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. 50.
Mr. Partridge to Mr. Fish.

United States Legation,
Rio de Janeiro, November 1, 1871. (Received December 20.)

No. 19.]

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Nos. 11, 12, and 13.

Tour No. 12 informs me that the report of the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs, which is declared in Mr. Wright’s dispatch No. 185 to have been sent to the Department, has not been received.

I have now sent in the dispatch bag, addressed to the Department and forwarded by the consulate, which will go by the steamer Merrimac on the 26th instant to New York, the “relatorio” or report of the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs, presented to the legislative general assembly on the 12th May, 1871. The pages (532 to 580 inclusive) which are framed in red ink contain the documents relating to foreign property in Paraguay, which was declared by French and Italian claimants to be theirs, and to have been plundered or sacked by officers and others of the Brazilian army. At page 564 will be found (No. 193) the note addressed to the Italian legation here, in relation to the claim of Chapperon, the Italian consul in Paraguay. On the following page (565) is the “memorandum” annexed to the foregoing note, a translation of which is stated upon the legation record here to have been inclosed in Mr. Wright’s No. 185. I presume that translation reached the Department, but to avoid possibility of mistake I have caused to be made out, and now inclose, another translation of that “memorandum,” and of the preceding note also. I think that I ought to add that the general impression here, arising from these statements and proofs, especially from the documents annexed to the memorandum, (a list of which is at page 579, translation page 55,) demonstrates very clearly that these two claims, French and Italian, were grossly exaggerated, if not, in greater part, fabricated. Chapperon was from all accounts a tool in the hands of Lopez; and who actually stood by and saw several of his countrymen shot by order of Lopez, without any (apparent) intervention by him on their behalf. It also appears that he exacted payment from his countrymen and others for the storage and shelter, in his consulate, of goods belonging to them.

It also appears that he refused to surrender, before the sack, many valuables so left with him; and he was assassinated, it is said, by some of his own countrymen in Buenos Ayres, in revenge for his desertion of their interests confided to his charge, and for not interfering on behalf of the lives of others, (their relatives,) who were sacrificed by Lopez. I have had a conversation with Baron Cavalchini, the Italian envoy here, in relation to this matter. He maintains that there was a robbery of many goods and valuables by Brazilian officers and soldiers, at the moment of occupation; that the “termos” (or reports by Brazilian officers to their commander-in-chief) of merchandise, jewels, and money, found in various houses at that time, were lists of such goods, &c, only as were left after such sack, or as were found in such houses as had not been broken into and robbed. He also stated to me, in the same confidential conversation, that it was his belief, and which he thought supported by many incidents, that Chapperon was assassinated not by Italians, but by Brazilians, and officers of their army, against whom he could have given or procured very damaging testimony in relation to the sack at the moment of occupation.

I am, &c.

JAMES E. PARTRIDGE.

Translation of the note of the imperial government to the Italian legation in relation to the claim of Chapperon.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rio de Janeiro, May 11, 1871.

The Italian legation, by order of its government, has urged in conference and by note the reclamation which the late Italian consul in Paraguay, Chapperon, addressed on the 6th February, 1869, to Marshal Giulherme Xavier de Souza, commander-in-chief of the Brazilian troops in that republic.

The said consular agent imputed to the Brazilian troops, which occupied the Paraguayan cities of Asuncion and Luque, the sack of his houses, which he says took place after the occupation.

The above-mentioned general and this ministry met the charge, by presenting the reports of officers who had been intrusted with the police of those two cities.

But the above-mentioned legation having renewed the claim, the government of His Majesty the Emperor requested his royal highness the Conde d’Eu, then commander-in-chief of the Brazilian forces, to forward other and more circumstantial information in relation to the facts alleged by the aforesaid consular agent.

The same request was made to the special mission of Brazil, then on service in the river Plate.

The information obtained in reply to these requests, confirms the answers which one of my predecessors and Marshal Souza gave to the above-mentioned claim, the former in a communication dated February 14, 1869, the latter in a conference of April 19, and in a note of June 15 of the same year.

From the inclosed memorandum, which I have the honor to forward to the Chevalier Alfonso Gonella, chargé d’affaires of Italy, will appear the reasons why the imperial government insists upon its first answer.

To this memorandum are also annexed several documents corroborative of the facts relied on.

