George Harrington to Dr. I. Dubs, President of the Swiss Confederation, May 2, 1868

Mr. Harrington to the High Federal Council.

The undersigned, minister resident of the United States near the Swiss Confederation, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s communication of the 15th ultimo, relative to the complaint of Mr. W. F. Nisbet and other American citizens, of the misconduct to which they were subjected on the part of certain guides serving the route from Martigny to Chamounix, by the Tête Noire, which the undersigned had the honor to submit to the high federal council under date of September 23 last.

Your excellency informed the undersigned of the result of the investigation called for by the high federal council, and, at the same time, inclosed to him a copy of the record of proceedings and of the testimony taken, as submitted by the authorities of the canton of the Valais, upon which those authorities declared the guides exculpated from all blame except for a slight misdemeanor on the part of guide Bouiller, for which, as a punishment, he would be suspended for a short period, at the commencement of the approaching season, from his functions as guide.

Accompanying this record was a paper, presumed to be the original order, by virtue of which two guides instead of one (the cause of the difficulty) presented themselves as attached to the party of Mr. Brooks, and was, doubtless, submitted by those authorities as a justification, firstly, for the appearance of the two guides, and secondly, as a further justification of the demand for indemnity, so rudely presented, and, in the opinion of the undersigned, so unjustifiably enforced from the travelers when the extra guide was told that his services had not been commanded and were not required.

Your excellency will permit the undersigned to refer to the testimony upon which the authorities of the Valais profess to have relied for their double verdict—that of acquittal of the guides, and conviction of wrong on the part of the travelers.

Aside from the counter declarations of the incriminated guides, who naturally sustained one another in pleading “not guilty” to the charges preferred against them, it appears by this record that but two witnesses were summoned, notwithstanding the assertion of the parties complaining that “about twenty persons gathered about the scene,” notwithstanding the declaration of the two cited witnesses that several persons were present, and notwithstanding the statement of the landlord of the Hotel Clerc, in his communication of the same day of the occurrences, that he had that morning been informed of the gross outrages that had been perpetrated upon the travelers. These concurrent statements prove conclusively that the lack of testimony was not compulsory.

Of these two witnesses, the first one (Sandon) testified that he saw nothing of what had passed before the fall of the horse, but “from what was stated to him by the people of his village, he estimated that the travelers were wrong.”

The second and only other witness is asserted to be a widow, so enfeebled as to have been unable to appear before the magistrate. Her testimony certainly confirms all the declarations of the guides. She neither saw nor heard anything improper done or said by them, but is decisive as to the numerous and frequent provocations on the part of the strangers. She asserts that she witnessed the whole scene from the window of a neighboring house, and is especially positive as to the exact sum that was finally paid by the travelers as indemnity for the dismissed guide and returned horse—that is to say, six francs for each. As it would be simply impossible for any one standing in a distant window to know, under the circumstances, how much, if any, money was passed from the hand of one individual into the hand of another, the undersigned may be pardoned for the little confidence he has either in the testimony or the witness.

Such is the testimony upon which the prefect of Martigny professes to rely in justification of his declaration that each and every charge and specification brought by the complainant (Nisbet) was false, notwithstanding they were sustained by four other unimpeachable witnesses.

The occurrences complained of took place on the 10th September, and the formal complaint of the parties was, on the 23d of that month, submitted to the high federal council, who immediately communicated with the authorities of Valais. The complaint, therefore, reached these authorities while the occurrences were fresh in memory, and before they had ceased to be a subject of comment. The landlord of the Hotel Clerc had already given voice to the general indignation by his voluntary urging the parties to bring their injuries before the proper authorities, in order to suppress the scandalous and outrageous treatment to which travelers were subjected by those guides. The undersigned fails to observe in the record that any of the “people of his village,” referred to by the first witness as conversant with the facts, or that the landlord of the Hotel Clerc, or any of the witnesses known to him as being informed, were called upon for testimony, though the prefect says, “I cannot comprehend why the master of the Hotel Clerc should have thrown all the fault upon the commissioner of guides,” &c. Certainly the prefect had power to ascertain why the keeper of the hotel had thus asserted, and it is equally certain, if the record be true, that he did not exercise that power. Why he did not do so he leaves to inference. That inference cannot be other than prejudicial to the good faith of the investigation. The basis of this difficulty, and the justification for all the subsequent acts of the guides, appears to have been the alleged order, above referred to, for two guides for Mr. Brooks’s party, instead of one, as he asserts he commanded. It is claimed that, under and by virtue of that order, Mr. Brooks was either bound to take two guides to Chamounix, or he or some one else should pay an indemnity. And what was this alleged order? Simply a paper, without signature, containing neither the name of Mr. Brooks nor other person, upon which was written, “two guides and three horses;” a paper with no other paternity than evidences that it issued from the Hotel Clerc. By whom written or by whom uttered was unknown to Mr. Brooks, though evidently known to the guides. Can it be successfully, or even seriously, asserted that such a paper committed Mr. Brooks to the payment of any money, when he promptly, at the commencement of the journey, declared that he had ordered and wanted but one guide?

Admitting that such paper was, in the usual form, employed on such occasions, the correctness of Mr. Brooks’s declaration that he had ordered but one guide was clearly and promptly admitted when the order, without hesitation or question, was changed from two to one. It is not claimed, nor even pretended, that the error, if error there was, was committed by or originated with Mr. Brooks.

In a community consisting of hotel-keepers and their employés, guides, muleteers, &c., dependent for support mainly upon travelers, collusions on the part of such for mutual benefit, at the expense of the strangers, it will be admitted are liable to occur, and to which, most frequently, the strangers submit rather than be delayed and suffer more serious annoyances. The undersigned does not charge collusion in this case, but it is certain that the indemnity demanded for the extra guide was forced from the strangers, and in amount, he is still constrained to believe, equal to the full charge for a guide and a horse for the journey from Martigny to Chamounix, notwithstanding it was not only made clear, but admitted at the time, as is shown by the record, that the error originated with the author of that order, and was in nowise the fault of Mr. Brooks. The undersigned claims that thereafter the latter should have been allowed to pursue his journey unmolested.

The complaint presented was of a grave character; it narrated a series of most discreditable acts, following each other in logical sequence, and culminating in that which endangered not only the limbs but the life of one of the party; and this narration, so clearly set forth, was sustained by five intelligent and responsible parties, one of whom, at least, Mr. Nisbet, from long residence and travel in Europe, was familiar both with the language and habits of the country. In the opinion of the undersigned, such a complaint, so substantiated, should have received from those authorities a thorough and searching investigation; it was submitted with that expectation, and in the hope that the punishment awarded to the guilty parties would have served to shield his countrymen, in the future, from like oppression and indignities, which are so offensive to the rights of protection guaranteed by treaty stipulations, and so violative alike of justice and the laws of hospitality. He regrets being obliged to say that, judging by the record, the investigation appears to him to have been partial and unsatisfactory. He has reason to believe, however, that other and further information or testimony than is shown by the record was obtained or taken, but why suppressed is left to conjecture. It certainly would have been more satisfactory had the record been complete, even had the additional testimony been only cumulative or against the complainants.

In thus submitting to your excellency the impressions which the perusal of the record made upon him, the undersigned trusts that he used no expression that may be construed as reflecting upon the action of the high federal council. He owes to them, and prays your excellency to accept, his thanks for the prompt manner in which, at his request, the authorities of the Valais were called upon for explanation.

The undersigned seizes this occasion to renew to your excellency and the high federal council the assurances of his highest consideration,