Statement of Paul H. Bray, in re expulsion from Madagascar of ex-Consul Waller.

Questioned by Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Uhl, and Solicitor Dabney:

Q. I would like to have you go on and tell, in your own way, the occurrences there in Madagascar that you are familiar with, connected with the arrest and trial of Mr. Waller; what preceded the arrest, that is known to you, and all the circumstances connected with it, in order that the Department may have from you the very best information and all the facts within your knowledge?—A. Do you wish me to give any statement of things that are liable to have prejudiced his cause in any way with the French authorities previous to his arrest?

Q. I want you to tell all the facts, no matter what they may be, and withhold nothing and venture nothing that is not the simple fact, whatever might be its effect one way or the other; let that have no control—we want the information.—A. Of course. As regards Mr. Waller’s [Page 336] position in Madagascar, his position there has been very peculiar on account of the position which he had taken upon the exequatur question when he arrived there several years ago. That created, of course, the bitter enmity of the French authorities there, and he was constantly in hot water with them at all times. After he was succeeded by United States Consul Wetter he went to Antananarivo, about 225 miles from Tamatave, west. He was at the capital about a year ago, engaged with the government for the land, and soon after his arrival there I closed the negotiations and our contract was signed by the government, and the very next day after the concession was granted, the French resident called upon the prime minister and made a vigorous protest against his signing this concession to Mr. Waller, and intimated that the concession was prejudicial to the interests of France, and he construed this grant being made to Mr. Waller as a direct blow at the French interests in the island, and he wanted to know if it had any political significance, or was it merely a commercial matter; whether it would be prejudicial to the interests of French traders in the island, and the prime minister assured him that it was purely a commercial venture to an American citizen.

Q. What was the prime minister’s name?—A. Rainilaiarivony was the prime minister’s name. This concession was granted on the 15th day of March, 1894. The French papers there—the resident’s paper—immediately began an attack upon Mr. Waller and his concession, and at Tamatave as well, and they did all they could to coerce the government into refusing to ratify the contract that bad been made. Afterward Mr. Waller sent me to Mauritius. I left Antananarivo on the 2d of May, 1894, to enter into negotiations with some commercial firms there (Mauritius) to develop the concession which had been granted. Immediately the French authorities sent emissaries over there after me. They followed me. They (the French authorities) sent instructions to the consul—the French consul at Mauritius—to handicap me, and the very week that I left Madagascar the French paper published there—it is an official organ of the residency—published a very long article denunciatory of Mr. Waller, and making a grand attack on the land grant, and so on, and they sent several hundred copies of this paper to the French consul at Mauritius, who distributed them around among the papers there, and such articles were published in the Mauritius papers as would throw a damper over my prospects there. Everywhere I went in the community among business men I found that I had been forestalled by the French authorities, and they said they would be quite glad to take an interest in the concession; they believed that it was a valuable one, and would be a valuable one, but that upon the uncertainty of the French recognizing the legality of the grant from the Hova government, they feared to have anything to do with it. Different merchants made these statements.

Q. Why were you endeavoring to interest them?—A. I wanted them to capitalize it.

Q. What were these merchants?—A. Some were English—they were English and French extractions, or Creoles—all residents there. I consulted one of the leading attorneys there in the place—Mr. Newton—and he told me that in his opinion our concession was all right, but at the same time, in view of the position of the French authorities toward our interests, there would be no possibility of my succeeding in Mauritius, and the merchants also, who were desirous of taking up the matter, told me virtually the same thing. I returned then to Madagascar after failing, on the 26th of November, 1894, to Tamatave, where Mr. Waller [Page 337] had gone from the capital awaiting my arrival at Tamatave, from whence he would leave for America. I went and arrived there—it was just a few days, of course, after that. I was then to have gone to the capital, while he came on to America. But the French occupation took place on the 12th. They gave about one hour’s notice to the consular authorities at Tamatave. They notified the consuls in the morning about 7 o’clock, and just at the hour that the bombardment began we received official notice to that effect. That was on the 12th of December. They bombarded the town. The Hovas, of course, had already left the day before because they anticipated this movement on the part of the Frenchmen. Every one of them left except the governor. He remained until the very last hour in the morning. A few days after that, on or about the 16th of December, some gendarmes came to the house where we were living and placed me under arrest as a Hova and took me, I insisting that I was an American. They refused, of course, to believe me, and said that I must go to prison. I then begged them to take me to the United States consulate before taking me to prison, and there I would prove my identity. They did so, and of course upon my arrival at the consulate Mr. Wetter informed them that I was an American and they permitted me to go at liberty. It was rumored in the community that Mr. Waller and myself were under suspicion and were being watched, and the French soldiers were daily insulting us on the street and everything—they didn’t do any violence, but made insulting remarks, and so on, to which we paid no attention. They came to our doors sometime in the night and would interrupt us and disturb us, but we gave them no satisfaction, nor would we have anything to do with them. Things went on that way until on or about the 5th of March. We remained at Tamatave, because no one was permitted to go out; no one was permitted to go out by sea unless they had passed the medium of the French military authorities. You had to make your application and let them know where you were going, who you were, etc.

Pending some business arrangements at home—we had written home, having failed at Mauritius—waiting for that, it was during this time that Mr. Waller was arrested. It was on or about the 4th of March. Six gendarmes came and surrounded the house along about 4 or 4.30 in the afternoon, and they asked for Mr. Waller. He was absent at the time, and I informed them that Mr. Waller was in the neighborhood, and I would try to find him. So, in company with two of the gendarmes, I went to a neighbor’s house and found Mr. Waller. We returned to the house. The leader said he had an order from the colonel commanding the troops to confiscate all the papers belonging to Mr. Waller, and his person—to arrest him. Mr. Waller demanded to know the reasons for it. He said that he would know that later on. He pulled the order out, and Mr. Waller asked for a translation, and he said never mind, to come along to the prison, where they were going to take him, and he would find out there. He asked also that he be permitted to go to the United States consul, and there to explain matters. They refused to go by there. They took all his letters and papers, and then, finding that I was rooming with him, they took all of mine as well. I asked them by what right they took my papers. They said they had no order to take them, but, notwithstanding, they would do so, because I lived, in the same place, and of my relations with Mr. Waller. But they did not arrest me.

Q. Did they speak English to you?—A. They spoke in French, but they had an interpreter along with them. So they took Mr. Waller to prison and I immediately went to the consulate and reported the arrest [Page 338] to Consul Wetter, and he immediately wrote an official letter to the colonel commanding the place, demanding an explanation why Mr. Waller was arrested and incarcerated, and upon what charges. The colonel commanding the troops and the admiral both sent him an official letter, and they stated that Mr. Waller was arrested upon two charges: First, for violation of article 3 of the order of place issued on or about the 18th of January, 1895, which prohibited the sending out of any letters, any communications whatever, without first passing through the hands of the military authorities.

Q. Did they state what he had done?—A. They stated that in the latter part of January he had dispatched a letter to Antananarivo addressed to Mr. George E. Tessier, via Natal and Vatromandry; that the letter had miscarried and returned to Tamatave, and there the authorities, attracted by the bulkiness of the letter, had opened it and found therein communications to the enemy giving information to the Hova authorities in Antananarivo; that was the gist of their charge.

Q. The first charge?—A. Yes. Of course, the second charge was violation of the—I forget the number of the section of the French penal code—for carrying on illicit correspondence with the enemy. For a few days Mr. Waller was not permitted to see anyone.

Q. Where was he kept?—A. He was kept in a house—a temporary prison they had established. We supplied him with his food during the time, and bed, and so on. The trial was set for the 16th of March, but it was on the 14th—until the 14th—before he was permitted to see anyone.

Q. He was taken there on what day?—A. He was taken there on the 5th of March.

Q. Taken to prison?—A. Yes; on the 5th of March. On the morning of the 14th—I do not like to say that positively, because my memory is not exact—on or about the 14th—I am not quite positive—it was along about the 14th of March that Consul Wetter called upon him in company with an attorney, Mr. Girandeau.

Q. Were you present?—A. I was permitted to be present at the interview.

Q. You called there with them?—A. Yes. Afterwards the attorney went to the colonel’s office at the old British consulate, and there perused the charges against Mr. Waller and the statements which he had made, etc.

Q. Who had made?—A. Mr. Waller; that is to say, the examination. He had been examined by the French authorities, but without any counsel, representing himself, being present. They examined him themselves.

Q. That was immediately after his arrest?—A. Yes; they examined him several times; twice to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know whether that was taken stenographically?—A. No; it was not taken stenographically; only by an interpreter who does not understand English well at all. I was examined myself.

Q. During this time?—A. During this time.

Q. At the first examination?—A. Not at the first; between his arrest and his trial.

Q. Between the 5th and 15th?—A. Between the 5th and 15th. I have not my notebook here, or I could tell the exact date. It was between the 5th and 15th that I was taken to the captain’s office.

Q. Before we go to that examination, just go on with what you were saying as to what this attorney did in the examination; you were on that point.—A. All he did was simply to confer with Mr. Waller, and [Page 339] lie decided that he would try Mr. Waller’s case for $500—defend Mr. Waller for $500. At the time Mr. Waller did not have the $500 to advance to Mr. Girandeau, but during the day it seemed that they were trying to make some arrangements to that effect—have him proceed with the defense.

Q. Who was trying to make arrangements?—A. Mr. Waller and Mr. Wetter. Up to the very last minute, you may say, to the very morning—no, the evening before the trial—there had been no arrangements made satisfactory to the attorney, and he threw up the case. The French authorities then chose a French lawyer to defend him, Mr. Girandeau having refused to defend him unless he received this fee in advance. He refused to make any private arrangements and threw it up. The French lawyer took the case, and it was postponed until the 18th—Monday—at 7 o’clock.

Q. In the meantime, between the 15th and 18th, did he confer with this lawyer who was assigned to defend him?—A. Yes; he had a conference with this lawyer, the French lawyer, who was to try his case.

Q. Did you, in the meantime, see Waller at all?—A. No; I never did see him.

Q. Not permitted to?—A. I was not permitted to see him at any time except just the day we were being sent away.

Q. That was after his trial?—A. After his trial we were permitted to see each other in the presence of the officers, and say “Good-bye.”

Q. The trial was set for the morning of the 18th?—A. Yes; the French tribunal held it, and it lasted up until about 10.30.

Q. Were you present?—A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Waller was present at the trial?—A. Yes.

Q. Just give as much in detail as you can — who constituted the tribunal, where it was held, and what were the proceedings.—A. The tribunal was constituted of, I think, seven military authorities from the army—French army—and the proceedings were in French, entirely in French, with the exception that they had this same interpreter put questions to myself who was called by the French authorities as a witness, and put also to Mr. Waller as to whether he had any objections to this or that statement which was made by one or two witnesses that were called.

Q. Who were called as witnesses?—A. There was a miner by the name of Mullen and a gentleman by the name of Poupard.

Q. Who else?—A. The captain of the place—of the troops. I forget what position he really occupied, but he was the one who had supervision of all the military; he was called as a witness.

Q. And you were called?—A. Yes; myself, and that was all.

Q. Now, was there a prosecuting officer, or anyone taking the position of prosecuting officer?—A. There was a reporter of the court-martial; he was the prosecuting attorney.

Q. Mr. Bray, was a written statement of the charges against Mr. Waller presented, and a copy of the statement given to him or his counsel?—A. No; they were only shown to him, and were read at the trial in French.

Q. Now, what did that statement specify—those charges that you mentioned a little while ago?—A. Well, I can not state, because they were not interpreted. They were simply read in French. I do not know in detail what the charges were, except from only the official letter which the colonel commanding the place sent to United States Consul Wetter, and from the interpretation that Mr. Wetter gave me of the letter at the time.

[Page 340]

Q. But was there at the trial a written statement read which purported to be the statement of charges against Mr. Waller?—A. Yes; it was in French and not translated.

Q. In what language was this testimony given?—A. The language was given by the captain in French.

Q. Was it interpreted?—A. No; it was not interpreted into English; but the language, of course, of Mr. Poupard, was in English.

Q. Was that translated into French?—A. “Yes; it was translated into French by the interpreter; and also that of Mr. Mullen, it was in English.

Q. And yourself?—A. And myself.

Q. That was interpreted—translated into French?—A. Into French.

Q. And there was only one witness who testified in the French language?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. That was not translated?—A. No.

Q. But Mr. Waller’s counsel, being a Frenchman, understood it?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he speak English?—A. Yes, he spoke a little English; not much.

Q. Well, now, in brief, what did these men testify to; each one who spoke in English?—A. Mr. Mullen testified as to whether he knew two miners by the name of Draper and Purdy, mentioned in Mr. Waller’s statement as to the identity of the persons mentioned in his communication to his wife.

Q. To Waller’s wife?—A. Yes; in the communication to his wife, my mother, he had said D. and P.

Q. That letter had been intercepted?—A. Yes; on its way to Antananarivo.

Q. Where was she?—A. She was at Antananarivo. In his statement (Waller’s) he had said that those initials meant Draper and Mr. Purdy. This miner was called to testify whether he knew any such persons.

Q. What do you mean by miner?—A. A man whose occupation is a miner—a gold digger. Mr. Poupard was also called for the same purpose.

Q. Were they brought from this place?—A. No; they were in Tamatave, but Mr. Mullen had been at the capital. He had been up through that country. Mr. Poupard had, of course, lived a long time in Madagascar, living at Tamatave. They were simply called to testify as to the identity of those persons and who they were.

Q. What did they say as to who they were?—A. They stated that they did not know any such persons as these. That was all their testimony consisted of, excepting that Mr. Poupard stated that Mr. Waller had tried to have him expelled from the country while he was consul of the United States.

Q. Mr. Waller was consul?—A. Yes. Mr. Poupard was an American, and it was supposed that the persons indicated in the letter—Mr. Waller’s letter—were Mr. Poupard and another American by the name of Duder; that was the supposition.

Q. By the French authorities?—A. Yes; and it was for that purpose that they called Mr. Poupard to give his opinion, or give his testimony in that respect.

Q. Well, what was the reference in the letter to those initials?—A. In Mr. Waller’s letter?

Q. Yes.—A. I have here extracts from correspondence of Mr. Waller made by his attorney.

Q. You mean extracts from this correspondence of which the French [Page 341] authorities complain?—A. Yes, upon which the charges were based. These extracts cover entirely the main points of the letter; anything else in the correspondence is solely of a private and personal nature, as well as some portions of this; but in these extracts they found the whole substance of the charges of corresponding with the enemy.

Q. These extracts, you say, were made by the French attorney who defended him, and made from the letters themselves; and those letters were in the possession of the French authorities there at Tamatave?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this the handwriting of the French attorney?—A. Yes. Some in French and some in English. The quotations from the letter are in English.