In the examination of a subject like this, delay was unavoidable, since the facts and information relating to it had to be obtained out of the country, as was stated in the note of December 18, 1869.

It was proper to hear the statements of those Italian subjects who had not perished in the Cordilleras in consequence of the privations and scourgings they had suffered, and those who had not been executed by order of Marshal Lopez.

It was only with great difficulty that, the commander-in-chief of the Brazilian army could re-assemble the Italians who had survived the persecutions of the dictator.

Involuntary delay in the solution of this question was also occasioned by the change of the cabinet, at the moment when the preparatory work indispensable in such matters had just been completed.

I approve the opportunity to renew to the Chevalier Gonella the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.

MANGEL FRANCISCO CORREIA.

[From the “relatorio” or report of the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs to the legislative chambers, May, 1871, on page 565.]

Translation of the memorandum accompanying the note of the councilor Manuel Francisco Correia, minister of foreign affairs, &c, to the Italian minister, dated 11th May, 1870.

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; Baron 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 June, Baron 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, upon the entry of a force commanded by Colonel Vasco Alves.

Finally, with his note of the 6th December, Baron 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 had 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 December, 1869, as in his dispatch of the 6th February, of the same year, addressed to Marshal Giulherme Xavier de Souza, presents only in support of his claim his own assertions.

In opposition to these appear the statements of the general and other officers of the Brazilian army.

In view of two contradictory statements, and without regard to the greater or less credit which each one may merit, it becomes necessary, for the discovery of the truth, to make a rigorous analysis of both. Mr. Chapperon states that the alleged sacking of his houses in Asuncion and Luque took place on the 5th January. Mr. De Cuverville, ex-consul of France, in Paraguay, who occupied at Luque a 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, asserts that the alleged sacking of his house, at the said city, took place on the 6th, and that of his house in the capitol 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 method will be pursued in this memorandum. One cannot but feel surprised that he, who mentions the date of the alleged sacking at Luque, and in the capitol, 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 at 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 agent 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 Cuverville, “was, naturally, a grave difficulty in the way of the regular and orderly occupation of the enemy’s capital; because there were 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 the 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 fact 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 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 of the 19th 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 along 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 while it did not control the place; or while, 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 its 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 from responsibility for the loss of the property, even in the case of vis major. (Depositaries omnis qui dicit se rem amicisse. Doneau upon Law, 7th Code Deposites. Such is also the doctrine laid down in note No. 5 to the Art. 1845 of the Italian Civil Code, with notes of Vincenzo Cattaneo, vol. 2, page 1451.)

The alleged sacking might have been one of the accidents of the 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 safe-keeping, 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 Jose Pereira da Silva, jr., says:

“After our battalions had entered, I passed along some of the streets, and observed that, in frout 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 laiided at this port, and asking why they were there, the respective commanders replied that it was to prevent those houses from being violated; afterward 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 suttlers and adventurers, who accompany 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 Hermês 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 Joāo Baptista Barreto Leite, assistant deputy adjutant-general, attached to this command, to examine the whole settlement, with the view of ascertaining if he could find any house showing any indication or sign that it 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 house of such description. At the same time that I sent Major Barreto Leite, 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 authorities, 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 he, 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 if, 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 claimant, 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 he abandon his own interests and those which had been confided to him, and fail to take any of those precautions required of him in his character of depositary?

Mr. Chapperon cannot free himself from the responsibility that attaches to every depositary by 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 has not been shown, nor can it be. Such is the doctrine sustained by jurisconsults, and established in decisions by the French courts in the cases of Sourdis et Boisy and Coudraye et Cousseau de Montreau. Dalloz, Rép de Lég., torn. 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 at Asuncion had sentinels posted at the door. How, then, could Mr. Chapperon certify himself that the house was sacked on the 5th, without the sentinels having any knowledge of his entrance there, or that of any other person?

On the 1st January the first Brazilian troops arrived at the capital, (sixth brigade.) Nevertheless, the Italian consul, who had constituted himself the depositary of many private individuals, and who says that 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 the 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 had 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 these 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 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, could 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, while 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. Lourenco, 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. Lourenco, where I encamped on the 4th, the commander of the advanced 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 iuhabited; 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 Luque 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 Vaientinas, 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 speakwith me.”

