Legation of the United States,
Legation of the United States
,
March
18, 1893
. (Received April 3.)
No. 12.]
[Inclosure in No. 12.]
Mr. Cheney to
Mr. Lachenal.
Legation of the United States,
Legation of the United
States
,
March 18,
1893
.
Sir: Your communication of September 12,
1892, the same being in reply to Mr. Washburn’s letter of August 10,
touching the pending case of Constance Madeleine His, through some
inadvertence incidental to the absence of Mr. Washburn, remained in
the office of this legation until my arrival here, the latter part
of January. I regret this circumstance, [Page 654] for it left the Department of State in Washington
wholly uninformed of your early reply, which they were awaiting with
anxiety. After being duly qualified to act officially for the United
States Government, and in obedience to a letter of instructions
pertaining thereto I advised the Department by cablegram that answer
was made September 12 and the same was then in transit. Its receipt
was acknowledged by due course of mail, accompanied with further
instructions and a review of the case as understood by the United
States, and which in substance I must respectfully place before
you.
(1) The Department regrets that the federal department of foreign
affairs of Switzerland continues to maintain a position which to the
Secretary of State seems untenable. As the case is presented with
great force and clearness, I make the following quotation:
The argument appears to be that, as the case is before the
competent tribunal, the Executive can not intervene, but
that the Swiss courts cannot be considered competent.
Carrie Turner His, the mother of the child, has not appeared
before them either as plaintiff or defendant in regard to
the subject-matter of litigation. She has taken no steps
beyond that of denying their competence. Maintaining, as the
Swiss courts have hitherto, the custody of the child with
the father, they allow him to take advantage of a crime for
which he has been indicted in New York. This is in direct
violation of the fundamental principle of all systems of
jurisprudence, that no one shall profit by his own wrong,
and is as contrary to ethics as to justice. The judgments
decreeing a divorce in favor of Carrie Turner His and
awarding her the custody of the child was not the judgment
of an American court—to which the Swiss Government might
take exception, on the ground of the nationality of the
parties, according to the Swiss law, their personal status,
domicile, etc.—but was the judgment of a Swiss court, the
competency of which the Swiss Government can not impugn. In
flagrant contempt of this judgment Mr. His abducted the
child from the custody of its mother, committing thereby a
crime and violating the judgment of the tribunal of his own
country. He is now, therefore, under indictment for a crime
in New York and in obvious contempt before the Swiss
tribunals; yet nevertheless the Swiss Government has
declined to intervene, and Mr. His is protected from and
profits by a felony committed in the State of New York and
in contempt of court and in violation of the judgment of the
tribunals of his own country.
The Department further expresses its surprise and regrets that the
department of foreign affairs of Switzerland should not have
apprehended the circumstances environing the case, and doubts not,
upon a more careful consideration, that its sense of justice alone
would lead it to comply with the request of the United States
Government, a request founded as well in equity as in law.
In the event of any change in the status of the case since your favor
of September 12, 1892, I beg to ask that I may be early advised,
thus enabling me to report the same to the Department of State in
Washington.
I have, etc.,