Q. The letter quoted was written in English?—A. Yes; and he quotes exactly the words of Mr. Waller in correspondence. [Reads.] “December, 1894. Tamatave is now under military law, and as no one is allowed to leave here for the capital, I can not therefore tell when we shall meet again, but I hope that our separation will be brief. Let me caution you, my dear, to have nothing to do in the trouble between Hova and French Governments, as such would only tend to embarrass you. Of course this does not prevent you from keeping up our friendly relations with our friends among the missionaries and Hovas, being careful always to refrain from any discussion on the present difficulty.” Here is where the French authorities base their connection between the names of Mr. Duder and Mr. Poupard and Mr. D. and P. [Reads.] “Duder and Poupard are as thick now as three in a bed, and Wetter is their god. I will inform you that D. and P. are on their way for Antananarivo, and they will likely reach there long before this letter leaves Tamatave. Please inform Mr. Tessier and our friends that both of these men have been sent up there by the French to find out secretly all the movements of the Hova Government, which they will send to the French authorities from time to time. Therefore the Government had better keep a strict watch of these men, and order them from the capital as soon as possible. Both of them are for French. I shall slip this letter out by English steamer via Natal. Then it will not be read by the French, as all letters are here at this time. I shall be anxious to learn that you have received this letter. Therefore, when you get it do not mention anything you find in it, but simply say, ‘Your number 44 received,’ and please destroy it as soon as you and Mr. Tessier have read it, and do not mention to anyone but Mr. Tessier and the secretary about the information which I send you.”

Q. Who did you say Mr. Tessier was?—A. He was the manager of the Fikambanna. He is a merchant. That is all that is said in regard to the French. He speaks in the letter of the case of Mr. Geldart and another man, but of course that had no bearing upon the case, and that was not copied.

Q. You stated just now that Mr. Waller in his first examination explained whom he meant by D. and P. Who was it he said he meant?—A. He said he meant Mr. Draper and Purdy, two miners he knew there and who were going up to the capital. That was what he explained in his examination.

Q. Now, right in this connection, before you go to that, would it not be well to read all the extracts from the letter? I would like to have you just read the extracts from the letter. They are taken, I suppose, out of different parts of the letter. It is not the entire letter?—A. These are extracts from the letter which was inclosed in this letter to [Page 342] Mr. Tessier, and comprise the main points which have any relation to the case at all.

Q. How many letters did the French intercept?—A. There was only one letter with several inclosures seemingly that he had written. For instance, a letter to-day to his wife and the mail had not yet arrived and in a day or two he would sit down and write another one and, of course, when the time came for the mail to depart he put them all under one cover.

Q. Those were all to his wife?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there in closures to other people?—A. There was an inclosure to one other and an inclosure to Mr. Tessier, but the French did not produce that against him.

Q. Did they produce the letter to that Malagasy, Ratsimanana?—A. In the first place they produced the letter which they found among his effects from Ratsimanana to Mr. Waller.

Q. They found that letter when they arrested him?—A. Yes; and then they produced the letter from Mr. Waller to Ratsimanana.

Q. That was included in those inclosures to his wife?—A. Yes; first is the letter from Ratsimanana to Mr. Waller. That was written from the capital, dated the 29th.

Q. Just one moment. The letters which were in evidence before the court-martial to sustain the charges against Mr. Waller were those from Mr. Waller to his wife, a number of them, and one from Mr. Waller to this Ratsimanana?—A. And the letter from Ratsimanana to Mr. Waller.

Q. Which had been discovered on Mr. Waller’s premises when they arrested him?—A. Yes; those comprise the entire correspondence, and these are extracts.

Q. Now, the extract which you are about to read is what?—A. From the letter of Ratsimanana to Mr. Waller. After going on his letter speaking of different affairs connected with the concession, and so on, Mr. Waller speaks of the Hovas having the intervention of England to resist the protectorate.

Q. You are now just giving this French lawyer’s extracts?—A. Yes.

Q. By the way, in what language was that letter written?—A. It was written in English.

Q. And you have not extracts in English?—A. But that which is here translated is just exactly what involved the point of the correspondence.

Q. As you have it here it is in French?—A. That part of it; but there are others here that are in English; this is only one; the lawyer seems to have put it all in French. This was the letter written by the Hova to Mr. Waller. This Mr. Waller writes to his wife—

Q. One moment. Is there any other extract there from this letter of the Hova?—A. No.

Q. Now, perhaps it would be better to read the reply of Mr. Waller to the Hova next.—A. The Hova writes Mr. Waller and speaks of the hopes of the Government receiving the intervention of England to resist the protectorate of France over Madagascar; then Mr. Waller replies.

Q. There were two letters, then, from the Malagassy to Mr. Waller?—A. Yes; one the 29th and the other 30th, sent down by the same mail. He says [reads]: “30 Xber, 1894. Now, as you will be off to London and America, I beg to remind you of those things which I ordered, of which list I here inclose for fear that you will not find my [Page 343] first letter. As to the revolver you promised to my father, he will be very glad indeed to have it as soon as possible. I also beg you to send me five more, if possible, for me and my brothers.” Here is the extract of Mr. Waller’s letter to this young man. He says [reads]: “I will remember my friends who have stood by me in this trouble. I dare not write you on matters about the French and Hovas, and when you write do not mention any matter as to the war, but only friendly and business matters, as all letters are opened and read by an officer in the French army here. Therefore be very careful what you write. I will send you the things you ask for as soon as I arrive.” That is all. That was the main point of his correspondence with any Hova. That was all the correspondence he had had and that they found on him of any nature in any way relating to any arms. They found nothing in the correspondence giving any explanation or discussing in any way the French situation with any Hova, when he referred in this letter to those revolvers which he had promised these boys out there.

Q. Now read the extracts from the letter of Mr. Waller to his wife.—A. I have already read the first extract and here is the second letter [reads]: “20th January, 1895. It was a Godsend that they did not get open Ratsimanana’s letter. If they had Paul would have been shot on suspicion. Let me warn you to be careful.” Paul means myself.

Q. Is that the letter that they did afterwards get?—A. No; this is a reference to that portion of the letter which they found in his possession, that had a portion of it cut out. It was cut out by him. The portion of the letter which referred to me was cut out, and the French observed that; but they were unable to know what was in that portion of the paper cut out, and only knew that it had some reference to me by the letter Mr. Waller had written to his wife. What that something was they did not know. Now, as a matter of fact, of course, I did not tell them what that something was; but all that it was was simply that some time previous to my departure from the capital for Mauritius, and when there were rumors of pending war, several of the officials—friends of mine—had advised me, or rather had suggested to me, that if I wanted a position with the Hovas in their coming trouble that I could have it, and knowing my sympathies for them, and so on, they would be glad to do anything they could for me in that direction; and one of these men was the father of this young man, and, of course, he then, in writing to Mr. Waller, said he was glad that I was for them and hoped that I would soon march to the capital and join them in the matter, and also that I would get the revolvers that he had requested of Mr. Waller—that I would get them in Mauritius if I could. That was all that was in this letter in this clipping that was cut out. Mr. Waller had cut it out thinking that it might bring trouble, but the rest of the letter there was nothing in.

Q. And when the French seized Mr. Waller’s letters they found this particular one with this particular passage, the substance of which you have recited, cut out?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. And further than that was the reference in Mr. Waller’s letter to his wife, which they intercepted and that excited their suspicion as to what it may have been?—A. Yes. They thought it was something very grave, of course. In another letter to his wife he says [reads]: “Let me know whether you received the passports or not, as it is very important matter. They were sent through the French admiral here, and I want to know whether you got them or not.” In his letter to Mr. Tessier—that was one of the inclosures—he says [reads]: “I send an important letter under your cover to my wife, which I will be pleased to have [Page 344] you hand her in person on account of its importance. I need not inform you that she will call your attention to a certain matter therein contained, the importance of which will at once challenge your most careful attention and place our friends on their guard. This matter is strictly confidential, and I can assure you that our friends can not afford to lose any time in attending to it.” That is all the extracts.

Q. That is all the lawyer copied?—A. The lawyer took all the extracts from the letter which had any bearing at all upon the charge which the French made, out of the letters which they produced against him. Those extracts were taken exclusively from those letters, and that is the whole of Mr. Waller’s case. There are some extracts here from the examination of Mr. Waller and of Mr. Poupard and myself.

Q. You are now referring to the trial, or the preliminary examination, which?—A. The preliminary examination of Mr. Waller, and the evidence of Mr. Poupard at the examination and of myself at the examination. This is in French. It is written in French, but I wish to call attention to the fact that at my examination this interpreter, the same interpreter that they got in Mr. Waller’s case—he does not understand English well, sufficiently to understand it. He is a Creole. I do not know whether he is a French citizen. I think so, but I would not be quite sure of that. He might be a British subject. At any rate, I understand French sufficiently to be able to say positively in reporting my replies to the questions which were put to me that they were altered to suit their own tastes; they put them down as they pleased. The interpreter would put the question to me in English, and I would give my reply in English. He would then give my reply to-the reporter, the same officer who conducted the prosecution against Mr. Waller, and he would then put my reply down in French, and construed it to suit himself. It was not a correct translation.

Q. You understand French well enough to know that?—A. Yes; and for that reason, after the testimony was over, they tried to force me to sign my testimony, and I refused.

Q. You are referring to your preliminary examination?—A. Yes; and I refused to sign it, because I knew it was incorrect; and, secondly, because it was written in a foreign language, and I refused to sign anything that was not in my own language. They tried to make me do so, but I did not do it. Even in the extract which the French attorney has here made, they tried to make it appear in my preliminary examination that I refused to state when Mr. Waller sent his letters away, when he mailed his letters, where, as a matter of fact, I did not refuse to state that. I did not know when he sent them. That is only illustrative of what had happened in several instances.

Q. You were going on, when you began to read these extracts, to give the substance of the testimony that occurred on the trial, and you had stated what the miner and Mr. Poupard had testified to, and as I remember your statement, that was merely confined to an identity. Well, now, give anything else that you remember of the testimony.—A. There was nothing else given; that was all.

Q. You were examined. What did they ask you and what did you testify to?—A. They asked me if I knew Mr. Waller. If I knew anybody by the name of Draper and Purdy. I told them that I did not know anyone by that name. They asked me if I knew Ratsimanana, and I told them that I did. That was all.

Q. That was all of your examination?—A. That was all that they asked me at the trial.

Q. Those are the only questions asked you?—A. Yes.

[Page 345]

Q. Did Mr. Waller’s counsel put any questions to you?—A. No.

Q. Did he put any to any of the other witnesses?—A. Not in my presence.

Q. Were you there during the entire trial?—A. Yes. In the examination by the captain—I did not hear that, but I was at the trial. I was standing at the door, but I was inside when they examined the other witnesses.

Q. Did the counsel for Mr. Waller cross-examine any of the witnesses?—A. I do not know that he did. I am sure of myself that he did not.

Q. He was permitted to?—A. Yes; he was permitted to.

Q. They did not prevent him from cross-examining them?—A. As I understand it, all that the captain, the military captain, was called upon to testify was as regards Mr. Waller sending the letter and as regards to the rules governing the sending out of correspondence.

Q. Did you hear his testimony?—A. I did not hear it. This of course was told me afterwards, who heard it in French.

Q. Were any witnesses called in behalf of Mr. Waller?—A. None were called.

Q. He had the right to call them?—A. I do not know whether he had or not.

Q. Was he examined?—A. At the trial?

Q. Yes.—A. No, sir.

Q. He was not examined?—A. No, sir. All that was said to him at the trial was, he was asked if he had anything to say regarding the testimony which was given, and he said that all he had to say in regard to Mr. Poupard’s testimony—that he had tried to have him expelled from the country as consul—was, that if he did so, there must certainly be some record in the United States consulate to show his reasons for so doing.

Q. He was not examined as a witness in his own behalf?—A. No; he was not examined.

Q. Do you know whether his counsel requested that he should be?—A. No; I do not.

Q. How large was this room where these proceedings were had?—A. The room was a little larger than this [indicating the office of the Secretary of State].

Q. Were many people present?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it open to the public?—A. Yes.

Q. Did they ask Mr. Waller or his counsel whether he had any objection to anyone who composed the court?—A. No; they made no such remark. The attorney for Mr. Waller argued that the court had no jurisdiction over Mr. Waller, and quoted French law. Of course, they overruled his objection, and brought in a verdict which was very lengthy, and which recited the laws of France.

Q. It was in writing?—A. Yes; it was; section after section of different laws bearing upon illicit correspondence, and so forth. I did not understand it, because it was in French and was very rapidly read. I could not keep up with him.

Q. When was that rendered?—A. That was rendered immediately after the trial.

Q. The same day?—A. Just at the same moment. The trial commenced at 7, and at 10 o’clock the court went out to bring in their verdict, and they came back in about twenty minutes.

Q. Then the document was already prepared and signed?—A. Yes; it must have been prepared before they went in. It was so very [Page 346] lengthy that it would have taken a stenographer at least an hour to have prepared it and the papers they read. It covered, I should judge, at least eight or ten pages of large foolscap.

Q. Did they undertake to give the history of the entire offense charged against Mr. Waller?—A. Yes; they certainly did, and itemized the points, and so on.

Q. Was there any oral testimony given on the trial at all of any act or thing asserted or claimed to have been done by Mr. Waller?—A. No, sir.

Q. According to your understanding, that was entirely confined to what was contained in the letters to his wife and to this Mr. Tessier, and the letters to that other man?—A. Yes, sir; of course, except the argument of the prosecuting attorney.

Q. Did he refer to any evidence that was produced against him?—A. There was no evidence produced against him except these letters which are referred to and these extracts. That was all.

Q. There has been some statement made in the papers that he was giving valuable information as to the movements of the French troops, etc.?—A. I saw them. That was all newspaper talk. There was no ground for them at all.

Q. Was there any claim of that kind made on the trial?—A. No.

Q. And no witness gave any evidence as to any action on his part which they claimed was in sympathy with the Hovas?—A. No witness at all.

Q. You spoke of an examination—a preliminary examination—of Mr. Waller before the trial, and I am not sure whether you said that was reduced to writing?—A. Yes; it was.

Q. Do you remember whether it is a part of the records of the case?—A. Yes; it was made a part of it.

Q. Did they claim anything from that, do you remember?—A. No; because Mr. Waller did not commit himself in any way. Of course, he acknowledged that he had sent these letters away. Of course, that was in violation of this article 3 of the order of place, but he admitted his guilt in that respect. That was a question of a nominal fine.

Q. That would apply, as I infer from your remarks, to any correspondence, regardless of the contents of it?—A. Yes.

Q. That would be the gist of the offense, regardless of its contents?—A. Yes; you must not send anything out unless they see it first.

Q. Was there any stress laid upon the fact that Mr. Waller, at his preliminary examination, had explained these initials D. and P. as referring to two other men than those whose names beginning with the same initials had been mentioned at the trial?—A. They did point that out, and there was no question but what Mr. Waller meant Mr. Duder and Mr. Poupard in his letters. That was what the prosecuting attorney argued in that respect, and they claimed in substance that he was writing to the Hova authorities that these men were spies of the French Government.

