Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part I
No. 18.
Mr. Clapp to Mr. Hunter.
Buenos Ayres, March 20, 1872. (Received May 21.)
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy of the translation of correspondence of Mr. H. G. McDonell, Her Britannic. Majesty’s chargé d’affaires to the Argentine Republic, with Dr. Tejedor, minister of foreign [Page 31] affairs, on the subject of outrages committed on English citizens residing in this republic.
The massacre of foreigners at Tandil, which was the principal occasion of the correspondence, was an occurrence of the most startling nature. On New Year’s day about five hundred gauchos, headed by a religious fanatic, entered the village and commenced an indiscriminate slaughter of foreigners. Thirty-six were killed and others wounded. The mob then started in the direction of Buenos Ayres, committing similar outrages on their way. They were finally overtaken and dispersed by a small body of troops, and several were taken prisoners. As far as I can learn, no sentence of punishment has been executed on any of these criminals.
* * * * * *
I also inclose a translation of correspondence between Mr. Frank Parish, Her Britannic Majesty’s consul, and Dr. Don Antonio Malaver, secretary of the provincial government of Buenos Ayres, treating of the same subject, in which Governor Castro declines to furnish the consul with any information, and denies the right of the consul to address the Provincial government at all on the subject, and inferentially denies his right to act in any manner to protect the lives and property of English subjects residing in the province. It also appears that the answer to the note of Mr. Parish was delayed for nearly two months. Jam happy to report that, to the best of my knowledge, no American citizens have recently suffered, either in the massacre at Tandil, or in any of the other robberies or murders that are of so frequent occurrence.
I am, &c,
The Tandil Massacre.
Notes between the British legation and the national government
The Boletin Oficial of yesterday publishes the subjoined notes on this painful question; the reply of the minister of foreign affairs to Mr. McDonell will cause a mixed feeling of astonishment and indignation among all classes of English residents:
British Legation, Buenos Ayres, January 13, 1872.
Mr. Minister: In the interview that I had yesterday with your excellency, I thought it my duty to advise you of the contents of two petitions addressed to me, one from the English residents of Tandil and Azul, referring to the insecurity of their lives by reason of the recent assassinations in that neighborhood; the other signed by English subjects settled at Bahia Blanca, making just complaint of the Indian invasions thereabout, owing to the unguarded state of the frontier.
The tenor of your reply on this subject manifestly indicated that your excellency did not consider the circumstances warranted any diplomatic intervention in favor of the petitioners, and moreover that, in case they had addressed themselves to the national government in doc form and through the local authorities, your excellency did not judge it compatible with the dignity of government to admit that foreigners settled in the republic should arrogate to themselves the right to question the acts of the government upon points of internal administration, either indirectly or by means of their representatives.
The instructions which Her Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs has at various times thought fit to give me, to represent to the government of your excellency the necessity of adopting some means for the better protecting the lives and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects in the republic, at once led me to infer that the opinion of Her Majesty’s government differed so essentially from your excellency’s views that I considered it useless to insist further upon this point with your excellency.
My object in communicating verbally to your excellency the contents of the petitions [Page 32] in question was to convince your excellency, if possible, of the justice of the cause that I sought to defend, and thus avoid a possibly vexatious correspondence upon a matter in which your excellency’s opinion seemed entirely opposed to that of Her Majesty’s government, laying down the principle that a foreign agent has no right to interpose with your excellency’s government in favor of the life and property of his countrymen who are unduly exposed, owing to the admittedly unprotected state of the frontier, or to the numerous criminals and malefactors who are allowed to go about unmolested and with impunity through the country.
Wishing, nevertheless, to inform in proper manner Her Majesty’s government respecting the late sad occurrences, which have occasioned grave loss of life and property to English subjects in various parts of the republic; and being, moreover, anxious to explain the want of success which has attended my interposition with the Argentine government for the better protection of my countrymen, I feel it now my duty to place in your excellency’s hands translations of the above-mentioned petitions, hoping that your excellency’s reply to this communication may enable Her Majesty’s government to form an exact judgment of the limits to which, in your excellency’s opinion, the right of any British subject may extend to demand relief and protection, and which Her Majesty’s government may think tit to accord.
Trusting that your excellency wall receive this communication in the same friendly spirit in which it is conceived, I avail myself of this occasion to repeat the assurances of my esteem.
