Geo. Harrington to William H. Seward, August 5, 1868

Mr. Harrington to Mr. Seward.

Sir: On the 16th September last there was received at this legation a note signed by Mr. W. F. Nisbet, and certified to by several other parties, setting forth the particulars of an alleged difficulty that occurred on the route, “Tête Noire,” from Martigny to Chamounix, on the morning of Tuesday, the 10th September, between the parties signing and certain guides therein named.

The circumstances seemed to be so clearly and logically stated as to impress me with their truthfulness, and the propriety of representing the case to the federal government. I therefore went informally to two members of the federal council and submitted the letter to them. They at once suggested to me to lay the matter officially before the council, that an investigation might be ordered.

At the same time I was aware that the guides were cantonal and not federal officers; that in the canton of the Valais they were an important class, whose friendship if behooved a large class of people, hotel keepers, muleteers, &c., to cultivate, and that of all the cantons of Switzerland the authorities of the “Valais” gave most trouble to the federal government by their almost constant attitude of insubordination.

It was, therefore, more to bring to the attention of the government the conduct of the guides, with a view of preventing in the future similar outrages, than in the expectation of any extreme or really deserved punishment, that I submitted the case to the high federal council. Shortly after the receipt of his letter I had an interview with Mr. Nisbet. He was aware that his attempting to strike the guides greatly weakened his case, though he seemed to think the circumstances justified him in so doing.

Though the report of the prefect of Martigny is dated in December, its transmission to the federal council was delayed, and only reached this legation on the 19th of April.

The character of the authorities is shown by the investigation, which, when received, was subjected to criticism by me. This latter I delivered personally to the President, to whom I expressed my regrets in having to submit to my government a process evidently so ex parte and unjust. After reading a German translation, he requested me to await a line from him and the result of further inquiries to be instituted. That those outrages were of too frequent occurrence, and occasioned them (the federal council) much annoyance; and which, while they had every disposition to correct, it was not always in their power so to do.

Under date the 13th May, the President formally acknowledged the receipt of my communication of the 2d of that month, informing me that they had again called upon the authorities of the Valais in relation thereto,

The final reply, with the report of the council of state of the canton, bears date the 25th July, the receipt of which I acknowledged the 3d instant. Copies of all the papers will be found herewith.

Though otherwise unsatisfactory, I have reason to know that regulations have been established that will tend to prevent in future the repetition of like occurrences.

I have the honor to be, with greatest respect, your obedient servant,

Copy of the record of proceedings.

The prefect of the district of Martigny to the counselor of state, charged with the department of the interior.

Mr. Counselor of State: I have the honor to send you the result of the inquiry made on the complaint against the guides Jean Rouiller and Etienne Pierroz, by Mr. Nisbet, to the minister of the United States of America in Switzerland. Circumstances have prevented me from sending this report sooner. I first sent the complaint to the commissary of guides, telling him to report upon it, and, after a month’s delay, he said he preferred making a verbal report. Afterwards one of the chief witnesses, the woman an Guex Crosier, of the village of Rappes de Martigny-Combe, whom I had summoned, fell sick, and I had to go to her house to examine her.

That you may understand exactly what has been done, I will report the result of my examinations. I will then decide from the depositions if there is any foundation for the complaint, and which party is to be blamed. In the examination, the guides and others not knowing the travelers’ names, called Mr. Brooks “the old man,” Mr. Nisbet, “the bearded man,” or “the man on the white horse,” and Mr. Fowler, “the young man,” but for brevity I will call them by their names.

Here is what the commissary of guides said: While in the public square of Martigny, he saw Mr. Nisbet come trotting down to the Hotel Clerc. At first he supposed he had forgotten something; but when he saw Jean Rouiller running after him, he thought an accident had happened. He went up to him and asked him what was the matter. He replied that Mr. and Mrs. Brooks, advised by Mr. Msbet, wanted to send him back from Bourg-Martigny, but he said he would not go unless they paid him. Mr. Nisbet told them not to pay, because only one guide had been ordered, and then they came back to let the hotel-keeper decide. Hereupon the commissary started to the hotel, but when he saw Mr. Nisbet, he went up to him with Rouiller and wanted to talk to him; but he only showed them the order, which I inclose, and saying that the hotel-keeper had changed the number of guides from two to one, he galloped off. The commissary then told Rouiller he had nothing to do with that traveler; and as they had ordered two, they should pay for them, or come back and give reasons for not doing so. Jean Rouiller then went away, and that is all the commissary knows. He adds that the guides and mules that Mr. Nisbet had were ordered the day previous, and Mr. Brooks engaged his the next day, about nine o’clock.

