« PředchozíPokračovat »
case of a difficulty arising, his public acts may not accord with his private assurances in any particular.”
Further, in his despatch of November 5, 1854, he says:
“He also depends much on his false and empty professions and assurances of a desire for the maintenance of the most friendly relations with the United States. I myself believed, at one time that there was some sincerity in these professions, but I have seen more of his course, and have become better acquainted with the feelings and policy of his government. His hostility towards Americans is a fact beyond doubt, his assurances in his official communications to the government of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. His policy is to lull the government into the belief (by his official professions) that he desires the maintenance of the most friendly relations. Yet, at the same time, in his official organ, he seeks occasion to hold up to ridicule, to slander and misrepresent America as a nation. These abusive attacks are well known to emanate from the President himself. The government editor would not dare insert in the
article or writing which he did not know was either the production of President Lopez, or had his revision and sanction for publication."
“Of low, vulgar abuse, which would disgrace the most contemptible sheet in the country.”
"But such is his apprehension of being held responsible for his course towards the Americans who have been compelled to leave his country, that he will stoop to any falsehood and misrepresentation to make his appear the right cause in this case."
How different his final conclusions from his first impressions, derived from his interviews with Lopez!
Lieutenant Powell, who was left in command of the Water Witch at Asuncion, testifies the same thing, in these words:
“Question 10. Did you find that his (Lopez's) assurances and statements could be relied upon as true?
“Answer. In my opinion, they were unreliable when conflicting with his own interests.”
Again, page 91 of record: “These promises, as will appear from the correspondence of the commander of the expedition, were also repeated to him upon his return to Asuncion, but were never complied with.” (See, further, quest. 9, hereafter quoted.)
This change came over minds preoccupied against Hopkins, but minds, be it observed, which at no time believed Hopkins capable of untruth. So Secretary Marcy, through the address and violence of Lopez in retaining C. E. Hopkins, bearer of his brother's consular despatches, in Paraguay, until some fortnight after his own had left the country, had answered Lopez's communication before Hopkins' account of the matter had been received. (See Hopkins' deposition, pages 64 and 65.) His letter to‘us is a vigorous argument against us. His subsequent despatches have all the more · weight, for they are again an instance of a mind changing its first impressions. Though we have not evidence to show the changes in the minds of others in the department and in the committee, we show their judicial and final judgment, to be obtained only by the presentation of conclusive evidence, and containing the severest condemnation of the conduct of Lopez.
In this connection, also, we are compelled to speak of the despatches of Mr. Commissioner Bowlin, for his misapprehensions come from a similar cause. Our case had never been presented to him by us. Of the amounts and modes of our expenditure, of the treatment we had received, and of the value of our position, he had nothing from us.
How his ungenerous suspicions of our accounts contrast with the admissions of the counsel of President Lopez! This may be considered a test of his judgment in the matter.
We had no communication with him except by the written papers which are before the commission, in which we endeavor by calculation to illustrate the value of our patent rights, and suggest a plan of settlement by which these rights might be restored to us in conjunction with Lopez. We also declined to entrust him or any one else with the discretion to take less than half a million dollars for our claim in compromise. That we, knowing our own case, preferred the certain delays and expenses and the uncertain results of a commission to adjust the amount to any sum less than that should certainly have suggested to our American commissioner that we had an honest confidence in our claim. The judgment of the department, was, also, that the minimum sum to be paid should be half a million dollars. (See instructions.) Again, we had no agent or friend to accompany the expedition. It might have been well had we been thus represented. Mr. Hopkins was not allowed to go up to Paraguay. Commissioner Bowlin, therefore, heard nothing of our side of the case. On the other hand, it appears by his despatches that he was at Montevideo, and not on the intelligent, commercial side of the river-Buenos Ayres. He was but nineteen days in Paraguay. He says, in his despatch, "I arrived on the 24th ultimo, and I had substantially settled everything on the 1st instant.” He was, according to his despatches and letters published, most cordially entertained by Lopez, Urquiza, the Brazilian miuister, and others, and received one of the most magnificent presents ever sent to an American official by a foreign potentate, at the hands of President Urquiza. He went, offering peace and kindness, as was right. He should take care lest the rights of persons and property, for the protection of which governments are created and officers appointed, should not be prejudiced by his action. They have not been, for he obeyed his instructions. And, as against his views, we submit those formed in the Department of State, after long investigation of the case on both sides, as made out by the despatches and the Seminario of Lopez, and the imperfect presentation by American citizens, who had no claim to attention then, except their unpleasant position as sufferers, and their characters as trustworthy men. The eminent ability, we may be permitted to say, the thorough and masterly knowledge of the whole controversy, displayed in these instructions, as well as the source from which they come, far outweigh the unfavorable suggestions of Mr. Bowlin. Again, if Mr. Bowlin is relied upon as a witness against us, we submit he should appear as every other man now in the country whose statements or evidence have been received. Cross-examination would show the sources of his misapprehension, and the supposed state of facts from which his opinions arise. We should find that he, like others, has been at first misled by the erroneous representations received directly or indirectly from the government of Paraguay. What he heard from others during his short stay in Paraguay stands in striking contrast to the statement of Captain Page as to the state of the public mind in those regions, with which the latter had the amplest opportunity to become thoroughly acquainted. And should Commissioner Bowlin read the admission of Mr. Carlisle on the record as to the company's accounts and this denial of his admission of liability in the convention between himself and Lopez, would he not have the best of reasons to believe that he somewhat misplaced his confidence in his short visit to Paraguay ?