Q. And to be on the lookout for them?—A. Yes.

Q. Now, what took place at this examination of yourself that you have referred to? I do not refer to your testimony at the trial, but the preliminary examination. You said they examined you. You have given something of that already. You were examined before whom?—A. I was examined before this prosecuting attorney, the military reporter of the court-martial.

Q. He was an officer attached to that military tribunal?—A. Yes; I was in his presence and his secretary and the interpreter.

[Page 347]

Q. Were you sworn?—A. Yes.

Q. The oath was administered to you?—A. Yes.

Q. By whom?—A. By the prosecuting attorney.

Q. Do you know whether he exercises that function in connection with military trials?—A. No, sir; I do not. He put that question to me in my examination.

Q. Put what question?—A. He asked me if I did not know that I was under oath, and if I did not state the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I would be liable to prosecution. I replied to him that that question was one for a lawyer to discuss; that I did not know upon what authority I was called there. I did not know whether I was liable for prosecution or not.

Q. Did they send for you?—A. They issued a summons.

Q. What, substantially, were the questions that were asked you?—A. First, they asked me regarding my family, if I was connected with Mr. Waller; my name; if he was my stepfather. Then they asked me if I knew anything about Mr. Waller’s correspondence. I told them that generally I did. He asked me several unimportant questions about his family, what they were doing, etc., what support they had, etc. Then he asked me if I knew different persons at the capital. They called the names of a dozen or more persons; asked me if I knew them. I told them that I did. They asked me if I knew Draper and Purdy; if I knew Mr. Tessier; if I knew Ratsimanana. They asked me if I knew when Mr. Waller wrote his last letters to his family. I told them the last I remembered was in the latter part of December or the early part of January, and they asked me if I knew when he sent those letters, if he did not send them along about the latter part of January. I told them that I did not know when he sent those letters.

Q. Was this the reply you say they interpreted as your refusing to answer?—A. Yes; then they asked me what was in that portion of the letter that was cut out. I told them that I did not remember what was in that portion of the letter.

Q. Did they have the letter there?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Showed it to you?—A. Yes; they showed Mr. Waller’s letters and asked me if I recognized those letters.

Q. The letters written by him?—A. Yes, sir; they asked me if I recognized them—knew their contents. I told them that I did not. I had never seen them before, did not know anything about them. They also asked me if I knew anything about Mr. Waller’s correspondence with any of the Hova officials at the capital. I told them that I did not know of any correspondence of his of that nature. That was the substance of the examination. They, of course, asked me many other questions, but they had no bearing. I do not remember them.

Q. This is the pith of it?—A. Yes. I have got them all taken down in my notes exactly what they asked me, but there is nothing of importance in their examination.

Q. You have that? Who took it?—A. I took it afterwards from my memory the same day. There is nothing of importance. All they wanted to find out was as regards to the time he sent the letters, with whom he was corresponding, and as to the contents of that letter that had the clipping cut out. That was the main object of their examination.

Q. After the judgment was rendered by this military tribunal then what was done with Mr. Waller, and what was done by him or his counsel?—A. He was sent to prison. He sent for his counsel, and an appeal was then made to a higher court—to a different court.

[Page 348]

Q. In Tamatave?—A. Yes; they formed a military court, a higher court, of different officials from those who had sat in the case, to hear the appeal, and they refused it.

Q. Was there such a tribunal then existing?—A. No; this was especially called to decide this case.

Q. Did he make his appeal in writing?—A. I did not see the appeal. It was made just the day before I left there in the afternoon, made by the lawyer, and of course the lawyer consulted with Mr. Waller, and the lawyer told me the points upon which he was going to base his appeal, but did not show me his notes.

Q. Then there was nothing further done so far as any pleading before any tribunal is concerned?—A. No.

Q. What was the judgment of this military tribunal before which he was tried and by which he was condemned?—A. The judgment was that he be confined for twenty years in prison.

Q. This application for appeal was made the same day of his conviction?—A. Yes; the application was made and the appeal was heard the following Saturday.

Q. What day of the week was this trial?—A. The trial was on Saturday.

Q. Before whom was this application for appeal heard?—A. It was heard before a higher military court, a higher one than the other one.

Q. Was that different and higher military court formed for the purpose of receiving the application for the appeal, and did they grant the application?—A. No; they did not; they denied the application.

Q. The higher court actually heard the application, and after hearing it declined to grant it?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was this higher court to which you refer a court constituted for the purpose of hearing appeals, or was it a court especially assigned for this particular case?—A. A court especially formed for this particular case.

Q. By whom was it designated?—A. It was designated by the commander of the fleet. The commander was absent, but the next in command did it. Anyway, he was acting commander at the time.

Q. Who was the chief officer of the French forces there, the naval officer or the land officer?—A. The naval officer.

Q. He was superior to the officer who was on land?—A. Colonel Colonna, he was the commander of the land forces, and Mr. Kiesel, he was the commander of the naval forces.

Q. Which of them had the higher authority, the naval or the land officer?—A. Colonel Colonna had command of the land forces.

Q. You spoke of this court of appeals being organized under the direction of the naval officer?—A. Yes; it was under the direction of the naval officer, but it was composed of members of the land force, land and naval as well. I do not know how that was. Of course the particular construction of the court I did not observe closely; only observed that it was the military court, but was not particular to observe how they formed that court; but I know that Colonel Kiesel is in command of the naval forces and Colonel Colonna in command of the land forces. This tribunal and, in fact, all military orders, must receive the sanction of the commander of the naval forces, because the whole expedition at the present time is under the command of the naval officer. I think the land colonel is subordinate to him.

Q. This application for appeal was heard on Saturday following his conviction, and the order refusing the application was made on or about the same day?—A. The application was made on the same day.

[Page 349]

Q. The application was presented on Saturday?—A. Yes; and it was refused the same day.

Q. Was there a hearing at that time by counsel held privately?—A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Waller’s counsel presented the application and made an argument?—A. Yes.

Q. It was not published?—A. No, sir.

Q. What were the grounds upon which Mr. Waller’s counsel applied for the appeal?—A. Jurisdiction. He claimed that the military court that tried Mr. Waller had no jurisdiction over him; according to the French code, the French law, that they had no jurisdiction over him.

Q. You mean he claimed the case was not a proper one for the court-martial?—A. Yes; it was something of that nature, that that authority had no jurisdiction, or else it was not one for their consideration.

Q. After the appeal was refused, after the application was refused, then what was done?—A. Nothing was done then, only preparation for sending him off to France, and then it was just about this time, in fact I think it was the very day that this application was refused, that I was served with this order.

Q. Just a moment. When was Mr. Waller sent away?—A. He was sent away on the 25th. The trial was on the 18th, on Monday. The steamer left the 25th. No; it was on Saturday, the 23d, the paper was served on me—yes; it was the 23d.

Q. Is this the original paper you have here now?—A. Yes. I am mistaken, my order was served on March 21, a few days before that.

Q. That was handed to you by whom?—A. By a French gendarme.

Q. You have none of this French copy of the order?—A. Yes; the original copy.

Q. That purports to be a copy of the original?—A. Yes; they did not give the original to me, but a copy of it.

Q. What was done except to hand you that order by the French officers; were you arrested?—A. They attempted to arrest me, but I eluded them and got inside the consulate grounds, remained there for two or three days and slept there until the day of the departure of the ship. Of course in the meantime we were considering the advisability of whether I should remain and run my chances, remain inside the consulate yard and resist their order, or whether I should go. And the consul had written a letter to the colonel commanding the place demanding what right he had to expel me, to bring definite charges against me, and he said that I protested against going. The colonel replied that the military authorities were determined that I should go out of the country, and they would not entertain any interference on the part of civil authorities in the matter.

Q. When this order of expulsion was delivered to you by the officer you took refuge in the consulate grounds?—A. Yes.

Q. And there you remained until Monday?—A. Yes.

Q. And in the meantime Consul Wetter addressed a communication to the military authorities which you have referred to?—A. Yes.

Q. And the reply was received by Consul Wetter that—. Have you a copy of that reply?—A. No; I have not a copy.

Q. What was the substance of the reply?—A. It was, as I stated a moment ago, the military authorities were decided that I should be sent out of the country, and that they would not entertain any interference on the part of the civil authorities.

Q. This order of expulsion is in French. I would like to have you leave it here.—A. All right.

[Page 350]

(Order of expulsion marked Exhibit B, and forms a part of this statement.)

Q. Did you have counsel?—A. No; I had no counsel.

Q. Did you finally reach the conclusion that you would depart?—A. Yes; I wrote this letter to Consul Wetter, after carefully considering the subject.

Q. Just read the letter.—A. [Here Mr. Bray reads letter marked Exhibit C] I received a reply from the consul, which is as follows: [Here Mr. Bray reads letter marked Exhibit D.]

Q. When did this ship arrive at Tamatave?—A. It arrived there on the 24th.

Q. That was Sunday?—A. Yes; it arrived on Sunday.

Q. She laid there how long?—A. No; she did not arrive on the 24th; she arrived Monday morning and left Monday evening, the 25th.

Q. When did you see Mr. Waller after the day of his trial and conviction?—A. I saw him on the day of our departure to the steamer.

Q. Where did you see him?—A. I saw him at the prison where he was confined.

Q. Before he was taken aboard the ship?—A. Yes; they sent for me to come and see him the day they were preparing to take him aboard the ship.

Q. Who sent for you?—A. He had requested to be permitted to see me the day before, and they had refused him, but for some reason or another, I don’t know why, the next day this reporter, the captain, sent one of his orderlies over to the consulate.

Q. That was on Monday or Sunday?—A. That was on Monday.

Q. The day you left?—A. Yes—no, it was on a Sunday evening, the day before we left. He sent word to the consulate to come over and see him. I did so.

Q. You had an interview with him?—A. Yes.

Q. Anyone present?—A. The officer, the captain, and his orderly were present.

Q. They remained present?—A. Yes; and permitted us only to speak of family matters and personal matters, and say good-bye to each other; that is all.

Q. Then you went back to the consulate?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. How was he imprisoned there?—A. In a large room.

Q. Any guard?—A. There were three or four guards always on duty.

Q. You spoke here at one time of sending him in food, did you not?—A. Yes.

Q. Did they furnish him with food?—A. No food.

Q. No food all the time?—A. They did not furnish him with food until after he was convicted.

Q. Did they fail to provide him because you did provide him?—A. That of course I was not able to get from him. On the day of his arrest he sent word he had no supper and wanted something to eat and that he had no bed. Of course writing a note passing through the hands of the captain going to us—it must be inferred that they were not going to furnish it to him, because if they were they should have provided it themselves.

Q. After you saw him on this Sunday evening when and where did you next see him?—A. I have not seen him since.

Q. What time of the day did you leave Tamatave on this steamer on Monday?—A. We left about 6 o’clock in the evening.

Q. Did Mr. Waller go on the same steamer?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you go on the steamer?—A. They arrested me forcibly [Page 351] on the street. I was in the consulate yard before the time of the departure of the steamer, when I was attempting to go to my home to prepare my baggage. They arrested me on the street and did not permit me to go to my house to get any of my things, but they took me on board and they went to the house themselves and got just what they saw; they got my trunk, which I have with me, and one box. My things were around in the wardrobe and left behind me.

Q. When you went to see Mr. Waller on Sunday an officer accompanied you from the consulate. Did he accompany you back to the consulate?—A. No, sir.

Q. On the day following, do I understand you to say, when from the consulate you started to go to your home for the purpose of getting your personal effects to take the steamer, you were arrested?—A. Yes; they feared, perhaps, that I was going to try to escape them. In fact, it was time for the steamer or nearly time for the steamer to depart, and they were very angry that I had not put in appearance.

Q. By whom were you arrested?—A. By the captain—this same captain who was a witness in Mr. Waller’s trial; he arrested me with the assistance of two gendarmes who were there; they took me on board the ship.

Q. Did they ask you about your effects which you wanted?—A. I told them I wanted my things, and they said never mind; that if I could get them I could get them, and if I could not I would have to go without them; and, as I told you, they managed to get what things they found already prepared and brought them on board.

Q. After you went on board the ship were you under any restraint there?—A. I was not under any particular restraint; only I was not allowed to go aft, where Mr. Waller was.

Q. Where did you understand Mr. Waller was?—A. He was in the fourth class; he was in the hold below, and I was not permitted to see him at all on the voyage.

Q. Was he in charge of anybody?—A. Oh, yes; he was under guard all the time.

Q. How many?—A. Two. There was a number of them. I think there were half a dozen. They were on different watches. There was another man on board; his name is Watts. He was on board the ship, and without knowing me, but he knew I was from Madagascar; but he did not know that I had any relation with Mr. Waller at all. He said he understood that I was from Madagascar. Of course, he was also fourth class, and did not see me, but was with Mr. Waller, and he said: “You are an American, I understand. I want to tell you concerning the outrageous treatment that they accorded to that man Waller, who was consul to Madagascar, whom they have got as prisoner on board the ship.” He said he saw them bring him nothing but rice, a little curry and water, and not even a spoon or a fork or anything to eat with. He said they treated him like a dog. He offered to buy a little wine or a little lemonade, because he could not stand the change of water, and they absolutely refused to give him anything except the rice, curry, water, and bread. He said that he was going to write to the Department.

Q. Did you get off at Zanzibar or did they put you off?—A. They put me off. They turned me over to the consul. They took my baggage.

Q. Who did?—A. The steward of the ship. He landed my baggage. I protested that there was no consul there, and on arrival I found that the consulate had been closed, so I pointed that out to the commander [Page 352] of the ship and he said that he could not help that, that he had orders to land me there.

Q. Was it a French ship?—A. Yes.

Q. Where was she bound for?—A. Bound for Marseilles. I was put off there, and the French consul did not come to take me or see after me or anything, and when I landed it was about half-past four in the afternoon. I went to the French consul and told him who I was. He simply said: “Go where you please, you are at liberty.” And I told him that I had no friends there and I had no means, and I said I wanted to go on, and I asked him to assist me on to Marseilles and to request the commander of the ship to send me on. But he refused to have anything to do with me. He said all he would do was to send me to the British authorities. He gave me a letter to Mr. Harding, the British consul-general. I went there, but he was absent. I wrote a letter then to the prime minister of the Sultan’s court, protesting against being landed in Zanzibar, as I was in destitution, and asked his interference, and he sent his secretary around to the hotel where I stopped and sent me to the resident general about 10 o’clock at night. I went there, and the resident general, after I explained my case to him, said he was sorry, but he could not do anything for me because the United States Government had made no arrangement.

Q. Who was the resident-general?—A. Harding.

Q. The present resident-general?—A. Yes. They had not yet given him any instructions as to what to do with American citizens, and he could not interfere, although he felt it a case that justified interference, but he could not do so. He said he would cable to the consul at Aden to get instructions in the matter. He did so at his expense, and the consul at Aden telegraphed to him that he could give no advice in the matter; that he would have to correspond with the minister at Cairo or at Paris. I had a sufficient amount of funds to barely pay my passage to Marseilles, and the consul-general advised me that the best thing to do was to go on to Marseilles and manage to get to Paris and lay my case before Ambassador Eustis, rather than spend what little money I had by remaining there in Zanzibar waiting for instructions.