Jean Rouiller gave the same testimony as the commissary, and added that, having overtaken the travelers at the village of Rappes, three-quarters of a league from Martigny, he told them what the commissioner said. Mr. Nisbet replied that he had nothing to do with him. The guide then asked to see the order of the hotel-keeper, reducing the two guides to one. Rouiller said the hotel-keeper had no right to do that; that the travelers must pay him, or go back to Martigny and satisfy the commissary. Mr. Nisbet insisting on proceeding, the guide took Mr. Brooks’s mule by the bridle and turned it back, when Mr. Nisbet struck at him three times with his caae, striking him twice on the arm; he dodged the third blow and fell. On getting up and taking a stone, he threatened to throw it at Mr. Msbet. Mr. Brooks’s horse fell in the stream, but Mr. Brooks was not hurt by the fall. A pedestrian came up, when Mr. Brooks got on his mule again, and, on his advice, Rouiller was paid six francs for his day’s work. Mr. Brooks then changed mules with Mr. Fowler, fearing to ride the one that had fallen with him, and which the guide said was now unsafe. Rouiller next claimed six francs for his mule, and it was paid him, after some hesitation. Rouiller then went back to the hotel with the animal. He said he did not insist on going to Chamouny, or force the travelers to turn hack, but only asked pay for his beast. He denies taking Mr. Brooks’s mule by the bridle.

The other guide, Etienne Pierroz, confirms what Rouiller said, except the interview with the commissary, which he did not see. He says he was angry with Mr. Nisbet for not giving back the order, as that was necessary for his justification. He says they both mounted to catch up with the travelers, who were ahead, and not to keep them from riding.

Alexandre Girond, Mr. Nisbet’s guide, heing called and informed that complaints were lodged against the other guides, he said: Those gentlemen ought not to complain, for they are wrong. He then stated that on arriving at Bourg-Martigny Mr. Nisbet wanted to send him back, because there were already two guides along. On Jean Rouiller’s saying that Girond had heen engaged the day before, and could not he sent back, they wanted to send Rouiller back, but he said he must go on to Chamouny. Rouiller said he would go back if they would pay him; this Mr. Nisbet refused to do, when Rouiller showed the order from the hotel-keeper for two guides for the Brooks family. Then Mr. Nishet agreed to go back with Rouiller and see the hotel-keeper ahout the dispute. They started back, and the others went on towards Chamouny. Mr. Nishet overtook them in a quarter of an hour, and Rouiller soon came up panting, and told them what the commissary had said. Mr. Nishet said he had nothing to do with the commissary, and asked to see the order, to prove that the hotel-keeper had reduced the numoer of guides, and to show that he owed Rouiller nothing, and they then started; but Rouiller seized Mrs. Brooks’s mule, and said: “If you will not pay me, we will go back to the commissary.” Mr. Nisbet, in a rage, struck at Rouiller with his cane. Girond could not see if he was struck, but saw him pick up a stone and ask Mr. Nisbet if he intended to strike him again. At this time Mr. Brooks’s mule fell with him, without injury. A young man on foot then came up and advised them to pay Rouiller and to send him hack. They paid him the six francs he claimed. He left his horse with Mr. Brooks, who did not want to take it. Rouiller then said: “If you send the horse hack, you must pay me six francs more.” The traveler then gave him six francs.

