for crimes or abuses preceding or succeeding these precautions, which may by possibility have been perpetrated. From the argument adduced by the elaimant, it is deduced that if the Brazilian army, making no account of the disorganized condition in which it found the administration of those two cities, had left them in the same deplorable state, it would not be responsible for the alleged losses. Its responsibility, therefore, arises exactly from the fact of its having sought to save property which had been abandoned by its owners or depositaries. It is known that the dictator, Lopez, in the war with the allied nations, adopted the system of reducing to complete abandonment every place, city, or settlement which he could no longer defend. The city of Asuncion being abandoned in February, 1868, by order of the dictator, he issued the decree of the 1st December of the same year, ordering the removal of all personal property of every kind and description which might still have been kept there. This determination, like all the orders of Marshal Lopez, would not fail to meet an immediate and complete execution, even on the part of Mr. Chapperon and his countrymen. But if this was not so, as regards that consular agent, why did be abandon his own interests and those which had been confided to him, and did not take any of the precautions required by his character of depositary? Mr. Chapperon cannot exempt himself from the responsibility inherent to every depositary with the simple allegation of vis major. It would be necessary to prove that, on his part, there was not the least want of care, but this demonstration has not been and cannot be made.

Such is the doctrine sustained by jurisconsults, and established in decisions by the French courts in the cases of Sourdis et Boissy, and Coudraye et Cousseau de Montreau, Dalloz's Rep. de Leg., volume 15, pages 459 and 460. Mr. Chapperon does not say when he arrived at Asuncion and Luque, nor explain his absence from those cities where he kept the deposits, but states that the alleged sacking took place on the 5th. Up to the 6th the house had sentinels posted at the door. How, then, could Mr. Chapperon certify himself that the house was sacked on the 5th, without the sentinels havng any knowledge of his entrance there, or that of any other person? On the 1st of January the first Brazilian troops (6th brigade) arrived at the capital. Nevertheless, the Italian consul, who had constituted himself the depositary of many private individuals, and who says the property confided to him was deposited in his two houses at Asuncion and Luque, did not request of the Brazilian generals any precaution for the safe keeping of the deposits, when naturally this should have been his first step. Who would presume that Mr. Chapperon, charged with the safe keeping of property,

not residing habitually at Asuncion, and knowing that this city was completely abandoned, would there make a deposit of such property? It is proper still to note that notwithstanding the consul resided habitually in Luque, neither did he remain there from the moment the Paraguayan troops withdrew from it. Mr. Chapperon selected for his residence a place where there were no interests of his nation to defend, where he did not keep the property which had been confided to him; and notwithstanding that this place was but a short distance from the said cities, that consular agent up to the 5th, the day on which he says the alleged sacking occurred, had not been at Asuncion to confer with the Brazilian generals. Thus, while no account is made of the entire abandonment in which Mr. Chapperon left the interests confided to him officially and privately, it is expected, although no request was addressed to it, that the Brazilian army should have constituted itself the guardian of deposits, of which the existence was not even presumed. It could not be conjectured that, known as the condition of Asuncion and Luque was to Mr. Chapperon, he having to keep property in safe keeping, he should have preferred for that purpose those two cities. What indications could induce the Brazilian chiefs to suppose that in the houses abandoned by Mr. Chapperon there existed deposits of valuable property? How could it be presumed that he who possessed three houses in different localities should keep those deposits precisely in that one in which he did not intend to reside?

These considerations show evidently that Mr. Chapperon either did not attach great importance to the deposits existing, as he says, in the two houses at Asuncion and Luque, or did not give due weight to the duties of a depositary, up to the moment of throwing the blame of their disappearance upon the Brazilian army, which could not believe that deposits, of which no one gave it any notice, would be kept in abandoned cities.

If the word of the Italian consul, the only evidence presented by him, has value with his government, that of the Brazilian generals can have no less value with the imperial government, above all considering that the said generals refer to dates and circumstances known, whilst the said consular agent presents simply the fact of the entry of the Brazilian troops. The two cities referred to having been abandoned by the Paraguayans, the Italian consul, who had in both important deposits, withdrew from them and refused to confer with the Duke of Caxias on the 4th, when he fell in with him at S. Lourenço on his march to Asuncion and Luque, thus renouncing the opportunity which was presented to him of requesting from that general measures for the protection of the interests which it was his duty to watch over. These are the terms in which the duke relates this incident: "Upon arriving at the parish of S. Lourenço, where I encamped on the 4th, the commander of the advance posts reported to me that at a few paces from our sentinels there was an isolated house in a field, having a flag flying which he did not know. I immediately ordered one of my aids-de-camp to go to the said house and ascertain by whom it was inhabited, and that if its occupant was a foreigner, he should invite him, in my name, to come and speak with me. The officer to whom I confided this commission returned in half an hour, telling me that the flag was Italian, and that the consul of that nation was there, who said he had fled from Laque to that point, so as not to accompany the Paraguayan forces, which had withdrawn from that point as soon as they heard of the defeat which Marshal Lopez had sustained at Lomas Valentinas; but that he would not leave that house where he was protected by his flag to come to speak with me. I immediately sent the officer back, and again ordered him that he should seek by all friendly means to persuade the consul that he ought to come and have an understanding with me, as he was within a military encampment, and that I might suspect him if he did not. To nothing would Mr. Chapperon assent, and maintained his position, saying that only by force would he come to speak with me."