To His Excellency Dr. Tejedor,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Chargé d’affaires: I have received the note and petitions inclosed of English citizens upon events of distinct nature in Tandil and Bahia Blanca. The zeal which Mr. Charge d’Affaires displays on this, as on other occasions, for the welfare of his countrymen, is worthy of all eulogy.
The contents of the petitions are also excusable, in one case by the terrible misfortune of which the petitioners have been the victims, and in the other by the natural desire of all men at all times to secure their lives and property. But notwithstanding these considerations, the Argentine government cannot accept the doctrine which seems to have induced the petitioners to address themselves to Monsieur le Charge d’Affaires.
Foreigners, from the moment they enter a country, are subject to its laws and authorities. These laws are not equal in all places, but whether favorable or not to a foreigner, they oblige him alike. The foreigner, therefore, in the exorcise of his rights, or in any complaints of a civil or criminal nature which he feels justified in making, must address himself in the same way as native citizens to the authorities, invoke the laws in question, and await and bow to their decision. Otherwise the body of foreign residents would constitute a state within a state, a political monster.
If from these general principles, which form the jurisprudence of all civilized countries, we descend to our own particular case the matter is still more evident. In no place is there a more liberal legislation than ours toward foreigners. Protection to a foreigner is not only inculcated by our laws but is a principle of our constitution, rendering almost unnecessary those treaties with such stipulations; but it means equal protection with native citizens, and no privilege either on the basis of rights or in the mode of vindicating them; it is legal, not diplomatic, protection. The latter, out of respect for any nation, is usually reserved until such case as there is a denial of justice in civilized countries, or where there is an unjust persecution by the authorities themselves in barbarous countries. We need not mention here the other small services which diplomacy may render to a foreigner, by facilitating his access to the authorities, by saving him the trouble of a different language, by recommending or supporting the quick dispatch of matters, since it is the universal custom in civilized countries not to place any difficulty or obstacle in the way.
The doctrine of a special protection is not only incorrect but may lead to deplorable errors and mistakes. By such a mistake the English citizens of Bahia Blanca address Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, advising him of robberies by the frontier Indians, the surprise and assassination of Mr. Thomas Jordan, the presence of some of the murderers in the town, and the sale there of the stolen hides, instead of applying to the competent authorities or accusing them before their superiors, if, as is stated, the former encouraged such deeds, and prove such charges. By the same error the petitioners have ventured so far as to say that, since they receive no protection from government, they who do not even act as urban guards to protect the frontier towns, will open fire on the Indians wherever they see them, even if not attacked by them, thus assuming to themselves [Page 33] rights which the natives of the country have not, and considering themselves entitled to more protection than the natives. By the same error, in fine, the petitioners of Tandil beg Mr. Charge d’Affaires to point out to the government of this country the absolute and urgent necessity of taking the requisite measures to judge and execute the prisoners on the scene of their crimes, and to order a determined and vigorous pursuit of such of the malefactors as are still at large, instead of contenting themselves with such measures as at the earliest moment it was the duty of the provincial authorities to adopt, and in which there was certainly no delay, and bowing to the laws and tribunals whose sway extends over both natives and foreigners.
Having thus fulfilled the desire manifested by the chargé d’affaires to learn the opinions of the Argentine government on this point, I am happy to renew the assurances of my distinguished consideration.
To Her Britannic Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires,
H. G. McDonell.
Tandil Massacre.
Buenos Ayres, January 11, 1872.
Sir: I regret to have learned through private sources, as well as through the miscellaneous and official accounts which have been published, of the horrible massacre of foreigners which has been perpetrated by some bands of Gauchos near the Tandil, that among the unfortunate victims were two British subjects, Mr. Gibson Smith and his young wife, to whom he had been very recently married, the painful nature of whose case contributes, if possible, additional horror to this terrible drama.
In connection therewith, I feel it my duty to address your excellency, relying upon your excellency being able to afford me some official information as to the origin and nature of the circumstances through which the lives of these unfortunate persons have been sacrificed.
At the same time I cannot but give utterance to the general feeling of anxiety experienced by my countrymen, on a par with other foreigners settled in the distant parts of this province, respecting the insecurity of their position, and the constant exposure of life to which they are subject from the number of outlaws and criminals who roam with impunity throughout the country.
Conscious, as I am, that your excellency’s government must be fully alive to the dangerous results of the repetition of crimes such as cannot but infuse terror throughout the whole country, I feel that any official instigation on my part would be unnecessary to induce your excellency’s government to adopt such measures as will insure the speedy and condign punishment of those who have committed these acts of savage cruelty, as without some severe example there can be no assurance that the lives of unoffending persons will not remain exposed to the attacks of ignorant and unrestrained bands of malefactors.