Girond being interrogated on certain allegations in the complaint, he said Rouiller did not insist on going to Chamouny, but only said: “They have engaged me, and they must pay for my services.” Rouiller did not take Mr. Brooks’s horse by the bridle and cause him to fall, nor did he say all three of the horses must be taken back. He did not refuse to take the horse that had fallen back. He says the guide Pierroz did not shake his fist at Mr. Nishet, but he heard a dispute because Mr. Nishet refused to give up the order to him. After all was over, Mr. Fowler said ironically to Rouiller: “No dinner nor peanuts for you to-day.” Even after the fall, Mrs. Brooks was willing that Rouiller should go on, but Mr. Nishet objected.

Hearing that Eugene Sandron, of Rappes, had helped to get the horse out of the gully, I had him called. He said he saw nothing before the horse fell, but he saw Rouiller receive six francs for his own services, and six for his horse, given to him by a young traveler. From what he had heard, he thought the strangers were wrong. He said the widow Melanie Guex Crosier had seen and heard all, from her window over the road where the scene occurred.

I went to see her, and she confirmed all that Alexandre Girond had said. She saw Rouiller receive two blows from Mr. Nisbet’s cane. Rouiller said several times: “Either retain me, pay me, or take me to the commissary.” She says Rouiller did not touch Mr. Brooks’s horse, and it was the young man who advised Mr. Brooks not to keep the animal. She saw Rouiller receive six francs at once, and six francs for his horse, given to him by the young man on foot. Mr. Fowler said to him: “No vale, no dinner for you this day,” and Rouiller simply replied, “I don’t want your dinner.” She did not see Pierroz shake his fist at Mr. Nisbet. She was above the people, and could see and hear everything. She saw no other persons present, but some came up afterwards.

I thought this sufficient to convict Mr. Nisbet and release the guides, so I made no more examinations.

The unanimous testimony of the persons examined shows that the order of service given by Mr. Clerc, of the hotel, to the commissary of guides, mentioned two guides for the Brooks family; that they wanted to send back one guide when only a quarter of a league from the starting place; that this guide did not refuse to go back, but demanded compensation, either from the travelers or from the hotel-keeper, by virtue of article ten of the law on transport service to travelers; that it was agreed to refer the matter to the hotel-keeper, when the travelers said they wanted but one guide; that Mr. Nisbet hurried to the hotel and had the order for guides changed from two to one, which could only be done by the commissary, and not by the hotel-keeper; that Mr. Nisbet would listen to no explanation from the commissary, and even ventured to strike a guide not in his service; that Rouiller did not cause Mr. Brooks’s horse to fall, but the horse fell from fright at Mr. Nisbet’s cane; that the guide did not offer to take Mr. Brooks’s horse away; he did not receive money for the entire journey from Martigny to Chamouny, but was paid for half the way, six francs for himself, and six for his horse; and finally, the witnesses of the scene were indignant at Mr. Nisbet for his conduct. The guides and witnesses do not blame Mr. Brooks, but condemn Mr. Nisbet for meddling with a business that did not concern him.

I cannot understand why Clerc, of the hotel, casts all the blame on the commissary, unless for some grudge, for I cannot conceive that he is to blame. The hotel-keeper did wrong to change the number of guides without consulting the commissary, making Mr. Nisbet believe the affair was amicably settled. He ought to know that when a guide is engaged he cannot be discharged without pay, against his will, and without the decision of the commissary.

If the guide had been sent back from the hotel, or Bourg-Martigny, he would have been entitled to three francs, by article ten, second section, of the law regulating the transport service of travelers; but after starting with him, and causing him to lose much time, I think that the twelve francs that Rouiller demanded was his due for himself and his horse.

I must add that Mr. Nisbet shows that he does not know how to travel over mountains, when he complains of a halt of an hour and a half midway. If he had any sense he ought to know that a guide and horses cannot go eight or ten leagues a day over mountains without rest, particularly after waiting for the travelers one or two hours at the hotel.

What Mr. Nisbet says about every guide getting three francs from the hotel-keeper for every person brought to the hotel is too silly to be believed. It may be done elsewhere, but not at Martigny and Chamounix.

Here are the facts, Mr. Counselor, as I obtained them, and I refrain from expressing my opinion thereon.

I return the three documents you sent me, and accept the occasion, &c., &c., &c.