Motives of Lopez's conduct.
The motives of the conduct of Lopez, and the animus of the wrongdoer, are apparent. They were to aggrandize himself, and to exclude our enterprise, whose success would enrich others than himself. This is apparent: 1st. From his position in the country as its despotic ruler, and directly or indirectly seeking to become the monopolist of its business and wealth. That this is his position, the testimony of every witness—C. E. Hopkins, Hale, Morales, the American naval officers, Powell, Lamden, Ammon, the eight Paraguayan exiles, the published reports of Commander Page, the official despatches of the department, the statement of Page and Guillemot, on page 64, Senate report-conclusively show. That this is his position is left uncontradicted by the testimony for the government of Paraguay.
That such were his motives, is shown not only by the argument from the nature of his relations to the country and its people, but by the judgment formed at the time and place by disinterested and competent men. (See statement of Commander Page and Guillemot, page 64, Senate report, that such was the general understanding at the time thoughout the country of La Plata.) And Lieutenants Powell and
Question No. 7. What was the cause of the change of treatment of the company by Lopez and by the people ?
Answer. It was owing to a fear on the part of Lopez that his authority and his pecuniary resources would be weakened by a commercial company of the capital which that was supposed to represent operating in the same field with himself. His (Lopez's) conduct was, as I have said before, probably hastened by injudicious conduct on the part of Hopkins, but I do not believe that any independent man, acting as the agent of a company, could have done more than stave off the result, for a certain length of time, or to have saved more than a portion of their interest.
Question No. 8. Do you mean to be understood as giving your opinion that Lopez would have broken up the company even if their agent had been free of fault?
Answer. I do.
tain Page, your commander, and others, in regard to President Lopez, while you were there? If so, what was the change, and the causes of it ?
Answer. I cannot undertake to say what was the change in the minds of others. In my own case there was a change of opinion as to his (Lopez's) character, from his conduct during that difficulty, and subsequent to it. Previous to that difficulty, I had looked upon him as a man inclined to liberal views, and to the enlargement of the commerce of his country. But his conduct at that time caused me to believe that he only wished to do so to a very limited extent, and that when he found that free intercourse with foreigners was leading to free thinking among the people, and would conflict with his own interest and that of his family, he determined to check it.
See also cross-examination 3, 4, 5. Lamden says:
Question No. 7. What was the cause of the change of treatment of the company by Lopez or by his people?
Answer.. The impression was, among the officers, and I shared it, that the President found that the American company were making too much money, and that his object was to get them away and take the business into his own hands.
But the motives of Lopez's conduct are shown most plainly in his acts. Morales, the superintendent of the cigar factory, who, from his experience in Havana and New York, had become qualified and did introduce many new processes and implements in the manufacture of cigars into Paraguay, had testified, as appears by his printed affidavit annexed to the Senate report," that propositions have been made to me by Nicholas Vasquez, the confidential judge of peace and man of all work of President Lopez, to seduce me from said company, promising me, on the part of the government, all facilities which I might want to carry on the business for my. self of the cigar factory, provided I would leave the employ of the said company."
Captain Page (page 64) had also certified that “on the breaking up of the American company, one of President Lopez's sons immediately went into the cigar business with these same operatives." This charge is repeated in the statement of the company annexed to the report, and the name of the son Benancio is given. This endeavor to induce the employés of the company to leave their service and enter his own is mentioned in the report also.