LEGATION OF THE
NETHERLANDS,
Washington, June 6,
1862.
Hon. Mr. SEWARD,
Secretary of State of the United
States of America:
SIR: I have had the honor to receive your note, dated
yesterday, through which you have been pleased to inform me that the President
deeply regrets the conflict which has occurred at New Orleans between the
military authorities and the consul of the Netherlands. It is with a real
satisfaction, which accords fully with what I was to expect from the high sense
of justice of the President and of the Government of the United States, that I
have seen, in the course of the note, that they view the conduct of the
aforesaid authorities as a violation of the law of nations; that they
disapprove of it; that they disapprove of the sanction which was given to it by
Major-General Butler.
After having thanked the President and the Government of the
United States therefor, I must permit myself to remark, Mr. Secretary of State,
that a circumstance which, from, the inception, the consul of the Netherlands
is reproached with, must evidently be attributed to a want of clearness in the
statement made by Major-General Butler.
According to your note, he says, “that he had been informed
that a very considerable sum, belonging to insurgent enemies, was secreted in a
certain liquor store of the city;” whereupon, you observe, “that he sent, very
properly, a military guard to make searches at the place indicated.” But it
appears to be proven that the money and articles in question were not by any
means in this liquor store, but in a very different place in the city. If,
therefore, Mr. Couturie was accosted in the aforesaid liquor store, his
commercial establishment, he might have said, with truth, that all that was in
that store was his personal property. There would, therefore, be want of
clearness on the part of Major-General Butler in making the declaration of Mr.
Couturie bear upon the kegs, &c. Upon other allegations of Major-General
Butler, differing (contrary to) from the allegations of the consul, I would not
desire more than yourself, Mr. Secretary of State, to express an opinion..
Major-General Butler makes a very serious charge against the consul, which
involves a proceeding deserving a removal from office of the one or the other;
that of the consul if he has in reality received, “with connivance,” as
Major-General Butler pretends (alleges), a “fraudulent” deposit; that of Major-General
Butler if he fails to prove that charge. For to take from one his honor is no
less culpable than to take from him his property, his life. Let the Government
of the United States, Mr. Secretary of State, in order to throw light upon its
information or knowledge, have the affair examined and investigated (“investigate
the transaction which has been detailed”) before it pronounces between the
accuser and the accused. This could not be impugned by me; but that I appoint
some one to take part, to assist, in this species of inquest, which, by the
proceedings themselves of the military authorities, can no longer take place
upon a state of things untouched--the kegs and the boxes having been carried
off without any seals, having been, as it appears, opened by Major-General
Butler. This I could not do without granting, in some measure, a bill of
indemnity to that which has occurred. It is what I could not take upon myself
without receiving upon that point the instructions of the Government of the
King. There are, besides, in this affair circumstances which strike me. It
seems to me that when the question relates to “fraudulent deposit,” to “connivance”
in acts of high treason, one should not impute, as Major-General Butler does;
one should rather accuse. One should not limit himself to seize upon the
proofs; it would also be natural to make sure of the accused persons; and
notwithstanding the consul, to whom they impute so serious an act, was under
arrest but during a few hours, during the searches made in his vault, whilst
the agent of the house of Hope & Co., who, if the consul be guilty, must be
so at least as much so as him, has not been, to my knowledge, arrested. These
are circumstances, Mr. Secretary of State, which seem to me of a nature to cause
one to rather presume the innocence of the agent of the house of Hope & Co.
and of the consul of the Netherlands than to indicate that they are believed
really guilty. You should not, therefore, be surprised that I recoil from the
supposition of culpability, and that as for myself I could not consider the
deposit otherwise than as legitimate until the contrary be proven. It is for
Major-General Butler to prove what he alleges; ei incumbit probatio qui
dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies upon him who asserts, not
upon him who denies), say the Pandects. It is not for me, it is not for our
consul, to prove that he is innocent. Prima facie, the money delivered by the
Citizens' Bank to the agent of the house of Hope & Co., to be transmitted
to that house or to be deposited with the consul of the Netherlands; is a
legitimate money, legitimately transferred.
I could not, without having-received (obtained) the orders
of the Government of the King, participate in any manner in an investigation
which would tend to investigate that which I could not put in doubt—the good
faith of the agent of the house of Hope & Co., the moral impossibility that
that honorable house should lend itself to any culpable underplot, the good
faith of the consul of the Netherlands.
Quilibet præsumitur justus, donec probatur contrarium
(everyone is to be presumed honest until the contrary is proven), saith the
ancient and universal rule of justice, and this rule is true especially when it
applies to persons such as those as are in question here.
Consequently, while awaiting the orders of the Government of
the King, I reserve all the rights and all the demands (claims) which may be
based, either by the Royal Government or by the Netherlands consul or by
individuals, upon the seizure of values, titles, or papers deposited at the
consulate of the Netherlands at New Orleans, and more especially upon the
reprehensible and censured manner in which this seizure has been made. But if
on the one hand, Mr. Secretary of State, I must reserve, in their entireness,
all the demands which the Government of the King, the consul of the
Netherlands, and the persons interested might hereafter have to sustain, on the
other hand I am happy to give you the assurance that the Government of the King,
upon an eventual representation on your part against the conduct of the consul
at New Orleans, will receive it with all the consideration and will right it
with all the promptness which the excellent relations which for so many years
have existed between the two countries may lead to expect from the Government
of the august sovereign who maintains, and will ever maintain, the motto, Justitia
regnorum fundamentum (Justice is the foundation of kingdoms).
I have the honor, Mr. Secretary of State, to request you to
be pleased, at an early day, to acknowledge the receipt of this note from me,
and I avail myself of this new opportunity to reiterate to you the assurances
of my high consideration.
ROEST VAN LIMBURG.
SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of
the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume
2 (Serial No. 123), p. 133-5