What circumstances obliged Mr. Chapperon, consul of a friendly nation, to accompany President Lopez even on the field 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 the 1st of 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 Lourenco, Vieira Soutnō, 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 liquors, 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.

Baron Cavalchini is however mistaken; his 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 said 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 bad 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 induced 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 of February, addressed the Brazilian general, reclaiming for acts which he alleges to have occurred on the 5th of 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, (Saint Lourenco.) Where then could 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, which, as appears from documents hereafter cited, 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, 1868., 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 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-in-chief, 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 dispatch, that since February, 1868, he had established provisionally at Luque the Italian consulate; but he does not state the motive of his procedure. It is important to make this clear, that we may the better recognize the want of foundation for his accusations as regards the sacking in the capital. The Italian consulate was removed at that time to Luque in consequence of Marshal Lopez having ordered on the same occasion the abandonment of the capital and the establishment of the seat of government at the said city. This being so, would Mr. Chapperon have kept valuable property in Asuncion until January, 1869, considering, above all, that in December of the preceding year the dictator had determined that everything should be withdrawn thence? The consulate being in Luque, and Mr. Chapperon residing there, why leave in Asuncion important deposits?

All these circumstances, as well as the dates and facts cited by the Brazilian generals, render it evident that the declarations of Mr. Chapperon cannot be admitted as proofs in themselves of the complaints made against the Brazilian army.

To corroborate the argument adduced, a sketch will be made of the interrogatories, depositions, and reports of persons resident in Paraguay when the facts occurred to which Mr. Chapperon refers.

Many of the informants are Italians. Their testimony ought not to be suspected by the Italian government. The complaints of these Italian subjects against Mr. Chapperon, who never reclaimed or interceded with Marshal Lopez when they were the victims of the most iniquitous spoliations and of the most cruel persecutions, will be a new motive why we should not accept the statements of that consular agent. By these same documents it is fully proven that the reclamation of Mr. Chapperon is tainted with partiality for the cause of President Lopez, in whose interest he served to the last moment, not always respecting the duties of neutrality.

The documents here mentioned are appended in integrum, and by authentic copies, to the present memorandum, and are accompanied by a schedule signed by the chief clerk of this department.

First document—Clippings from the journal “Regeneracion,” in which will be found published grave accusations made by Italian subjects against Mr. Chapperon.

From these publications it will be seen that the Italians do not agree with their consul in the imputations made by him to the Brazilian army. They accuse him, on the contrary, with having made away with their deposits.

Second document.—A letter from the Paraguayan citizen, Eduardo Aramburie, owner of the house in which Mr. Chapperon lived at Asuncion.

From this letter it appears that the Italian consul had promised to deliver sundry titles of property and various articles which the mother of Mr. Aramburie had confided to his keeping.

Third document.—Another letter from Mr. Aramburie, in which he states he had received the said titles. It is not natural that these titles should have been found if Mr. Chapperon’s house had been sacked.

Fourth document—Is a long exposition from the French subject, Dorothée Laserre, which relates the misfortunes endured by foreigners during the dictatorship of Marshal Lopez, without the slightest effort on the part of the consular agent to mitigate these sufferings.

Fifth document.—A deposition of the Italian subjects Catalina Buero de Achinelli, Joāo Estrāo Chiapella, José Ponzio, Domingos José Bertholi, and other foreigners.

All declare in severe terms that to Messrs. Chapperon and Cuverville must be attributed the making away of their deposits, and not to the Brazilian troops.

Sixth document.—Information given by Da. Francisca Lopez de Leite Pereira, and Da marianna Dolores Pereira, mother of the Paraguayan bishop, Manoel Antonio Polocios.

These ladies relate the torments through which they and many foreign subjects passed after the dictator determined upon the removal to the interior of the populations of places he could not defend.

The first informant relates the conduct of Mr. Chapperon toward her when her husband began to be persecuted. In this sad and painful conjuncture, as in others, even when the lives of Italians were in question, Mr. Chapperon showed himself to be the rabid partisan of the dictator.

Seventh document.—A report, by name, of the foreigners who were barbarously assassinated by order of Marshal Lopez. From this report it will be seen that the number of Italians executed amounts to 29.