What circumstances obliged Mr. Chapperon, consul of a friendly nation, to accomrany President Lopez, even on the fields of battle, and not to present himself, under the pretext of not having his uniform with him, to the Duke of Caxias, who was about to occupy the cities in which it is alleged the deposits existed? This fact, in the absence of others, would reveal the breach of neutrality on the part of Mr. Chapperon, showing at the same time that his claim is without foundation. It was my intention," said the Duke of Caxias, in a letter of 1st July, 1869, " to inform myself from the consuls as to the condition of the city which the enemy had abandoned, in order to take precautions for the security of property which might exist there, belonging to private individuals, and especially to the subjects of their nations."

How, in view of the incontestable facts above stated, can Mr. Chapperon, who was not in the capital, fix the date of the alleged sacking of his houses at Asuncion and Luque? Upon what basis does he sustain himself in attributing the sacking to the Brazilian army-in asserting that the act did not occur during the abandonment of those two cities by the Paraguayans? As regards the sacking of the house at Luque, Colonel Vasco Alves Pereira states as follows:

"When I was performing this service I was informed that there was a house which had been broken into in the rear, and that within it existed a shield with the arms of

the consulate of His Majesty the King of Italy, and that in its yard there was a box which had been broken open. I immediately named Major José Lourenço Vieira Souto and two other officers to go to the said house and ascertain what the box contained. He, complying with this order, found the contents of the note, which, in the original, I have the honor to transmit to your excellency, and that in the box there existed some articles of domestic use and some liquor, as well as an iron chest, which had been broken open, and other articles which, being numerous, are not stated. Withal I had a guard posted that nothing might be taken away."

It appears that it is to this dispatch, published at page 91 of the report of this department for 1869, that Baron Cavalchini refers when he asserts that from the documents annexed to that report it was seen that the complaints presented at the conference of the 19th April were not devoid of foundation. Mr. Cavalchini is, however, mistaken; bis assertion finds no foundation in that dispatch, nor in any other published in the report, as will be demonstrated.

Mr. Chapperon alleges that his house was robbed on the 5th January, that is, on the day of the entrance of the Brazilian forces. But the said house had already been violated at that time, as was verified simultaneously with the arrival of the imperial army. This is what Colonel Vasco Alves asserts in the cited dispatch.

In another dispatch of the 12th February, published at page 96 of the cited report, the same officer, replying to the accusations of Mr. Chapperon, states as follows:

"I guarantee you that the Italian consul is not able to prove what he has asserted, for when the forces under my command arrived at this point, (Luque,) the house referred to had already been broken open, not by the front, but in the rear, which was inclosed by a brick wall.

"Externally it had no signs of having been broken into, as may still be seen to-day, nor had it any flag or shield of any nation."

After this formal and well-founded denial, Colonel Vasco Alves explains the accusations of Mr. Chapperon in this manner:

"Appearances induce me to believe that the Italian consul desires to impute to the Brazilian soldiers what was doubtless done by the Paraguayans themselves, near whose government he was accredited; but that, in his spite against the Marquis of Caxias, as is seen from his dispatch addressed to the general-in-chief, he seeks a way of indisposing his nation toward the empire by accusing her soldiers of crimes which they did not commit."

It is to be observed that Mr. Chapperon, only on the 6th February, addressed the Brazilian general, reclaiming for acts which he alleges to have occurred on the 5th January. That consular agent explains the delay, saying that he had not yet in his possession his uniform, and, for this reason, was unable to present himself to the Duke of Caxias; but Mr. Chapperon, who, on the 6th February, presented his reclamation, not verbally, but in writing, could have employed at once the same means which he used a month later to denounce the acts of which he complained.

From what Mr. Chapperon says, it would appear that his uniform was neither at the capital nor at Luque nor at Campo Grande, (S. Lourenço.) Where, then, would it be? Nor was it an essential condition, above all, when treating of so urgent a matter, that the consul should present himself in uniform, that the Brazilian general should have heard him, and taken precautions in accordance with the circumstances of the case. It suited Mr. Chapperon to proceed in the manner indicated, as he might avoid the imputation which, as appears from documents hereafter cited, were made against him by the depositors, of only having thrown the blame of the disappearance of those deposits upon the Brazilian forces, when many of the said depositors, who were supposed to be dead, began to appear in Asuncion, and to claim the property confided to his keeping. From the dispatch of Mr. Chapperon, it is seen that he, since February, 156, had provisionally established the Italian consulate at the house in Luque; from the same dispatch, it is also seen that in Asuncion there was another house where was also the consulate. There were, therefore, two houses-one in the capital and the other in Luque-appropriated to the Italian consulate. In neither of them, however, was Mr. Chapperon before or after the entry of the Brazilian forces; and as he says it was only after the 11th that he could examine the state of his house at Luque, how does he assert that the sacking took place on the 5th? As respects his house in the capital, he affirmed, as has already been stated, that it also was sacked on the 5th. Nevertheless, many days after the arrival of the Duke of Caxias at the capital-that is, much after the 5th-Mr. Chapperon's secretary, having called upon the general-inchief, only complained of the sacking of the house at Luque. Of the Italian consul, the Duke of Caxias, in a report of the 1st July, 1869, says: "I only had notice, many days after I was in the capital, through a man who presented himself, and told me he was the secretary of the said consul, and that he came in his behalf to make a verbal complaint to me of the sacking of the consulate of his nation in Luque by the Brazilian troops. I answered this man that the complaint must be addressed to me in writing, that I might act upon it, seeing that up to that date the consul had not presented himself." Mr. Chapperon has said in his cited dispatch that, since February, 1868, he had