Q. You got back on the same ship?—A. I came on another.

Q. Where did she land you?—A. She landed at Marseilles. When I landed there I found the acting consul. He assisted me on to Paris, where I called upon Ambassador Eustis and told him my situation.

Q. How long were you in Paris?—A. I was there six days.

Q. Had you any funds when you reached Paris?—A. No; I had no funds at all. I would not have gotten to Paris had it not been for the consul at Marseilles.

Q. And Mr. Eustis paid your expenses in Paris?—A. Yes.

Q. Where is Mrs. Waller now?—A. She is at Antananarivo.

Q. What family has she?—A. There are six of us, three daughters and one son.

Q. How many by Mr. Waller?—A. Three by Mr. Waller.

Q. Where do you understand Mr. Waller is now?—A. He is at Marseilles. I forget the name of the prison there.

Q. Had the consul seen him?—A. No; he had not seen him.

Q. What is the situation there now from a military point of view; what was it when you left?—A. When I left the French were just simply occupying Tamatave, as they have been since the 12th of December. They have made no further advances, although they have made five different attempts to storm Farafati, the Hova stronghold.

[Page 353]

Q. Where is that?—A. It is situated 6 miles back from Tamatave.

Q. Have they not pretty good fortifications at this place?—A. Yes, it is very strong. The French were repulsed there in the last war. They have been defeated five times already in Tamatave endeavoring to take it.

Q. That was during this period that you and Mr. Waller were kept confined in Tamatave that they had made the attempt to take this fort and been repulsed?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is considered on both sides that the actual state of war is existing between the Hovas and the French?—A. Yes, sir. Of course while there has been no real official declaration of war, simply the French coming there and landing their troops. First, they requested permission to land their troops peaceably there and put them in the hospital, a day or two before they opened up the bombardment. The governor refused, and then they landed their troops. The Hovas all retired to their fort; of course there was nothing done there; the French were only landing their arms and munitions and troops, getting themselves in position.

Q. What was the amount of the French force?—A. Only about seven or eight hundred.

Q. Are they occupying any part of the island except Tamatave?—A. Tamatave and Mojanga.

Q. And they have been endeavoring, from Tamatave as a base, to penetrate into the interior and have not made any progress?—A. They have made no progress. These are the only places in Madagascar where the French have possession.

Q. In taking possession of Tamatave what have they done except to land their forces?—A. They have taken possession of all the houses and valuable buildings. Any house they wanted they simply went and took possession of it.

Q. They took possession of them for occupation?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. They were willing to pay for that occupation?—A. Sometimes they were. I suppose they intended to do so. They did not ask how much you wanted for your house, but told you to get out. Of course what you get for it will be considered hereafter in whatever indemnity they may choose to pay them.

Q. Aside from that what are they doing?—A. Well, the soldiers have been conducting themselves very badly, stealing—

Q. I was not referring to depredations in any way, but their asserting or exercising authority?—A. In regard to that they have taken complete jurisdiction over the place, and they have issued a notification to the consular authorities that the civil authorities have nothing whatever to do.

Q. Before they occupied what were the courts there?—A. The courts were consular, under the exclusive consular jurisdiction.

Q. Were there any local courts?—A. No local courts.

Q. Mr. Bray, between two Malagasy subjects, how would the court have been constituted?—A. That would have been before a Malagasy court.

Q. What was the nature of that tribunal?—A. That was a local court composed of Malagasy.

Q. Since this occupation by the French, of course the local courts have ceased to exercise their judicial power?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand, Mr. Bray, or did you say that for instance a controversy should arise between two foreigners in Tamatave, the consular court would still exercise jurisdiction, would it not? The French [Page 354] would not claim to exercise jurisdiction between two foreigners?—A. As I understand it, if there is anything contrary to the order and discipline of the place under seige it comes under military jurisdiction—that is what the consul informed me; but if anything else, it comes under consular jurisdiction the same as before. A criminal case or civil case comes under the jurisdiction of the consul. Any violation of the orders they have issued there governing the place in seige; well, it is very hard to understand what position consular authorities do hold.

Q. What do you understand France has tried to make the Hova Government agree to by remaining there with the army?—A. They simply want the country. That is all there is to it. They want the country; that is all there is—nothing more. If they can get it they get it.

Q. Did they assert any grievance?—A. They have asserted grievances, but they are so absurd. They claim that they want to enforce the treaty of 1885, and they themselves are of course the ones that have violated the treaty and who are not keeping it. The first trouble was their attempt to extend their boundary. Under the treaty the boundary limits were fixed a certain number of miles, and since that time they have just simply been encroaching farther in on the Hova territory.

Q. At what place is that where they have been encroaching on the Hova territory?—A. At Diego Suarez.

Q. What part of the island is that?—A. It is the northeast coast.

Q. Above Tamatave?—A. Yes. The extreme northeast coast. They have been encroaching upon the Hova territory, and the Hovas of course I objected to that and demanded that the French remove the buildings that they had erected upon their land over the boundary limit, and also to take away their flags that they had put up. The French governor at Diego Suarez told the Hova governor that he could take the flags down if he liked and do what he pleased, but if he did it would be considered as an act of hostility toward France, etc.

Q. This is just the common rumor?—A. This is a fact; it is not rumor, but it is real fact. I know it to be a fact, because the governor there—and I know him personally, and he was at the capital when I arrived there.

Q. The French governor?—A. No; the Hova governor. It has been published in the official red book. They have been encroaching upon them, and of course these difficulties have been growing more and more in many ways, and also the fact that the resident general has been all along, ever since Mr. Waller’s exequatur difficulty and the arrival also of Consul Wetter, urging and doing all he could to press the prime minister into a recognition of the right of France to issue exequaturs to American consuls and all consular representatives. The French have only exercised jurisdiction in the two towns under military control, Tamatave and Mojanga. Since the last war they have had control of the customs in certain ports for the payment of the indemnity, but they had no further powers than simply to collect this money and oversee it. The Bay of Diego Suarez has been ceded to France by Madagascar by the treaty of 1885.

Q. How large is that settlement?—A. It comprises about 16 square miles.

Q. Where was this concession of Mr. Waller’s?—A. It was on the southeast coast.

Q. How far from the capital?—A. It was about 380 miles from the capital.

[Page 355]

Q. His wife is now at the capital?—A. Yes.

Q. Which is the nearest to the capital Tamatave or Mojanga?—A. Tamatave.

Q. How far is that?—A. It is about 225 miles and Mojanga is 300. Mojanga is on the west and Tamatave is on the east.

Q. Is it a pretty good road from Tamatave back to the capital?—A. No; there is just what you might call a footpath.

Q. That is the only means of communication?—A. Yes.

Q. No telegraph?—A. Yes; there is a telegraph.

Q. Are the native Hovas experts in managing the telegraph?—A. Yes.

Q. Are they pretty well educated?—A. Yes; very well educated.

Q. Is the language reduced to writing and capable of expressing ideas?—A. Oh, yes.

Q. Do you speak it?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you go out there?—A. I went out in 1892—the spring of 1892.

Q. That was after Mr. Waller was appointed consul?—A. Yes.

Q. And you went from what State?—A. Kansas.

Q. Were you with him in any official capacity while he was consul?—A. I was in the consulate all the time until, of course, I went to the capital to look after this concession.

Q. What has Mr. Waller been doing there since Mr. Wetter succeeded him?—A. He is simply waiting some action of some business men in regard to the concession. We had been negotiating with some parties in regard to it.

Q. When did he obtain that concession?—A. March 15, 1894.

Q. When did Mr. Wetter succeed him?—A. On the 26th of January, 1894.

Q. This is a concession from the Hova Government?—A. Yes.

Q. The rubber industry is the one contemplated?—A. Yes; rubber and timber.

Q. How near the coast is the concession?—A. It is 15 miles from the coast.

Q. It touches the coast?—A. One strip touches the coast.

Q. Which coast?—A. The east coast.

Q. By what authority was this concession granted?—A. It was granted by authority of the Queen and prime minister.

Q. No legislative body?—A. No.

Q. Have they any legislative body there?—A. Yes; they have a Parliament. It is not a representative Parliament like we have. The Queen and prime minister are supreme.

Q. How is that concession evidenced? Of course, by written instrument?—A. Yes. A contract drawn up in English and Malagasy, two texts, and signed simply by the Hova authorities and the translations certified to by the author of the Malagasy-English Dictionary, and visaed properly before the British consul and our own consul, and registered there.

Q. There is a system of recording there?—A. Yes. It is recorded at Tamatave.

Q. There is no local system under the Hovas of registering like there is in the United States?—A. They are registered at their own foreign office. The grant has been registered in their foreign office.

Q. The French Government, as soon as they had obtained information of Mr. Waller’s grant, remonstrated with the Hova Government, did they not?—A. They had a very stormy meeting.

[Page 356]

Q. What is the seat of the French resident?—A. At the capital the French resident heard of the grant and he protested against the grant being made.

Q. Did he protest in writing?—A. No; verbally. He said that it was prejudicial to the interests of France, and that he considered that it was impolitic for the prime minister to give such a large grant of land to an American citizen—to a foreigner. Of course they tried to add some political significance to the grant; that is, the French believed that. They labored under the impression that there was some scheme on foot between Mr. Waller and the Hova authorities in regard to it, and stated as much in their paper.

Q. Was there any written communication or protest by the French resident?—A. No; all that he did was after he found that the concession had actually been granted and he could not prevent it; he then issued a note, just a memorandum to his papers—they have two papers there, one at the capital and one at Tamatave—to the effect that no concessions granted by the Hova authorities would be recognized by the French Government unless they had been visaed by the French resident-general. Of course those instructions did not come from Paris to him, so we saw by the newspaper reports. He acted upon his own responsibility in that matter.

Q. His action has not been disclaimed, has it?—A. No; not publicly disclaimed. Of course it looks as though his acting has really been indorsed, because in the claims of the French Government to the Hovas, in their ultimatum, they demanded the right to visa all concessions of land granted to foreigners; that is to say, that all of these concessions must be registered.

Q. They have made a written demand to that effect?—A. Yes.

Q. It is one of the pending controversies?—A. Yes; one of their five demands.

Q. What did the Hova Government say to the remonstrance against that grant?—A. The prime minister assured him that it was only a commercial enterprise, and that he had no intention to throw any obstacles in the way of France.

Q. Did he disclaim the right of the French Government to interfere?—A. Yes, he did; and he further said that he could not entertain any interference on the part of the resident in that respect. He absolutely refused to recognize the protest which the resident made.

Q. What are the five demands? You mentioned one of them. Do you remember them?—A. I can not remember them all. I have them with me, but I do not remember them. I have those demands, and I have the reply also of the Hova Government to their demands. I will give you those also as soon as I get into my trunk. Of course the sum and substance of it is that, they want the country—that is all.

Q. They did not say that?—A. No; but that is what it means.

Q. You stated that the order or the judgment of this military court did not direct where Mr. Waller would be imprisoned. What was the order that was made under which he was taken to Marseilles? Was there a subsequent order; if not, who determined where he was to be taken?—A. Since I come to think of it, the judgment stated that he was to be confined in France—I think the presiding colonel said in France. The place where, I suppose, was to be decided upon later by the military authorities. At least at the time of the trial no one knew just where he was to be sent, only that he was to go to France; we all knew that.

Q. So they put him on board this ship?—A. Yes.

[Page 357]

Q. Are there any actual hostilities there now going on—were there when you left?—A. There were not when I left, although since I left they claim that there have been some hostilities on the west coast.

Q. The hostilities while you were there consisted in the attempt of the French forces at Tamatave to carry this fort of the Hovas, about 7 miles in the interior, and they were repulsed in that attempt on five occasions?—A. Yes; five times.

Q. When was Mr. Waller last at the capital?—A. He left the capital about the 1st of October, and he remained at Tamatave until the time of his arrest continuously.

Q. How long had he been at the capital before October?—A. He had been up there since January 18. He arrived at the capital on January 18.

Q. Did he go from Tamatave to the capital?—A. Yes.

Q. Was his wife with him?—A. Yes.

Q. She went with him from Tamatave?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he remain then at the capital all the time?—A. He remained there up until the latter part of September, when he reached Tamatave, say about the 1st of October.

Q. How did he go from Tamatave with his wife?—A. By bearers—palanquin carriers; the usual method of travel.

Q. At any time was he at his concession?—A. No; he has never been down there. Of course, about the time we were getting ready to go there the French put so many obstacles in our way to making any progress in our arrangements, and then even when I could have gone, or we could have gone, of course the hostilities broke out before either of us could get down there.

Q. When did you go from Tamatave to the capital?—A. I went in December, 1893.

Q. Before he did?—A. Yes. Let me see, I went in December, 1892, instead of 1893. I was there the year before he was.

Q. You went while he was consul?—A. Yes.

Q. And remained there?—A. Yes.

Q. Until what time?—A. Until his arrival; in fact, up until May, 1894.

Q. Then you came to Tamatave?—A. No; I went to Mauritius, passing through Tamatave.

Q. Mr. Waller stayed how long at the capital?—A. He stayed from the 18th of January until about the 1st of October.

Q. And you went over to Mauritius about the business connected with this concession?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you join Mr. Waller at Tamatave at that time?—A. I joined him there on the 26th of November.

Q. How long after that did the French occupancy take place?—A. The 12th of December.

Q. I will ask you again as to the date of the letter from Mr. Waller to his wife of which the French Government complained?—A. It was dated the 22d or 23d of January, 1895. That was after the French occupation, but the letter left Tamatave, was mailed out at Tamatave, actually on the 21st; but his reason, of course, in dating it was, it seems, that he had written the letter several days ahead of date because the mail was not due until the 25th, and naturally, of course, in writing his letters, if he would write them on the 12th or 15th he simply would date his letters perhaps on the mail day. That is the only way I account for the letter having date two days later than its actual departure.

[Page 358]

Q. The mail went earlier than it was expected?—A. Yes.

Q. Do yon think that these extracts you have here contain all that was in those letters of which the authorities complain in his trial?—A. Oh, yes; I am sure of that, because they contain more than was really necessary, and he made the argument that, notwithstanding the fact that he had mentioned that these two men were on their way up there as spies, it must have been personal, and he did not mean that they were to act as spies against the French Government, because in all of his letters he was particular to advise them not to write anything, and to avoid discussing any of these questions. It was to let them know about these two men.

Q. How do you account for his statement that these initials referred to two other men?—A. I do not know how to account for that. As regards Mr. Waller’s statement, I do not know whether he made the statement or not. But he also took the point in his argument of the case that the question of the identity of the men had nothing to do with the charge of the French authorities. That was solely a matter for the men whom Mr. Waller charged with being spies. If he could prove that he meant them, that was for them to resent. It was a personal affair of their own against Mr. Waller.