I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
His Excellency Dr. Don Antonio Malaver, &c.
I duly received yours of January 11, with reference to the criminal occurrences which took place at Tandil on the 1st of that month, and the governor desires me to say, in reply, that the publications in the daily papers will have already informed you of the measures adopted. Moreover the governor thinks that in matters of this kind the consul cannot make any official instigation to him, both because such would be outside a consul’s character, and because in any event it-could not be addressed to the provincial government.
God preserve you!
F. Parish, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul.
Mr. Minister: I have received the reply which it has pleased his excellency the governor to instruct you to make to my letter of 11th January last, on the subject of [Page 34] the Tandil massacre, in which I asked for some information respecting the sad case of two British subjects who were among the victims of that tragedy, expressing at the same time the deep feeling of anxiety occasioned to my countrymen whose lives were threatened and at that moment in peril.
Two months have elapsed since my letter reached your excellency’s hands, notwithstanding the urgent nature of the case, and the general consternation which existed as to the extent to which the malefactors had effected their murderous designs. Nevertheless, I was unwilling to suppose that the silence arose from any other cause than an oversight, and I was little prepared to learn from your excellency that it proceeded from an intentional disregard, on the authority of the governor, of my communication, on the ground that I was not entitled to address his government on such a case, and that I might refer to the public press for any information I might require on the subject.
With all due regard for the opinion of his excellency, and with every desire to treat the subject in a friendly spirit, I must dissent most distinctly from this extraordinary rule of procedure, for, assuming that it cannot be the fixed intention of his excellency to exclude me from the customary official intercourse with his government on matters relating to the welfare and interests of British subjects in this province, I have a right to expect that, so long as I am an accredited agent of my government, I be allowed that access to the authorities of the country which is absolutely necessary to enable me to fulfill the ordinary functions of my office.
The opposite course would oblige me to abandon the representation of those interests, and Her Majesty’s government to substitute some other form for preserving intact those ties and obligations which correspond to its position toward its subjects.
I venture to affirm that no precedent can be produced in support of any such established rule; and further, that if even it existed, could it be applied in such an instance as this, so as to debar a government from the exercise of reasonable and friendly means, through its agents, of obtaining for its subjects the full amount of protection and redress which the laws of the country might afford, and to which their peculiar position might entitle them.
Such a wholesale massacre of foreigners, and such acts of cruelty as were committed at Tandil on the persons of innocent foreign settlers, fortunately, in the name of humanity, are not matters of ordinary occurrence, and have no parallel even in this country and it would be useless, therefore, to seek for any guide as to the rule observed in the representation of such cases.
Judging, however, from some few instances of recent occurrence, such as that of the murder of several British subjects by Greek brigands, it will be remembered that it created a feeling of national interest, and that the right of fully representing the cases and seeking for redress was exercised and not denied.
For the government of this country, above all others, interested as it is in promoting foreign immigration as a means of advancing the nation, to seek to establish a rule by which the foreign immigrants would be deprived of the means of obtaining the legitimate support of their government, and the benefit of its friendly offices, would be to injure their own prospects, by producing a want of confidence and a discouragement to immigration.
I have no desire to draw an exaggerated picture of the state of things in this country; but certainly, if I were left dependent on the reports and opinions of the different public papers of this city, I might fall widely into that error. Neither, in this instance, do I wish to enlarge upon the case under discussion by referring to some of the terrifying incidents which are connected with this lamentable case, which might have the effect of destroying the friendly character which it is my desire to preserve in this communication. I will confine myself to expressing my firm and earnest remonstrances against the mode of treatment of this case by your excellency’s government, and communicating the contents of this correspondence to Her Majesty’s charge d’affaires, in order that he may obtain such instructions from my government as will enable me to learn whether, and to what extent, they are willing to accede to your excellency’s principles, and to relinquish the ordinary means of representing the interests of British subjects in Buenos Ayres.
I will add, in conclusion, that neither through the medium of the public newspapers, nor through any other source, have I been able, so far, to obtain any satisfactory account of the death of Mr. and Mrs. Gibson Smith, the two persons referred to in my previous communication; nor do I know what has become of their property, which must have been left abandoned at the time, and which I am specially called upon to take charge of.
I am your excellency’s most obedient, humble servant,
To his Excellency Dr. D. Antonio E.
Malaver,
Minister of Government
of the Province of Buenos Ayres.