Eighth document.—Depositions of 30 foreigners, among whom some Italian subjects. The depositions of the Italians, Dr. Jeronimo Becchi and Domingos Parodi, merit special attention, which relate the cruelties practiced by Lopez against their countrymen with the connivance of Mr. Chapperon.

Ninth document.—Deposition of the Italian Antonio Montero, which confirms all that his countrymen had stated in the aforementioned depositions.

Tenth document.—Deposition of Angelo Benitz, sergeant of marines, and employed in the commissariat of the dictator. He declares that at Angostura there was shipped on board the Italian gun-boat Veloce a sum of money destined for the agent of Lopez in France, Gregorio Benitez.

Eleventh document.—Deposition of other residents in Paraguay, which confirm the preceding statements.

Twelfth document.—A letter in which Da. Rosalia Domeq. Concepcion Decond claims deposits from the Italian consul, and a letter from the latter acknowledging the deposits and stating that his house was sacked in October, 1868, much before the entry of the Brazilian forces.

Thirteenth document.—Declarations of Madame Laserre, from which it is seen that the houses in Asuncion were forced by the Paraguayan authorities immediately after the abandonment of the said capital in February, 1868.

Fourteenth document.—Report made by the Duke of Caxias on the 1st July, 1869. This report is accompanied by two letters written by Luiz Caminos, minister of the dictator.

From these documents, and others mentioned in the schedule annexed, which, as has already been stated, is signed by the chief clerk of this department, and an abstract of which is not made, that this memorandum may not be too much extended, it is seen that Mr. Chapperon is accused by his countrymen of not having respected the neutrality which his government had imposed upon himself in the war with Paraguay; of having served as a docile instrument in the hands of President Lopez and Madame Lynch in the persecutions and spoliations of which they were the victims; of not having opposed the least resistance, being declared responsible for all the calamities which they suffered in Paraguay.

It is his compatriots who dispute the sacking by him attributed to the Brazilian troops.

Among the Italians interrogated were some who had deposited property at the consulate.

In one of the documents annexed to the note of Baron Cavalchini, of the 6th December, 1869, are read the names of 39 Italians, who, according to the statement of Mr. Chapperon, suffered losses by the Brazilian forces. The imperial government ordered an inquest in reference to the complaints set forth in that document. The result of this inquest confirms all that has been stated in this memorandum, as well as the replies of the commander-in-chief of the Brazilian forces and of the imperial government. Of the Italians referred to some have died and others were executed after having sufferred unheard-of tortures. It is impossible to discover, notwithstanding the efforts made, the fate of many; but those who escaped the wrath of the dictator were interrogated by the Brazilian authorities, and their depositions are annexed to the present memorandum.

Document No. 22 shows the Italians deceased, those whose fate is unknown, and those who deposed.

To make evident the irregularity with which the statement under consideration was prepared when other proofs were wanting, the deposition of the Italian, Catalina Buero de Achinelli, would suffice. She states “that the withdrawal of the families from the city having been decreed, and she, the informant, finding herself much embarrassed in regard to the transportation of her property, as her mother, being very old, could not live much longer, she applied to the consul to take charge of a trunk for her; that she, the informant, not being able, however, to go beyond Luque, where she afterward met the said consul, she again received from him the said trunk intact, paying only as a fee for that deposit the sum of $97 and six reales and a half, more or less, for which the consul did not hesitate to pass a receipt.” Nevertheless this lady figures in the aforesaid statement as a claimant for 2,270 dollars for deposits made at the consulate 22d February, 1868.

Giacomo Colombino and José Ponzio, also mentioned as claimants, deny the allegations of Mr. Chapperon, who is designated by them as the author of all the misfortunes of their compatriots. The statements of these three Italian subjects form part of the document No. 5.

In another statement, also annexed to the said note of the 6th December, Mrs. Suzanna Aramburie is presented as a claimant.

From document No. 3 it will be seen that this lady does not impute to the Brazilian army the disappearance of the articles deposited by her at the Italian consulate. In fine, there is not one single evidence in support of the accusations of Mr. Chapperon; while the Brazilian government presents not only incontestable dates and facts, but also valid documents which destroy them.

From the information given by all the Italian subjects found at Asuncion, it is shown that Mr. Chapperon never gave the least protection to his countrymen; who, on the contrary being against him, gave accusations even as to his conduct with reference to the property which was confided to him.