Exhibit A.


extracts from letters.

[Letter from Ratsimanana to Waller, February 29, 1894.]

He speaks of several persons who have asked for employment on his concession of Fort Dauphin, especially of one of his friends—“that friend of mine who called on you with me the other night.”
Various details; hopes of the Hovas of the intervention of England, and their intention to resist the protectorate.
Order for shoes; directions as to the quality. Request to have them before Christmas; payment to be made to Mrs. Waller; list inclosed.

[Letter from Waller to his wife, December —, 1894.]

“Tamatave is now under military law, and as no one is allowed to leave here for the capital, I can not, therefore, tell when we shall meet again, but I hope that our separation will be brief. Let me caution you, my dear, to have nothing to do in the troubles between Hova and French Governments, as such would only tend to embarrass you. Of course, this does not prevent you from keeping up our friendly relations with our friends among the missionaries and Hovas, being careful always to refrain from any discussion on the present difficulty.”

[Letter from Waller to M. Chaloin, December 20, 1894.]

He requests that “a very important letter” (the preceding one, on account of the directions which it contained; no other is known) be delivered to his wife. He offers to give it open, if desired.

[Letter from Ratsimanana to Waller, December 30, 1894.]

Long explanations with reference to the steps taken by him to procure the necessary funds to deliver Waller from the hands “of his enemies.”

He asks casually for information as to the situation of the French at Tamatave, and says that he has offered his services to his [Government (?)] for the war. “Now, as you will be off to London and America, I beg to remind you of those things which I ordered, of which list I here inclose, for fear you will not find my first letter. * * * As to the revolver you promised to my father, he will be very glad to have it as soon as possible [an illegible passage]. I also beg you to send me five more, if possible, for me and my brothers.

[Page 359]

[Letter from Waller to his wife, January 20, 1895.]

He fears that the French have kept his last letter. “It was a godsend that they did not get open Ratsimanana’s letter. If they had, Paul would have been shot on suspicion. Let me warn you to be careful.”

[Letter from Waller to Ratsimanana, January 20, 1895.]

Thanks for the trouble which he has taken for the purpose of procuring him the money which he needs. He will remember those of his friends who left him in the lurch. “I will remember my friends who have stood by me in this trouble. I dare not write you on matters about the French and Hovas here, and when you write do not mention any matter as to the war, but only friendly and business matters, as all letters are opened and read by an officer in the French army here; therefore be very careful what you write. I will send you the things you ask for as soon as I arrive.”

[Letter of Waller to his wife, January 23, 1895.]

1. The case of Geldart v. Lyons. Calling up of his own case.

2. “Geldart, Duder, and Poupard are as thick now as three in a bed, and Wetter is their god. I will inform you that D. and P. are on their way to Antananarivo, and they will likely reach there long before this letter leaves Tamatave.” “Please inform M. Tessier and our friends that both of these men have been sent up there by the French to find out secretly all the movements of the Hova Government, which they will send to the French authorities from time to time. Therefore the Government had better keep a strict watch of these men and order them from the capital as soon as possible. Both of them are for French.”

“I shall slip this letter out by English steamer via Natal; then it will not be read by the French, as all letters are here at this time. I shall be anxious to learn that you have received this letter; therefore, when you get it do not mention anything you find in it, but simply say, ‘Your No. 44 received’ and please destroy it as soon as you and M. Tessier have read it, and do not mention to any one but M. Tessier and secretaries about the information which I send you.”

3. Smallpox. Numerous rapes of which he has been witness on the part of soldiers.

4. “May God grant that the money shall have been raised and forwarded by you and our friends before this time.”

5. Details as to the material difficulties of living at Tamatave; he therefore intends to go to Tamatave as soon as possible.

6. Let me know whether you received the passports or not, as it is a very important matter. They were sent through the French admiral here, and I want to know whether you have got them or not. * * *

7. To recommend to his business agents at New York to demand $20,000 damages interest to M. Wetter to force him to remain here in such —, material and moral.

8. To make no allusion in the reply to what he writes.

[Letter from Waller to Tessier, January 23, 1895.]

1. I send an important letter under your cover to my wife, which I will be pleased to have you hand her in person on account of its importance.

I need not inform you that she will call your attention to a certain matter therein contained, the importance of which will at once challenge your most careful attention and place our friends on their guard. This matter is strictly confidential, and I can assure you that our friend can not afford to lose any time in attending to it.

Smallpox, violence, destruction of property. Poverty. Provisions of beef—Letter.

Exhibit B.

Order No. 445. Troops of the Réunion. Tamatave.


The lieutenant-colonel commanding the troops of the place in a state of seige—in view of the order of the commander of the squadron, bearing date of December 12, 1894, declaring the place to be in a state of siege; in view of article 283, paragraph 1, of the decree of October 26, 1883, relative to military service in the field; in view of the constant hostility that has been shown to the French authorities and the troops of occupation at Tamatave by Paul Bray, which hostility has even been manifested by letters and articles published in the newspapers; in view of the complicity of this foreigner with Mr. Waller, his father-in-law, who has been convicted of corresponding [Page 360] with the enemy, hereby orders, subject to the approval of the captain, the delegate of the commander of the squadron, as follows:

Paul Bray, a citizen of the United States of America, shall be expelled from Tamatave.

He shall be put on board of the next steamer of the Messageries Maritimes that is bound to Zanzibar, where the consul of France shall turn him over to the consul of his nation.



Captain Delegated to act for the Civil and Military Authorities.


On motion of the lieutenant commanding the place in a state of siege, Paul Bray is to be placed on board of the Djeunah, bound to Zanzibar.

The expense that may be thereby entailed shall be charged to the budget of the corps of occupation, chapter 13.

The chief of the administrative service and the military authority are each, in that which concerns them, charged with the execution of this decision.


Exhibit C.

Mr. Bray to Mr. Wetter.

Sir: I have the honor to inform you, formally, that an order was served upon me about 4 p.m. on the 21st instant by a French gendarme, from which it appears that I am to be expelled from Tamatave by the French military authorities per Messageries Maritimes, steamer Djeunah, destined for Zanzibar.

As this steamer is expected in a few hours whereon I am to leave, I wish to make the formal statement to you that I have done nothing that can in any way interfere with the French military occupation of this place; but, owing to the unfortunate position of my stepfather, and the fact of my color and resemblance to the Hovas, and of my having been previously arrested as a Hova by the military authorities here, I consider that my life would be seriously endangered by my remaining here after the receipt of this order.

Under such circumstance, I feel bound, for my own safety, to submit and leave to-morrow, as per the order aforementioned; but, sir, I certainly feel that it is an outrage upon the rights of an American citizen in this country for me to be thus driven out of the country and forced to abandon my father’s family and rights here.

As American consul, I know that you will do your utmost to protect me in all my rights, and I thank you gratefully for the kind interest you have shown in your advice to me upon this matter, but feel compelled, by force of circumstances, to request that your efforts be confined to an impartial representation of my case to the Department of State, as I honestly believe and fear that any suspension of this order of expulsion demanded and secured by you would only lead to my private assassination. Although what I am to do in such a place as Zanzibar, and how I can in any way assist my poor father’s family, I can not see; yet any condition there will be preferable to my remaining here and bearing the insults of, and the chance of being murdered by, French partisans. However, on my arrival at Zanzibar, I shall protest against being landed there without means of subsistence.

I have the honor, etc.,

Paul Bray

Exhibit D.

Mr. Wetter to Mr. Bray.

Sir: Your letter of even date to hand and contents noted. Agreeable to your request, I will confine my efforts in your case to a representation thereof to the Department of State and to a representation to the military authorities here of the injustice to you of landing you at Zanzibar, where you claim to have neither friends nor acquaintances and will be without means of subsistence.

Remember you are welcome to an asylum here and will meet with every protection at my hands or in my power.

I am, sir, etc.,

Edw. Telfair Wetter
[Page 361]

Exhibit E.

He did not see all the letters which Waller wrote.

There are two rooms in the house which they occupied together.

Second examination of Waller.

He considered the two letters of January 23 as so important that he did not even show them to his son-in-law. He went away without carrying them on board the ship.

Neither is he able to say under what circumstances he knew “Draper” and “Bandez.” He has written to friends the —— in February. Two letters were not sent by him, because he considered that it would not advance anything. His son-in-law knew nothing of them. Generally he incloses his letters, those which he calls “secretaries,” in the letters to his wife, without the secretaries of Vessier.

Harvey Parrett (he does not know him); Ratsimanana-Rosmania by —— of spelling (Martineau), if he called and wrote Ratsimanana —— it was because he had his letter before him.

“Our friends” signifies, independently of the chiefs of police, the friends of Waller on board ship.

He maintains that D. and P. are not Duder and Poupard.

He explains that if he seems to fear being shot it is because he has been threatened several times by soldiers.

He did not think that in writing on the subject of D. and P. he could do them any harm, for they are English. He simply wished to revenge himself for the rascally proceedings of which he had been the subject by causing them to be expelled from the capital.

The promise made to Ratsimanana to send him what he asked for had reference merely to an order for shoes and clothing. Bray brought no revolver from Maurice. It was because of this request [demande] for revolvers by Ratsimanana to Bray that he wrote in his letter to his wife, “It was a godsend.”

His intention is still to go to America, and if he speaks of going first to Nanariva it is to get his family.

Waller has already written Vessier two letters, which have been inspected by the military authorities and sent to destination. Therefore they do not and can not consider him as a ——. Mr. Waller still less. As for Ratsimanana, he wrote to him only on business, and refuses to furnish him the information on the situation which he asks for.

Q. 1 (Waller). He says that the passage cut from Ratsimanana’s letter had reference to an order for revolvers to be executed by the agency of Bray, who was then at Maurice; that in the letter to his wife he made allusion to the said Draper and ——, who deceived him, and told her to make them known to the chief of police, whom he calls his friend.

—— and Draper, miners coming from South Africa, whom he knew at the capital.

Q. (Tonfard). He has gone to reach Nanariva the 12th January. He believes that Waller is his enemy, having threatened to expel him from Madagascar in 1893, when he was consul there.

Q. (P. Bray). He refuses to say at what time his brother-in-law sent his last letter to Nanariva. (After saying that.) It was the end of October or the beginning of January, he declares that he no longer remembers.

Interview between Mr. Edwin F. Uhl, Assistant Secretary of State, and Mrs. Susan Waller, wife of John Waller, ex-consul at Tamatave, in the room of the Assistant Secretary of State, State Department, October 31, 1895, at 11 a.m., at which were present also Mr. Walter E. Faison, Chief of the Consular Bureau, and Professor Langston, who accompanied Mrs. Waller.

Mr. Uhl. What is your first name, Mrs. Waller?

Mrs. Waller. Susan; Susan Waller.

Mr. Uhl. Mr. Kennedy, as you know, a day or two ago left here certain letters and papers which you furnished him as bearing upon the case of your husband; these have been examined, and the Department was desirous of seeing you to know if you had any other papers that would throw light upon the matter which you would wish to submit, or [Page 362] if you have any personal knowledge of facts connected with the transaction that yon could furnish.

Mrs. Waller. I have no other papers. Of course, I was not in Tamatave at the time of my husband’s arrest, nor at the time of the trial, and all that I have—anything bearing upon it at all—is, knowing as I do—that is, knowing what his policy has always been in regard to meddling with any affairs politically as between the French and the Hovas. There was talk of trouble and war between them, but he never allowed us to say anything in regard to their troubles. I was requested to write to some of the American newspapers, and I wrote several articles for them, but after having my manuscript prepared, he would not let me send it. He said: “You must not send it. If you write it, they will think it comes from me, and it will get me into trouble.” So I destroyed it.

Mr. Uhl. That was the first year you were living there?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. While he was consul?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. The second year my son Mr. Bray arrived. He wrote something. I said to him that I was not allowed to write on politics. He said it would make no difference about him. He was not there officially. He prepared his manuscript, but when Mr. Waller heard of it his had to go the same as mine—to the wastebasket.

Mr. Uhl. Referring to politics, you mean the political condition in Madagascar?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. I had to confine my subject to general things. Of course, you see, all the letters that he sent to me—every time he would write to us he would always warn us not to say anything in regard to their trouble whatever—the trouble of the Hovas with the French.

Mr. Uhl. When did you find out about his arrest?

Mrs. Waller. I knew nothing of his arrest until after he was in prison. He was on his way to France before I knew anything at all about it. His letter was sent to me, but it did not arrive in Antananarivo for quite a while.

Mr. Uhl. You mean the letter that he wrote after his conviction?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. That is the one you sent here the other day?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. When did you go to Madagascar?

Mrs. Waller. In the fall of 1891.

Mr. Uhl. You went with your husband?

Mrs. Waller. No; I went after he went. He went in the spring and I went in the fall. He never in all his associations with the Malagasy—he never allowed himself to talk with the Malagasy about their difficulties. They would come and ask him questions, and he would say, “I can’t have anything to say about this matter at all.”

Mr. Uhl. That was during the time that you lived at the capital, after he ceased to be consul?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. When did you go over to the capital?

Mrs. Waller. We went about four weeks before Mr. Wetter took his position there; I think the last of December.

Mr. Uhl. 1893?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Did your husband go with you then?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. He was sick and had to leave. He waited a [Page 363] month for Mr. Wetter to come on, but he did not come, and he could not stay any longer; so he turned the consulate over to Mr. Geldart

Mr. Uhl. Was he the vice-consul?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. You went to the capital with your entire family?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; the whole family went with me.

Mr. Uhl. Had he received his concession before then?

Mrs. Waller. Right after that. He received the concession in March. He went up there in December and the concession was signed in March.

Mr. Uhl. He, together with your family, remained at the capital until what time?

Mrs. Waller. Until, I think, in October. He left in September or October, I think; October, I think.

Mr. Uhl. Where did he purpose going when he left Antananarivo?

Mrs. Waller. He started for home.

Mr. Uhl. For America?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; by the way of England.

Mr. Uhl. Have you ever seen what purports to be a copy of the intercepted letter?

Mrs. Waller. No, sir; I have never seen that. I have only been told different things that it contained; but of course I have never seen it and do not know what it contained.

Mr. Uhl. You never have seen the original?

Mrs. Waller. No; never seen the copy or the original. If it contained any news detrimental to the French, it was the first he had written.

Mr. Uhl. Did you receive frequent letters from him?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; until the trouble broke out I received letters almost every week. The British mail came up every week. Of course after the bombardment I did not get letters very often.

Mr. Uhl. Who was Mr. Tesschi?

Mrs. Waller. Tessier is a British subject who lives in Antananarivo. He was a friend of ours and had befriended the family, and that was why Mr. Waller corresponded with him.

Mr. Uhl. Had he had anything to do with Mr. Tessier in a business way?

Mrs. Waller. No; nothing at all. He simply had written him to help me in any way that he could, simply as a friend.

