Burkhardt, to the High Federal Council, August 12, 1868

The Bourgermaster and Council of the Canton of Basleville to the High Federal Council.

In regard to the note of the American legation, dated July 27, and transmitted to us the 3d instant, concerning Charles Berry, we have the honor to give the following explanations:

First of all, we think objectionable the declaration of the American legation that “the otherwise unsatisfactory report of the authorities of Basle compelled him to seek elsewhere for explanations,” and such unofficial information ought to have been submitted with the other documents, in order to enable us to express ourselves more clearly in relation thereto, or they should not be regarded of value as against our statements of the facts. In this case it is of the more importance, because it has been unnecessarily exaggerated, and in fact really distracted.

Being obliged to repel earnestly all the charges and one-sided criticisms in the case, we are still ready to show our willingness to give to the egation all necessary explanations in the matter.

The fact that the high federal council has given, on the main point, to the legation an answer in accordance with our law and our views, renders unnecessary a more detailed reply to that voluminous paper.

Throughout that document the idea is kept up that Berry, as an American citizen, has entirely and long ago ceased to be a citizen of Basle, and that therefore the American authorities had the right, and it was their duty, to protect him against the enactments of our canton. However strongly this supposition is asserted, it is groundless as against existing facts and our laws.

Berry, who was discharged from his citizenship on the 27th June last, was a citizen of Basle until that day. The question why Berry was once put under guardianship has no business here; it is sufficient that the reasons therefor were cogent enough, and our judicial proceedings, previous to the withdrawal of civil rights, presented every desirable guarantee.

The trustee had to deliver annually an account of the administration of the property, and to send the interest of it to his minor, &c.; in short, the entire condition was a legal one, and recognized as such by all. Berry himself never doubted this a moment until he commenced to make bold front against his trustee with his American citizenship in order to get his property. This he did not do until the beginning of the last year.

By article thirteen of our laws in relation to allegiance, (inclosed hereby.) Berry could be discharged therefrom only by a definite resolution of the council, and it required the consent of his trustee.

On the 15th of June last, Berry forwarded from Stuttgart an application for his discharge of allegiance; the trustee recommended it; the city council agreed to it: and we gave him this discharge and made it public. The concerning documents we have annexed, marked A.

By all this it is clearly shown that Mr. Berry was till then a citizen of Basle, and considered himself as such.

The note of the minister resident shows a very grave misapprehension by producing the case of Ostermann in support of a theory which we do not wish further to discuss, as the federal council has already advised the legation; By the sentence of the court at Colmar, Ostermann was declared to be a citizen of Basle and to be no longer a citizen of France, because the French law prescribes, directly contrary to our law, that all persons who become citizens of foreign countries, lose thereby their French citizenship.

If Berry’s citizenship of Basle is fully substantiated, then all the remarks of that note about the measures taken to take care of Berry fall to the ground.

It is to be regretted that the legation did not get a more minute insight into our laws; it could have been spared all these erroneous judgments which it repeatedly brings against us.

First of all it is a capital error to speak of “confinement to hard labor,” “incarceration in a states prison,” to make “travail forcé” out of administrative decisions, which, having strict regard to the character of such cases, are executed or inflicted in other places than the public penitentiaries. For example, Mr. Berry would have been brought doubtless to Mr. Werner’s establishment at Reutlingen.

The law in regard to the situation of persons in houses of correction, which we append, also, will show that it has nothing to do with crimes, and all that is said about the nonexistence of such in this case, is needless. And, as the American legation goes so far as to represent Berry as a man upon whom no blame really falls, we submit for examination the report of the trustee marked B. This shows Mr. and Mrs. Berry in a light sufficient to justify the government in taking care of him. As before stated, we had decided negatively in the matter before the communication of the federal department of justice and police had reached us informing us of the reclamation, and asking for explanations.

Otherwise it appears to us a little far sought, that his status of an American citizen is so partially forced upon our common countrymen, and everything disregarded that kept him in connection with his original and never given up home.

We must repeat here that at the time of the preliminary arrangements nothing was known to us about his American citizenship. If this had been known to us, we should, as stated above, have had the right to treat him as a Balois, but it is possible that this fact would have served to dismiss the matter.

There are two more points on which we have yet to express ourselves. The first point regards the way and manner of the trustee in having his ward come here to Basle. We agree so little with it that we must declare the insinuation of the note as to the act having been done with our understanding, as incorrect.

The second point regards the protracted imprisonment of Berry, and the letter to the consul, which the director of police did not deliver at once.

The arrest of Berry was upon the whole entirely in order. It was in consequence of the request that he should be taken care of, and this request was not, as stated in the note, the request of a single individual, but of the trustee and the whole family. For example, the brother-in-law of Berry, the military commissary here, was therein person. The prisoner declared at once that he would submit to the inflicted custody, (he had civil detention, two rooms, good board, the permission to smoke, and to promenade in the yard;) he recognized the right of the Basle government to dispose of him, but declared that if informations from Stuttgart should be acquired he would not be placed in a house of correction. At that time he did not appeal to his American citizenship, Soon after he wrote to his wife; the letter was sent at once. After this he submitted a letter to the director of police for the United States consul here. The director of police replied that it was his mission to treat him as a citizen of Basle, with the view to an investigation and his being taken care of, and he could not admit that Berry should at once involve other authorities in the matter; afterwards would be time for this. Since then nothing further was spoken of that letter; Berry never mentioned it again. The director of police had so little intention to wrong him that he at once laid the letter one side with the other documents and delivered it to Mr. Consul Wolff upon his first request.

Notwithstanding the letter was repeated, the report from Stuttgart did not arrive for a long time, because Mrs. Berry had left Stuttgart in order to make reclamations, or, at least, had sent the papers away for that purpose, whereby she committed the great fault of setting aside the authorities of Basle.

We hope that the foregoing may serve to enlighten the American legation as to how much this Berry and his affairs might be taken in consideration from our point of view, and that the censures made do not appear to be justified.

We seize this occasion, &c.,