File No. 174/4.
The French Ambassador to the Secretary of State.
Washington, June 20, 1907.
Mr. Secretary of State: By a letter dated the 18th of last month your excellency informed me that the Government of the United States did not believe that any indemnity could be granted to Messrs. Laurent & Lambert for losses sustained by them in Cuba during the war between the United States and Spain. Thus have the claims presented by French citizens been all rejected; one only, of no great consequence, is still under examination by the Federal Government.
It appears from the information gathered by the American military authorities and communicated to me by your excellency that Messrs. Laurent & Lambert did own built property which was actually destroyed and that certain troops of the Chaffee brigade did occupy the premises.
It is said, however, that there has not been produced sufficient evidence to show that those troops may be charged with destroying the property and that, furthermore, if the said soldiers did commit such depredations it must have been in their “personal capacity.”
I can but say again that I produced a declaration, the original of which is at your excellency’s disposal, signed by three reputable witnesses who certify they saw American soldiers commit the destruction in question about the end of July, 1898. No mention is made of this testimony in the Federal Government’s reply.
As for the proposition that the soldiers against whom these facts are charged acted “in their personal capacity,” I look upon it as one difficult to accept, and if it were maintained I could but draw my Government’s attention to it as establishing a precedent which should eventually be invoked, under similar circumstances, against the authorities who had availed themselves of it. I can not bring myself to believe that your excellency can consider this a logical and equitable distinction, with the consequence it would naturally involve, viz, that dispossessed parties would be justified in forcibly resisting soldiers of the United States indulging in such operations. It might happen, in such cases, that buildings be really torn down by order; by what token could the interested parties know that the exigencies of defense demanded such acts or that, on the contrary, the soldiers were acting spontaneously, in their private capacity, and that the owners would consequently be justified in using force for the protection of their property from members of the Regular Army who, while wearing the national uniform and commanded by officers of the United States, should be dealt with as maurauders?
Be pleased, etc.,