Mr. Uhl. Were you acquainted with him before you went to the capital to live?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; I met him a number of times. His sister, Amy Tessier, was Mr. Waller’s secretary. He has been to our house at Tamatave several times.

Mr. Uhl. So he was an acquaintance before you went to the capital to live?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. What was his business at the capital?

Mrs. Waller. He was the manager of the shipping company there for the Malagasy.

Mr. Uhl. Did you live in Antananarivo while you were at the capital?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; we lived right in the city.

Mr. Uhl. Did you know a man there by the name of Purdy—at the capital?

[Page 364]

Mrs. Waller. No; I knew a man by the name of Polity; that must be the man you refer to, not Purdy. I did not know anyone by the name of Purdy.

Mr. Uhl. Bid you know a man by the name of Draper?

Mrs. Waller. I do not believe I do. Is he a foreigner?

Mr. Uhl. I was under the impression that he was an American citizen, but I am not sure about that.

Mrs. Waller. I do not know him. I knew an American citizen there; he was a Mauritian. I do not know of any man named Draper at Antananarivo.

Mr. Uhl. I am not certain that he is an American. I want to know whether you knew any person of that name?

Mrs. Waller. No; I do not think I do.

Mr. Uhl. Did you know any person at Tamatave by the name of Purdy?

Mrs. Waller. I do not remember anyone of that name.

Mr. Uhl. Nor Draper?

Mrs. Waller. No. I knew but a very few persons there. There were a great many people there, but did not know but a very few.

Mr. Uhl. Were there many Americans in Tamatave during the time you were there?

Mrs. Waller. I do not think there were more than three or four that I knew of.

Mr. Uhl. Who were they?

Mrs. Waller. Mr. Geldart and Mr. Ryder, Mr. Dudor, and Mr. Poupard. They were the only Americans that I knew. Yes, there was another one, too; Mr. Marks. He was a Mauritian. His father was an American, but he was from Mauritius. His name was registered at the consulate, was on the consular books, and I think he claimed to be an American. He came there for protection and had his name put on the consular books.

Mr. Uhl. How far is it from Tamatave to Antananarivo?

Mrs. Waller. It is counted 250 miles.

Mr. Uhl. Did you get any other letters from Mr. Waller?

Mrs. Waller. A great many letters that Mr. Waller wrote to me I never received. He would write and ask me about certain things which he said he had mentioned before in previous letters, which I had never received. The same with my letters that I sent to him. Perhaps he would get one out of a half a dozen. The consul afterwards told me that there was some mail there, but they would not let him have it.

Mr. Uhl. In Tamatave?

Mrs. Waller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Uhl. Where do you understand that this mail that you refer to is now?

Mrs. Waller. It is at Tamatave now.

Mr. Uhl. In whose possession?

Mrs. Waller. At the post-office.

Mr. Uhl. Is there anything that you now recall in addition to what appears in your sworn statement that Mr. Kennedy furnished as to the request by the Hova friend—that young man—made to Mr. Waller in regard to purchasing revolvers?

Mrs. Waller. Nothing more than what is in my statement. I think my son has the original order.

Mr. Uhl. The original order from whom?

Mrs. Waller. The order from this Hova for the goods. In the same [Page 365] letter that the revolvers were mentioned was a bill of dry goods that he was to buy in England for this young man. My son has the original order. Did he not leave it?

Mr. Uhl. I do not remember whether it was left or not.

Mrs. Waller. That was given to him before he left Antananarivo.

Mr. Uhl. You say that your husband had frequently cautioned you not to say anything in regard to the political conditions existing in Madagascar, and not to take any part or do anything that would indicate any views one way or the other as between the Hovas and the French?

Mrs. Waller. That was his advice to us all.

Mr. Uhl. Suppose that you had received a letter from him while he was at Tamatave suggesting that you give any information to your Hova friends as to the anticipated movements of any parties in the interest of the French, what would you have done?

Mrs. Waller. When I consider how he had always warned us, and if I knew his condition in Tamatave, as I would have, I would have felt that he was actuated by some feeling perhaps on account of his mistreatment, and I would not have given the advice, because I would have known that it would not have been well for him.

Mr. Uhl. That is the way you look at it now?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. Knowing how he was persecuted at Tamatave, he would very likely have said something, but at the same time I would certainly have acted on my best judgment in the whole matter.

Mr. Uhl. Is there anything, Mr. Langston, that occurs to you that you would like to have asked?

Mr. Langston. There is one thing that occurs to me. That is, when he left the capital and went down to Tamatave, where he was going and why he was detained at Tamatave at all. That bears upon the case—as to whether he left home, telling them all good-bye, that he was going to America. I should like for her to state what is true about this; all she knows. There; that is all.

Mr. Uhl. Mrs. Waller, you have heard the suggestion made by Professor Langston. Suppose you tell all about his departure.

Mrs. Waller. All I know about that is——

[Professor Langston here interrupts her.]

Mr. Langston. As I understand it, he left the capital to go home—to America. Now, I want you to make your own statement—whether he left telling you all good-bye and telling you that he was leaving for the United States. I would like you to speak fully to the honorable Secretary what is true about that, carefully and slowly. When it was that he left——

Mrs. Waller. He left, as I say, about the 1st of October, for Tamatave. I am not very good on dates, but you can refer to other papers.

Mr. Langston. Tell us first how he left; what did he do in the way of making arrangements for you; what he said when telling you goodbye?

Mrs. Waller. He prepared for us to remain until he could arrive home and send for us. Everyone knew that he was going home. He even wrote to the consul at Tamatave that he was going home. When he arrived in Tamatave—he got there two or three days before the sailing of the steamer; it was to sail on the 8th—he was to take the steamer of the 8th; he had two or three little matters to attend to at Tamatave. Well, just on the eve of the departure of the ship Mr. Wetter made a demand upon him that he claims he had no right to make and detained him.

[Page 366]

Mr. Uhl. Does that cover everything, Mr. Langston?

Mr. Langston. Yes; it covers it substantially. I only wanted to bring out the fact that he left home for the United States, leaving his family, bidding them good-bye, starting on his journey regularly, and that he was detained at Tamatave.

Mrs. Waller. I think he wrote to the Department that he was on his way home.

Mr. Uhl. Was this demand that Mr. Wetter made in connection with a judgment that was had against him—Mr. Waller—growing out of the Crockett estate?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. My husband had sent him a report, according to his request, and turned over the whole estate to him under protest feeling that he had no right to do it, but rather than have any difficulty he would turn it over. That was three months before he went down there. Mr. Wetter kept this report, making no protest. When he went down there on his way home Wetter demanded the money, demanded the estate, and then Mr. Wetter detained him.

Mr. Uhl. When was this judgment rendered against him?

Mrs. Waller. Shortly after he went to Tamatave; a few weeks after, I suppose.

Mr. Uhl. I notice in his letters that you left here a reference by Mr. Waller to this subject and a request to you to raise the money to satisfy that judgment. That is the same one, is it?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; and I had made arrangements to raise the money, but the men I was doing business with—the men there were not used to dealing with a woman, and they did not think the papers signed by a woman were good, and they said Mr. Waller must come up and sign them. I got a petition up and had it signed by the leading English people there, the missionaries and others, and sent it down to Mr. Wetter, asking him to permit Mr. Waller to come to the capital, and the reasons. He never even answered that petition.

Mr. Uhl. Did your son leave the capital and go to Mauritius after Mr. Waller went to Tamatave?

Mrs. Waller. He went there two or three months before Mr. Waller went down.

Mr. Uhl. He went over to Mauritius to endeavor to raise some money on the concession?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Did not Mr. Waller wait in Tamatave to meet Mr. Bray there?

Mrs. Waller. Not specially to meet him; he was detained there by Mr. Wetter or else he would not have been there.

Mr. Uhl. That is what you understood?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. Mr. Bray came back to Tamatave again, but not by request of Mr. Waller, because he did not know he was going back. He got sick in Mauritius and came back.

Mr. Uhl. They maintained correspondence with one another?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; I think they wrote to one another.

Mr. Uhl. What did this estate that you speak of consist of?

Mrs. Waller. I do not know much about that. I have the papers that show the account. I have heard it reported here that it amounted to $5,000, but the amount was $2,000.

Mr. Uhl. What did it consist of?

Mrs. Waller. Whether it was real estate or money?

Mr. Uhl. In what shape—form—was it?

Mrs. Waller. It was money.

[Page 367]

Mr. Uhl. It was money when it went into the hands of Mr. Waller (Mrs. Waller nods her head affirmatively), what did it consist of when Mr. Wetter made this demand of Mr. Waller? What did it consist of at that time! Wasn’t it notes?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Notes against whom?

Mrs. Waller. Two Hova gentlemen at the capital.

Mr. Uhl. You said a moment ago that you were endeavoring to raise money for your husband to satisfy this judgment; how were you endeavoring to raise it? Did you try to borrow the money on these notes?

Mrs. Waller. No, I could not do that. They had borrowed the money for a certain length of time and they did not have to pay it.

Mr. Uhl. You learned that from them?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. You tried to get them to pay it?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Did you try to dispose of the notes so as to raise the money?

Mrs. Waller. Oh, no; I did not think of anything like that.

Mr. Uhl. Where were the notes themselves?

Mrs. Waller. Mr. Waller had them.

Mr. Uhl. What did Mr. Waller do with the notes?

Mrs. Waller. I do not know. Mr. Wetter turned the notes over to him——

Mr. Uhl. The notes themselves were not in Mr. Wetter’s possession finally?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; he had the notes.

Mr. Uhl. You say he gave them back to Mr. Waller?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know what became of them?

Mrs. Waller. I suppose the French have them; they were in his boxes which the French seized.

Mr. Uhl. What you were endeavoring to do was to raise the money to satisfy the judgment against Mr. Waller. Were you trying to raise it on the concession?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Did you have a power of attorney from your husband?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; I have a power of attorney. I wrote Mr. Wetter and told him that my husband could not raise the money in Tamatave. Of course, in Antananarivo the war was on and there was no bank there. There as no money. The prime minister was calling in all the money of the subjects. When they got their money it was subject to being called in, and when the war was on they called it in from their subjects, and, of course, it made it a very bad case of borrowing money from anyone, and those I could borrow the money from said, “How can we get the money back here?” That was the difficulty. I wrote to Mr. Wetter and told him my difficulty. I wrote to him three different times, and finally sent him the petition signed by these men, explaining that if Mr. Waller could come back there we could raise the money. He did not answer it. I thought he might not have received it, but Mr. Woodford told me he saw it in his office at Tamatave. Why he did not answer me I do not know.

Mr. Uhl. There is nothing further occurs to me. Do you think of anything, Mr. Langston?

Mr. Langston. I do not think of anything else. Do you think of anything else you want to say, Mrs. Waller?

Mrs. Waller. No; I do not think of anything else. Of course, I [Page 368] may speak of Mr. Waller’s condition. I received a letter from Mr. Waller this morning. He always tells us about his condition first, how his health is; but he does not say anything about that this time. He speaks of settling up some matters. We take it from that that he is in a very bad state of health. He had been sick in the hospital for three months before he went to Tamatave. From the time he left Tamatave he never has been well a day, and just got out of the hospital about a month before he started for America, and why Mr. Wetter detained him in that condition in Tamatave I do not know. There was no cause for it.

Mr. Langston. Mrs. Waller, won’t you state to the honorable Secretary carefully, slowly, just what Mr. Waller’s physical condition was when he left home?

Mrs. Waller. He was sick ever since he left Tamatave.

Mr. Langston. Was he really feeble—ill?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; he was dangerously ill. The doctor did not think he would get well. When Mr. Wetter demanded he should come to Tamatave, he sent a certificate from the doctor saying he was not able to travel, and then in place of going he sent it right down, because he was in bed when he sent it down. About a month or so after that he went down. He was hardly able to travel when he went. You may get some idea of his condition when you know that when he left America he weighed over 200 pounds. When he left Antananarivo for Tamatave he only weighed 120.

Mr. Langston. Do you know whether at the time he left the capital for Tamatave he had made arrangements to come right on through to the United States?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; he had arranged to come straight on through. Mr. Shepard, a gentleman in England, was expecting to meet him at the wharf.

Mr. Uhl. He was going to stop in England?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; he told him to meet him there.

Mr. Langston. And Mr. Shepard is his agent there?

Mrs. Waller. Yes. He has letters in his possession from Mr. Waller. After Mr. Waller was detained he wrote and said he was very much disappointed that he could not meet him.

Mr. Langston. Now, when Mr. Waller left the capital, bidding you good-bye, did he leave home with reference to the arrival of a steamer to be at Tamatave, which he was to take?

Mrs. Waller. Yes; he left just in time to be in Tamatave a few days before the steamer sailed; he wanted to attend to some things there. He wanted to make the steamer which left on the 8th.

Mr. Langston. Do you know whether he had made arrangements to pay his fare before he left Tamatave?

Mrs. Waller. I do not know about that, because they always got their tickets at Tamatave.

Mr. Langston. He left home to reach Tamatave to catch that steamer—the steamer to arrive on a given day?

Mrs. Waller. Yes.

The foregoing statement of Mrs. Waller was taken stenographically. After the stenographic note had been transcribed she called at the Department of State and, after reading the same, left a memorandum as follows:

Page 8 (typewritten copy):

Mrs. Waller is quoted as saying that the original order for the goods which Mr. Waller was to purchase for the young Hova was given to her son, Paul Bray, before [Page 369] lie left Antananarivo, when she should have said that the order was mailed to Mr. Waller at his London address, and when it returned to Tamatave with Mr. Waller’s mail Mr. Bray got possession of it.

On the same day that Wetter received the petition in Mr. Waller’s behalf my son received a letter telling him that I had sent such a petition.

Page 11 (typewritten copy):

Add: Wetter kept the notes sent three months without protest, and also accepted the interest on them for the first year. Hence, Mr. Waller believed that the matter was satisfactory to him (Wetter) and did not know any difference until he arrived at Tamative on his way.

Wetter sent word up to the capital that my husband had stolen $5,000 from the American children and tried to have the Government arrest him and bring him down. The prime minister knew all about the whole matter and refused to do anything against Mr. Waller. Besides, the prime minister claimed these children were Malagassy.

Interview between Mr. Edwin F. Uhl, Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr. Ethelbert G. Woodford, at which was present also Mr. Walter E. Faison, Chief of the Consular Bureau, at the Department of State, in the room of the Assistant Secretary, October 22, 1895, 9.30 a.m.

Mr. Uhl. State your name in full.

Mr. Woodford. Ethelbert G. Woodford.

Mr. Uhl. Where do you reside?

Mr. Woodford. I am at present residing in Baltimore. I have an office in New York, but I am living at Baltimore with my family. I have just returned to America and settled down.

Mr. Uhl. How long have you been absent from here?

Mr. Woodford. I was here last—let me see—well, I have had no permanent home in the United States since 1870.

Mr. Uhl. You have been in Europe part of the time since that?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; I have had my headquarters in London for the last five, six, or seven years.

Mr. Uhl. Had an office there?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. What has been your business during that time?