Very different was the conduct of the Brazilian army. Being fortunate enough to rescue from the power of the dictator some Italians, it furnished them clothing, food, &c. Nevertheless, the blame of having sacked the property of Italian subjects is thrown upon the army which liberated so many unfortunates, and which, as is shown by documents Nos. 15 and 16, delivered to the provisional government of Paraguay property taken from the enemy on battle-fields and in fortresses. What more generous and more noble conduct could have practiced the army of the most civilized nation, under like circumstances?

On the occasions of the abandonment of Asuncion and Luque, the Italians residing in those cities suffered great outrages; and what defense had they? The statements of the Italian subjects, who escaped from the hands of the dictator, give a sad, very sad answer to this question.

It must not be forgotten that large sums, which might have been considered, under customary right, as prize to the victor, were scrupulously delivered to the provisional government; and that all claims for damages, alleged and proven, in consequence of the operations of the Brazilian army, were immediately paid by the respective chiefs, who always made it their pride not to give cause for acts of their subordinates, for any, the most insignificant, representation.

When the enemy by treachery invaded the Brazilian territory, he devastated everything, sacked everything, sacrificed everything, respecting neither children nor young girls, neither the old, the sick, nor the clergy.

The Brazilians, from the moment they trod the enemy’s soil, protected all they encountered without respect to nationality. Of this noble proceeding, which cannot be contested, the empire is proud.

After the most bloody battles, the first care of the Brazilian generals was to succor there who were dying from destitution, from cruelty and torture, the narrative of which causes horror and surprise; the solicitude of the Brazilians in this humane endeavor being attested by Italian subjects and other foreigners.

The narrative of the misfortunes of the Italians resident in Paraguay, deprived of all protection until the arrival of the Brazilian army at the places of their sufferings, must necessarily interest the government of His Majesty the King of Italy.

The government of Brazil, full of confidence in the impartiality and rectitude of that of Italy, awaits the judgment of this, after the reading of the present memorandum and the examination of the documents annexed.

MANOEL FRANCISCO CORREIA.

Rio de Janeiro, May 11, 1871.

List of the documents referred to in the foregoing “memorandum.”

1st. Copy of articles from the Regeneracion.

2d. A letter from the Paraguayan citizen, Eduardo Aramburu, dated April 1, 1869.

3d. Another letter from the same, dated January 30, 1870.

4th. Statement of Madam Dorothée Lasserre.

5th. Deposition of the Italian subjects, Catalina Boeroaode Aehimeli, Joao Estevōa Chiapella, José Ponzio, &c.

6th. Statement of D. Francisco Lopez de Leite Pereira, and of D. Marianna Dolores Pereira.

7th. A list, by name, of the foreigners assassinated by order of Lopez.

8th. Deposition of thirty foreigners.

8thbis. Narrative.

9th. Ditto of the Italian, Antonio Montero.

10th. Ditto of Angelo Benites.

11th. Ditto of other residents in Paraguay.

12th. Letter of D. Rozalia Domeq Concepcion Decond.

13th. Declaration of Madam Lasserre.

14th. Information furnished by the Duke of Caxias, July 1, 1869.

15th. Inventory of the articles” of gold and silver found in the churches of Caacupé and Perebebuy, and in the house of the mother of the Dictator Lopez, and also of those collected by the Brazilian forces in the Cordillera of Ascurza.

16th. Reply of the provisional government to the notes received from the special mission of Brazil which related to the delivery of the jewels of private individuals found in Perebebuy, and asked that there might be restored which belonged to the French subject (deceased) Pedro Anglade.

17th. Inquiry made with regard to Luiz Capuro and Antonio Dorignac.

18th. Statement of the Paraguayan generals Resquen and José Falcon.

19th. Statement of the Paraguayans Silvestre Aveiro, Maiioel Palacios, and of the Argentine, Victor Silveiro.

20th. Ditto of the priest Jivel Maiz.

21st. Inventory of the objects found in the possession of Eliza Alicia Lynch, and of the documents corroborative of the generous manner in which she was treated by the Brazilian authorities.

22d. List of those claimants who have died, of those whose fate is unknown, and of those who have given their testimony.

In the absence of the general director,

ALEXANDER AFFONSO DE CARVALHO.

Department of Foreign Affairs, May 11, 1871.