The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1895-08-31
WALLETS CASE.

Some very eminent persons, I'M fact,
almost every very eminent person, at
some time or other, has said something
concering the duty of the United
States to such Of its.citizens as may be
sojourners in foreign lands. Daniel
Webster, for example, said:
Summary or. undue punishment of
citizens Of the United States charged
with political offences in Mexico will
be the subject of grave expostulation
with the Mexican government.
This was not said by Webster when
he was s.thundering in the index" on
the eve OF an election, or with one eye
on the senate that he was addressing
and the other on the voters by whom
he hoped to be elected to the presi-
dency. It was not really said-it was
written. It was slowly and thought
fully recorded by him as Secretary OF
State, and was indicative of the foreign
policy of the administration Of which
he was distinguished member.
The later Ocean makes .ne following
application Of this to the Waller case:
His offense, if any offense be charge
able justly to him, was political"
His punishment beyond question, was
summary It was by court
martial, and, perhaps, by an illegally
. constituted court-martial. Itwas sun
DUE" brutally harsh, involving i'm
prisonment, chains, dispossession OF
his property, violent separation from
wife and family, and denial of counsel
for his defense. According to Secre-
tary Webster, this forms ground for
"grave expostulation with the French
government. Will Secretary Olney
rise to the height of the occasion?
"Grave expostulation," in the diplo-
matte language of secretaries of state,
conveys an intimation of the firm de-
termination OF the expostulating
nation to enforce its rights.
Hamilton Fish, when secretary OF
state, wrote:
"UnJust discrimination against
citizen of the United States in foreign
country, by which he is subjected to
peculiarly harsh punishment and other
injuries, forms basis OF claim for
damages against the government of
such foreign state"
Waller has been subjected to
peculiarly harsh punishment" to
such, indeed, as would be harsh If
meted out to felon, and to ''other in
juries,n including the grief occa-
stoned by the ill-treatment of his wife,
who has been sent penniless aud sick
from Madagascar by the French in
vaders. By Secretary Fish's ruling,
such acts "from a basis or a claim for
damage" against the French govern
ment. What is Secretary Olney's
opinion?
Almost as if in anticipation of the
cowardly and copperheadish plea that
we can do nothing for Waller, because
the French pretend that his arrest was
legal, Albert Gallatin, most American
of men, though Of foreign birth, said:
ct is obvious enough that when we
ask redress from. government, and
not from its tribunals, for injuries
arising from fagrant violations of the
law Of nations, it is preposterous to re
fuse it because the injury has been
consummated under unlawful DEGREES"
Here is the case in nutshell. It is
''from government, and not from its
tribunals" that we should demand
redress in Waller's case. The gov
ernment is responsible for the lawless
DEGREES of its tribunals, be they civil
or military. In contravention of the
law of nations Waller has been dispos-
sessed of his property, abridged of his
liberty, separated from his wife.
There also is the case of Mrs. Wal
ler. She, too, is citizen Of the
United States, in the sense of a person
entitled to its protection. Her wrongs
have been less clearly presented to
the people than those OF her husband,
but they appear to be little less out
rageous. In her case the generosity
of the people should do what the Sec
retary Of state refuses to do. If there
be no public fund from which her
present necessities can be relieved,
and herself brought from Mauritius to
give evidence to the government au-
thorities for prosecution of her own
and her husbands claims, public
subscription should be made. Ma
tional honor and the universal instinct
of humanity demand prompt action.