Mr. Woodford. Civil, mining, and consulting engineer.

Mr. Uhl. You were acquainted with Mr. Waller?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; I met him in 1891, when he was in office.

Mr. Uhl. Where?

Mr. Woodford. At Tamatave, Madagascar, during my first visit there.

Mr. Uhl. You had not known him before?

Mr. Woodford. I never met the man before; simply heard a new consul had been appointed about the time of my arrival.

Mr. Uhl. How long were you in Madagascar at that time?

Mr. Woodford. For about four and a half months.

Mr. Uhl. When did you next meet Mr. Waller?

Mr. Woodford. The next time was when he was in jail after he had been condemned.

Mr. Uhl. That was in 1895?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; last March.

Mr. Uhl. When you arrived at Tamatave at that time, he had already been arrested and was in jail awaiting trial?

Mr. Woodford. I arrived there on March 9th, on the steamer Dejunah, and heard to my surprise that he had been arrested.

Mr. Uhl. Now, will you just go on and tell what you may know connected [Page 370] with his arrest, and his imprisonment, his trial, and any facts within your knowledge?

Mr. Woodford. When I arrived at Tamatave, the French had refused me permission to land. They singled me out, me and my secretary, and refused to let me land, so I immediately wrote to the acting American consul and demanded my right to land. I landed late at night through the assistance of the new American consul.

Mr. Uhl. That was on the 9th of March?

Mr. Woodford. The 9th of March. I am not exactly certain about dates, as I mislaid my diary, but I think that is the time. Wetter told me that there was a strong feeling against me, as among the correspondence of Waller’s intercepted was a statement of mine, published in the New York Sun, in which I had written in anticipation of the war, and spoken rather strongly against the French and very much in favor of the Hovas. Wetter said that I had better take up my quarters at the consulate, as it would not be safe for me to go any place else, and so I became his guest during the four weeks that I remained at Tamatave. Of course, being right at the consulate, I then heard a great deal about Mr. Waller’s arrest, and met his son, Paul Bray, for the first time. He came down to the consulate to see Wetter on some business.

Mr. Uhl. His stepson?

Mr. Woodford. Yes. At that time I had a bad foot, a swollen ankle, and was laid up at the house for some time, and of course heard a great deal of matters. Wetter knew that I had traveled extensively and had had a great deal to do with consular affairs, and he was only too glad to have someone to talk over this question with and to consult. I found that there existed a tremendously bitter feeling between Wetter and Waller; that is, that Wetter had charged Waller with some neglect of his duties while he was in office, of engaging in private business, and other matters I don’t recall, and there had been a very strong feeling between him and some of the so-called American storekeepers and dealers. I had noticed something of it on my previous visit.

Mr. Uhl. You had noticed what?

Mr. Woodford. My previous visit was in 1891. I noticed at that time among the so-called American traders a very bitter feeling. All the traders in that country are engaged in the same line of business, and each of course feels anxious to cut each other out and secure their trade in a business way. They are always saying this and that about one another, and there is any amount of scandal, gossip, lying, and everything like that; and there is so much of it that it would simply disgust anyone. I noticed at this time that there was the same gossip and the same quarreling; one man calling another a rascal, and so on. At various periods they had been deadly enemies and then they had made it all up again. They were a low class of men, not very refined ideas nor very high moral principles——

Mr. Uhl. Suppose you relate that later on, and state now how Wetter acted toward Waller. That is what we want to get at. Just tell us what occurred and what you saw and what Wetter did about Waller.

Mr. Woodford. Well, Wetter had copies of Waller’s correspondence. I think he engaged a lawyer named Girandeau. This lawyer had prepared copies of Waller’s correspondence which had been intercepted by the French. I read these letters with a great deal of attention. Wetter gave them to me, and I not only read them, but called Paul Bray in and talked with him about them. He said his father had written the letters, and said his father had been in such very poor circumstances, and so anxious about his wife and family that he was nearly [Page 371] beside himself. He had been detained-so long by Wetter to answer these charges, and had been harassed so much and was actually destitute, as was his wife and family, as I found out afterwards. I read these letters through with a great deal of attention, and I could see nothing in any of the letters that could in anyway warrant the French in making the charges they did against him.

Mr. Uhl. Enumerate the letters that you saw.

Mr. Woodford. Well, there were letters addressed to a man named Tessier, at the capital. There was a letter addressed to a young Hova, saying something about guns, and I think a couple of letters to his wife. The letters to his wife were advising her about money matters, mentioning his difficulties, and making a very bitter attack against Wetter for his action against him. I think that was all. Just about four letters that I saw. Wetter handed me the whole lot, and I studied them very attentively.

Mr. Uhl. These purported to be copies of the original letters?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; and they were all the evidence that existed against Waller—these letters to his wife.

Mr. Uhl. You read them before the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. And Wetter, through this lawyer you have mentioned, had obtained from the French these copies?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; these were copies of the original letters which the French had.

Mr. Uhl. Now, taking the letters to his wife, state the contents of these letters so far as you are able. I don’t expect you can give the language, but the substance and anything that you recall.

Mr. Woodford. Well, substantially, he recounts the miserable condition to which he has been reduced by the continuous persecution of Wetter. The months are going by and he is still in a terrible condition. The French have taken possession of the place, and things are in a very much troubled state. He speaks very bitterly of Wetter’s continuous attacks upon him, and his difficulty in negotiating a bill, the impossibility of communication with the capital. States that it is difficult to get bail, and desires to know from her about the possibility of securing some $1,200 or $1,400 on some bill or something.

Mr. Uhl. Did he say bail was offered him if he could procure it?

Mr. Woodford. Yes. He had to provide some $1,200 or $1,400, but he complains about his inability to communicate with her and get this sum of money through his friends at the capital. He says the French had seized the place—that was very shortly after the seizure and occupation by the French troops. He then goes on to recite an account of the occupation. He uses a whole page describing the raping of women, the atrocities practiced by the French soldiers, the way they treated the women and girls, etc. He was close by at the time and knew a great deal of it. He tells a terrible story of this raping and outrage. The man fairly cries out against it. He does not know what to do. He has a hopeful spirit about him, and there is a good deal of religious sentiment mixed up with it. That is as I remember it.

Mr. Uhl. That is all you recollect?

Mr. Woodford, Yes. Now, no; I believe he mentions also something about that she is to beware of D. and P., and that they are French spies. This is the only point in the letter to which I took exception. He said they were French spies. They were only going there in French interests.

Mr. Uhl. Did he refer to two men, or what did he say?

[Page 372]

Mr. Woodford. I don’t know whether he referred to two men or to whom he referred. There are such a lot of trading rascals running over that island that it is impossible to know who is who. There was another letter, but it was purely on business matters, and endeavoring to negotiate a bill at about a year, entirely connected with some prior transactions of his at the capital with reference to money matters.

The other letter to the young Hova was in reference to some revolvers which he wanted. He promised to bring them. There was nothing wrong about this; it was merely a question of a few revolvers for personal use. The last time I left the capital various persons asked me to bring them express rifles, fancy guns, ivory-mounted revolvers, and that sort of thing. That is all I remember about these letters.

At this time Bray was about there a good deal, and he worked very earnestly with the consul about this whole trouble, and the consul, it struck me, was not a man who had much desire to assist Waller. There was some bitterness, which arose prior to my arrival there. I, being Mr. Wetter’s guest, and being anxious to get through myself, was in a very awkward position. I was forced to listen to repetitions of all sorts of village gossip, and so on, until the thing became utterly detestable. The whole business rather sickened me. Mr. Wetter was a very peculiar man, with a singular, overbearing, bullying style of speaking to anyone. He is a man of very commanding appearance, of sharp manner, and curt address. I heard him talk to Bray in the most violent manner. I winked at Bray to keep still and let him blow off steam. I took him aside and told him it would do no good to argue with him, and for him to just keep silent. That was the best way for both him and Waller.

Mr. Uhl. Tell us at this point more about the trial of Waller, and all that you know, and then refer to this a little later.

Mr. Woodford. The trial of Waller had been fixed for a Saturday. Wetter had made a great deal of preparation for it. He had been continually talking and arguing with me about it, and the question arose as to the payment of $60 fee for this lawyer to defend Waller. He told me he had no funds with which to pay it, and was not going to pay it. I told him that, in my opinion, it was no good to do anything, for the French had made up their mind to get Waller out of the way, and it would only be throwing the money away to give it to this ignorant lawyer, who was not worth anything. Bray came and wanted Wetter to pay this lawyer, and he refused. Bray then came to me and asked me to lend him $60. I told him I could not; that I had a great many demands and had already paid out some money. Besides, it was a foregone conclusion that the French court would condemn Waller, and it would do no good to pay this money to this mulatto lawyer; that if I wanted to spend my money for Waller I would give it to his wife and family, where it would do more good.

Mr. Uhl. This $60 was for the pay of the counsel?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. This man that you referred to before?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; he is a mulatto, half-caste, runaway from the Island of Mauritius. He was what you would call a shyster lawyer, utterly incapable of assisting Waller, and it was useless to pay him any money to do so.

Mr. Uhl. Then this lawyer was not employed—this lawyer to whom you referred?

Mr. Woodford. No; but I believe he attended the trial.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether he had a conference with Waller?

Mr. Woodford. No; I do not; he had a number with Wetter.

[Page 373]

Mr. Uhl. This lawyer?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; a number of mornings he came down and had consultations with Wetter, but whether he had an interview with Waller or not I don’t know.

Mr. Uhl. You say you understand he did attend the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; whether as a lawyer for the French, or simply as a spectator, I don’t know. I know his sympathies were naturally with the French.

Mr. Uhl. This lawyer?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; and he was by no means a friend of Waller.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether Waller did have counsel to defend him?

Mr. Woodford. I don’t know, but I understood he had none.

Mr. Uhl. Did Wetter attend the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; he was down there three or four hours. He was rather surprised at the severity of the sentence.

Mr. Uhl. Do you remember the day on which the trial was had?

Mr. Woodford. I think it was on the 18th of March. He came back and said, “Waller’s got twenty years.”

Mr. Uhl. Who said this?

Mr. Woodford. Wetter told me. The trial was before breakfast, and at breakfast he told me he got twenty years. I told Wetter that this was outrageous. The case was a very important one, and I was directly interested, being out here on business, and wanting to get away. I told him I was going to the capital; that I would get through some way, but get there I would. I said if the French are going to take such action as this before making any declaration of war they will get themselves in a hole. They had no right to touch this man. They have no further right over him than to simply expel him. That right I will admit; I would be bound to obey the order of the commandant myself; but to take this man off and to give him twenty years in prison is to practically give him his death warrant. I argued it out very strongly with Wetter at the time. In the first place, the French have no legal standing there, and are simply filibusters occupying this place. There has been no declaration of war. They simply wanted to get rid of Mr. Waller because he had obtained his large concession. His was a business matter, just as mine. I came out there to examine the assets of a banking corporation, looking to its purchase.

Mr. Uhl. Where is that bank located?

Mr. Woodford. It had a branch at the capital and at Tamatave, but did business all over the country.

Mr. Uhl. Where were their headquarters?

Mr. Woodford. In London.

Mr. Uhl. You took hold of the assets?

Mr. Woodford. I made a proposal to take and buy the assets of the bank——

Mr. Uhl. You were going there to examine their assets?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; and if they were good enough I was going to buy them, I had an option on their purchase.

Mr. Uhl. Well, what else happened in relation to Waller?

Mr. Woodford. A few days after this Paul Bray received notice that he was exiled. I have a copy of that notice with me; I have a copy of the original order of exile.

Mr. Uhl. Afterwards, did you see Waller at all?

Mr. Woodford. I went down one day to see him—bribed one of the soldiers to let me into the jail; so I went up to see him——

[Page 374]

Mr. Uhl. This was after the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; after the trial and when he was condemned. He was sitting in a chair when I saw him, and I immediately said to him that I wanted him not to come near to me, in order that it might not be thought that I gave him anything or communicated with him secretly. I knew the soldiers on guard—some of them—could understand English, and I did not want to get him into trouble, or myself. I had quite a long talk with him and found him very stalwart and acting very bravely. I asked him how he was fed. He said he was doing fairly well—had been cared for by one or two soldiers. He said he felt confident his case would all come out well, and he asked me if I could not do something for him. I said I would not tell him where I was going, but I came out here to do some business. I could not say that I was going to Antananarivo, for the guards heard everything we said, and I knew that if they found out I was going to the capital it might be difficult for me to get away. He was taking things in the best manner; in fact, he stood it much better than I think I could have done under the circumstances. He was very bitter about the way he had been neglected. He told me how he had been persecuted by Wetter. I said, “Waller, there are very grave charges against you; you are charged by Wetter with all sorts of misdemeanors.” He replied that these charges were false and could be disproven. I remember the man myself as being inclined to be strictly official; that was the character of my intercourse with him when he was consul.

Mr. Uhl. In 1891?

Mr. Woodford. Yes. Then we had a general conversation over matters, and I said that, so far as I could, I would assist him in every way that lay within my power; that as soon as I got an opportunity I would communicate in the proper quarter, and do everything that I could.

Mr. Uhl. Did he complain in that interview that Wetter had not supported him during the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Oh, yes; he complained against Wetter and the continuous persecution that he lived under. He said: “I was absolutely reduced. I left my family at the capital with very little money. I was five months in the hospital, and was on my way to the United States when Wetter gets these charges against me.”

Mr. Faison. Did the complaint that he made of Wetter have reference to the trials in the consular courts on charges that he made against Waller?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; that is what he complained of.

Mr. Uhl. What did he say about Wetter in connection with his trial by the French—this tribunal?

Mr. Woodford. He complained that he had been left entirely undefended; that there was nobody to say a word for him. He also mentioned to me that he had no chance—that he was prejudged.

Mr. Uhl. What, if anything, did he say as to these charges upon which he had been convicted, namely, these letters that he was said to have written?

Mr. Woodford. I did not like to talk with him about that, for we were observed all the time, and I thought it might do him more harm than good, and might make it difficult for me to get away, for I was intending to go to the capital. But the reference in his letter to these two men was the only thing which seemed to me to be indiscreet. But I told him, “If the two men whom you said were spies, what right had you, as an American citizen, to denounce them”? He said, “You do [Page 375] not understand, neither can I explain to you.” He said, “Since you have been absent from Madagascar great changes have occurred, etc.” I called his attention to that part of the letter. The conversation was maintained under very great difficulties, as I have told you, but I kept on reiterating that I was going on to Mauritius. He knew perfectly well that they had soldiers on guard who understood English, and of course I could not tell him all that I was going to do, for it would make things hard for me. He said that the charges against him were absolutely baseless.

Mr. Uhl. He did not make any explanation of that reference to D. and P.?

Mr. Woodford. No, none; nothing more than that he said I could not understand.

Mr. Uhl. You did not understand what he meant?

Mr. Woodford. No; I did not understand him what it was.

Mr. Uhl. Well, go on, Mr. Woodford, and state anything else you know in connection with this matter.

Mr. Woodford. A few days after this, Wetter immediately went to work and drew up a report, which was to come to Washington by the same steamer that took Waller—the Djeunah—and he was very busy at this, and he read over to me at various times portions of this report, and so on, and talked about it with me, and when it was finished I believe that I went in to assist him in copying it in his office.

Mr. Uhl. You copied it, did you.

Mr. Woodford. I assisted him to run it through the letter press. Although I was not very familiar with it, he read me over several extracts, but now they have slipped my mind. He was an educated man and stated things very clearly, and he wrote it pretty rapidly and I should judge carefully.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether he sent copies of these letters with his report—the letters which were in evidence against Waller?

Mr. Woodford. I was fully under the impression that Wetter had sent copies of this correspondence upon which Waller had been convicted; also a statement of what had occurred in court. I imagined that he would send the whole lot of them on here to the State Department, because, in our conversation together, we both came to the conclusion that nothing could be done—having no man-of-war there and there being such an international question involved—and I supposed, of course, that all the papers he had would be sent here. I accompanied him on the day when he mailed this letter at the post-office.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know what became of those copies of the letters which the French counsel made—the letters that you saw?

Mr. Woodford. As I say, I was fully under the impression that Wetter had made copies of them and sent them on here, with a complete statement, as any man naturally would do holding an official position. I know I should have sent officially to the State Department the proceedings of the trial, copies of the evidence, the letters in question, and then I would have followed that with a statement of my own opinions on the subject, submitting them to the Department for approval.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether Wetter had these letters after the trial?

Mr. Woodford. I don’t remember that; the matter was then dismissed. I never read them after the trial.

Mr. Uhl. In assisting him in making this copy, do you remember at that time his dispatch to the Department purported to inclose copies of those letters?

[Page 376]

Mr. Woodford. I could not say. Of course, I did not read the dispatch; I only helped him to copy it in the press copy book.

Mr. Uhl. You have no recollection?

Mr. Woodford. No; but I was under the impression that he had sent forward a full and complete report.

Mr. Uhl. What did you base that impression upon?

Mr. Woodford. Because he told me he was sending everything forward; that he was very anxious about this question, and he worked very hard.

Mr. Uhl. In what way did he work hard?

Mr. Woodford. He was in his office some time and writing faithfully. He was a very rapid and quick penman and a good one. I do remember, however, he told me distinctly he had paid either $30 or $60 for obtaining copies of these very letters in question from the French authorities.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether he from time to time visited Waller when he was in prison?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; I believe he did.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether he, at Waller’s request, endeavored to secure this French lawyer?

Mr. Woodford. I don’t know at whose request the lawyer was brought. It was a pure question of who was to pay him.

Mr. Uhl. Who interviewed the lawyer; who sought him out in Waller’s behalf?

Mr. Woodford. Wetter did.

Mr. Uhl. And the question was as to who should pay his fee?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. And you say it was $60?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. Waller was unable to raise the money?

Mr. Woodford. Waller had nothing.

Mr. Uhl. He was unable to raise it?

Mr. Woodford. Unable to raise it; yes.

Mr. Faison. You agreed with Wetter that it was not prudent under the circumstances to protest against the French trying Waller?

Mr. Woodford. I did not say anything of the kind; just the reverse. I was very strongly of the opinion that he ought to interfere more strongly than he did; that he should have protested against the court trying him at all, as it had no right to do so. But he said that he had no man-of-war, the Castine was not there, and it would do no good. But I thought all along, and think now, that the French had no right to try Waller, and some sort of strong protest against their action should have been made.

Mr. Uhl. Was Bray at the consulate during the time you were there?

Mr. Woodford. Daily.

Mr. Uhl. Did he remain there any time? Did he take refuge inside the consulate?

Mr. Woodford. I myself gave him refuge inside the consulate.

Mr. Uhl. Were you acting in an official capacity so that you could give him protection?

Mr. Woodford. No; but I was inside the consulate fence, and I opened the gate and let him in.

Mr. Uhl. You were in the same situation as Bray.

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. How long did Mr. Bray remain there?

Mr. Woodford. I think he slept in my room for three or four nights. [Page 377] I felt almost certain that some of the soldiers would kill him if he went out, there was such a feeling against him, and he slept on the floor of my room for several nights.

Mr. Uhl. When you remarked to Wetter that it was useless to raise money for the purpose of employing counsel to defend Waller, so far as the trial of Waller was concerned, and any defense that might have been made, what more could Mr. Wetter have done than he did? Please confine your answer to this particular question.

Mr. Woodford. I do not know what more he could have done. I do not know what he did do at the court. I saw no one who was at the court.

Mr. Uhl. You saw Bray, did you not?

Mr. Woodford. I do not know whether Bray was at the trial or not. He knew more about the true inwardness of the French-Hova business than Mr. Wetter did.

Mr. Uhl. I am now talking about Waller’s trial only. You do not know whether Mr. Bray attended the trial or not?

Mr. Woodford. I do not know.

Mr. Uhl. Did you see him after the trial?

Mr. Woodford. Oh, yes; I saw him a number of times; in fact, I saw him a few hours before his departure.

Mr. Uhl. How long did you remain at Tamatave after Waller was taken away on the ship?

Mr. Woodford. I sailed on the 4th of April on a small steamer. I think Waller left on the 28th of March, and I sailed on the 4th of April.

Mr. Uhl. Is there anything else in regard to this trial that occurs to you?

Mr. Woodford. Nothing about the trial. Of course I have my own views about the whole affair. I had the opinion from the moment the French seized Waller that they intended to get rid of him. They thought he was a nigger, had no money, and that we white Americans, like Wetter, myself, and a few others, would not bother our heads about him. My opinion is that the war was caused through Waller’s concession; and that was the origin of the last French expedition. There was tremendous opposition to the granting of his concession by the Queen, and the French looked with suspicion on this grant and upon all American enterprise. I myself moved on a larger scale than Waller, and was negotiating for several concessions, and had addressed a memorandum in 1891 to the prime minister, a copy of which had been sold by an employee of mine, in which I outlined the whole policy of granting concessions on a very large scale to Americans, with, of course, a view to my own advantage.

Mr. Uhl. Do you have any concessions now?

Mr. Woodford. I have the banking, iron, and railroading, and some others, for the country at the present moment. I expected to have a large shipping trade, and expected to be appointed admiral. I was intending to have the right to issue letters of marque, but I was going to do it through a Hova officer, of course, and other transactions. When Waller was originally granted his concession, the moment it was granted to him in proper form by the Queen of Madagascar, that moment the trouble with the French commenced. There was a great deal of talk about it, and they were after him right along. Wetter, the acting American consul, having him arrested on these trivial charges, the man being without money, his family being in the interior and starving, they thought they had an easy thing of it. I did not care [Page 378] what Wetter thought or said, and did not bother about it. I knew it was a foregone conclusion, from the moment I heard he had been arrested, to get him out of the way.

Mr. Uhl. That was the reason you thought it unwise and were unwilling to advance any money for his defense?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; if I had any money to lay out for Waller’s benefit I thought it had better go into his wife’s pocket than into the pocket of this mulatto lawyer, who was not worth anything to him.

Mr. Uhl. Explain what you would have had Wetter do in reference to Waller that he did not do with reference to this trial. You mentioned something about that.

Mr. Woodford. I should have liked him to have gone down there and deliberately refused to have acknowledged the French authorities—challenged their right to touch him.

Mr. Uhl. Do you know whether the question was raised before the tribunal as to whether they had jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction challenged?

Mr. Woodford. I do not. I have only been informed since I have been here by some of Waller’s friends that—I know that the French admiral wrote a letter to Bray——

Mr. Uhl. You do not answer my question. Do you know whether on behalf of Waller the jurisdiction of this tribunal to try him was raised at the time of the trial.

Mr. Woodford. No; I do not

Mr. Uhl. You were not present at the trial?

Mr. Woodford. No; I was not present.

Mr. Uhl. You say that Mr. Waller did not have any counsel to defend him at the trial? Of course, you do not know that, not being present?

Mr. Woodford. That is what I was told by Wetter and told by Bray.

Mr. Uhl. Did you not hear at all that when this lawyer, whose name you have given, had declined to defend him because no fee was raised, that counsel was assigned to defend him, and did defend him?

Mr. Woodford. Some French officer was assigned, I believe. I remember hearing that.

Mr. Uhl. That counsel was assigned by the tribunal.

Mr. Woodford. I believe so. He was a French officer.

Mr. Faison. Did Mr. Wetter fail to do anything else that you think he should have done?

Mr. Woodford. He seemed to think that he would go down and demand the man’s body. Then he would say, “I won’t have anything to do with it. It serves him right.” Finally Wetter said, “If the Castine had arrived, then I would have been in a position to have acted differently. Then I might have gone down and demanded his body, and had some support at my back.”

Mr. Uhl. Just a moment—did you in a letter to Mr. Eustis, written from London, say, “I may mention that during the time I was in Tamatave, prior to Waller’s conviction, Mr. Wetter did everything that a man could to assist him?”

Mr. Woodford. Yes; I did.

Mr. Uhl. Did you further say, “Mr. Wetter was at considerable private expense over matters not provided for in the consular regulations?” Do you mean actual disbursements?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; that’s what I mean; actually paid out of his pocket—say about the copies of those letters.

Mr. Uhl. Then it was your opinion that Mr. Wetter did everything he could?

[Page 379]

Mr. Woodford. Well, you see I did not like, in writing to——

Mr. Uhl. In writing to Mr. Eustis in any statement about it, you stated the truth?

Mr. Woodford. Yes; naturally I said what I believed to have been true; but I am speaking to you now on a different basis. I am here at headquarters. What I am telling you now is my impressions only, which I have formed, and I am giving you a more elaborate statement, so you can use your judgment. Of course, I can speak freer and at more detail.

Mr. Uhl. We want the information as to any facts.

Mr. Woodford. I am trying to go over it now in a more elaborate way. I sincerely believe that Wetter is a man of small ideas, a man easily inflamed to anger and very vindictive. I believe that the man at the bottom of his heart tried to do the best that he could. The thing was too deep for him. He would get into a terrible fit of passion about what Waller would say. I said to him, “Why do you take any notice of what this man says about you?”

Mr. Faison. Then you believe his failure to do his duty was in not challenging the jurisdiction?

Mr. Woodford. Yes.

Mr. Uhl. And not in any indifference to the actual conduct of the trial?

Mr. Woodford. No, no. I think that Wetter worked like a dog over that matter to do what he thought was best and right and just, but I think he made an error in not challenging their jurisdiction. Wetter would not agree with me. I wish you to understand that my position with Mr. Wetter was a peculiarly difficult one for me. I was there as his guest, practically, and had to listen to all sorts of statements about what had occurred between them, etc., which nearly drove me crazy. I was sick of the whole business.

Mr. Uhl. You brought in some documents with you?

Mr. Woodford. I have got a copy of a letter that Bray wrote to the consul before he left. I made a copy of the last page of my letter book where Bray had copied this letter. I have an affidavit that was prepared up in Antananarivo by the young Hova who requested Waller to get him the revolvers.

Mr. Uhl. You may leave these, if you wish.

Mr. Woodford. Yes; I will leave copies of them.

Note.—Mr. Woodford here produces a copy of the affidavit made by Ratsimandresy, of May 13, 1895. He also produces a copy of the letter from Paul Bray to Consul Wetter, dated March 24, 1895. This copy was taken from an impression in the back of his letter book, which he has in Baltimore.

Mr. Uhl. Is there anything else you remember about this matter? Did you see Wetter on your way back?

Mr. Woodford. When I came down from the capital with Mrs. Waller and her family on my way back, I had to pass the port of Tamatave on the English steamer. After six or seven hours in port the launch of the Castine came alongside, with Wetter and the captain of the Castine in it. They only stopped a few moments. Mr. Wetter gave me a very cold salutation; never inquired a single thing about my business or affairs. I told him that I had Mrs. Waller and her four children on board. I said, “What am I going to do with them?” He said, “I don’t know. It has nothing to do with this consulate.” I said, “May I speak to the captain of the Castine about them?” He said, “He has just come off. He has gone down to his launch.” I said, “Wetter, what [Page 380] is the matter with you?” He said, “I have got to hurry up and get off. I can’t detain the captain of the Castine?” And so he went downstairs. I went down, but I could not get him to stop. He ran down the stairs, and the captain then said, “Jump in.” I said, “Are you the captain of the Castine?” He said he was; and then I told him about Mrs. Waller and her children, but he said he had no orders about the matter and would do nothing, and in fact treated me so coldly and indifferently, and seemed not to care what became of Mrs. Waller and her children, that I got angry, and finally told him to go to hell; God damn you. I was in a bad state of health, and there I was laid up with five women and children to care for, who had no claim on me, and with whom the officials of the United States would have nothing to do. Half an hour afterwards they came on board again, and seemed very apologetic, and wanted to know if they could see Mrs. Waller. I said, “Of course you can; I am not her keeper.” I was very much angered to think that they came out on this coast to look after American interests and did not seem to want to take any notice of her and her children, who needed their protection. I said, “There are six Americans on this vessel, and you do not even give me the courtesy to ask how we are.” He asked Mrs. Waller a number of questions, and finally took me to one side and said, “I am very sorry I can’t take them on board.” I said, “It has cost me about six or seven hundred dollars to get them thus far. Can’t you suggest anything? I have done this much; can’t you do anything?” He finally pulled out $10 and gave it to me, and that is all I got from him. My reception was equally bad when I got over the Mauritius. That man Campbell did not take any interest in the matter. He is a very wretched specimen of a United States official, and I have seen a few of them. The other day when I met Mrs. Waller here I found out for the first time that she was compelled to come third class; in with all those rough French soldiers, and with her young daughters, it must have been a terrible trial. This man Campbell sent her home third class; and third class on a French steamer is something awful.

Mr. Uhl. Sent her home from where?

Mr. Woodford. From Mauritius to France. I never heard of such a thing in the world. If I had known of it I would have cabled the money out myself. I forgot to mention one important point. When I returned to Paris I went to see General Eustis and had a private interview with him. He had then his legal adviser with him and he asked me some particulars about the affair. I told him what little I knew, and I said: “It seems to me most extraordinary that the State Department has not taken action on this thing. I fully understood when Waller was condemned that something would be done. I wrote you several letters, but I found all my mail was seized by the French. Hasn’t something been done to examine into this case? There is absolutely nothing against the man except his letters to his wife.” He said: “What letters are you talking about? I have received no copies of any fetters.” I said: “General Eustis, what do you mean?” He said: “There are no letters, no documents; nothing has been received in relation to that trial.” I said: “General Eustis, I can not understand you.” I was most positive that Wetter had sent on those letters, and in my interview with him I stuck to it that Wetter had forwarded all of these letters. That was the first I had heard that all this long delay had been caused by those documents never having reached the State Department. I knew that things could not have gone as they did if the case had been understood.