Hovey to His Excellency, September 18, 1870
Mr. Alvin P, Hovey to Mr. Fish.
Sir: After having signed the treaties with Peru (mentioned in my No. 232) dated the 6th and 12th instant, I deemed the matter of sufficient importance, under my personal instructions, to send the same to the Department of State by a bearer of dispatches. Accordingly, on the 12th instant I appointed Colonel W. D. Farrand as such bearer, it being necessary that he should leave Lima at 8 a.m. on the 14th, so as to embark on the steamer for Panama. Some time after his appointment, and when his passport, treaties, and dispatches were in his hands, he informed me that a certain Abraham Wendell had caused legal process to be issued against him, enjoining him from leaving the country. Believing that the said order was entirely unjust, * * * * I immediately addressed a note to his excellency, the minister of foreign affairs, (inclosure No. 1,) informing him of the intended detention, and requesting his excellency to take such steps as would prevent it, at the same time citing to his excellency the doctrine contained in Wheaton’s international law. His excellency, in very kind terms, declined my request, taking issue with the writers on international law, upon the subject, and making a distinction unknown to the law of nations. (See inclosure No. 2, with translation.) Upon the reception of the same at 10.30 p. m. I replied to his excellency (inclosure No. 3) regretting the difference of opinion that existed between us, and delivered the note to the sub-secretary of state, (official mayor,) Dr. Elmore, who promised to give me an answer before 8 o’clock the following morning, the time of the departure of the train. At about 7.40 a. m. on that morning I received a note from him (see inclosure No. 4) in which I was informed that the minister still adhered to his former views, but said if I would go with the colonel to the steamer he would have nothing to fear. With this authority, I proceeded with Colonel Farrand on board the mail steamer, and after an attempt to detain him, and some conversation with the captain of the port, he was permitted to depart.
This matter may seem of but little importance to the Department, but * * * * * * I think it proper to go one step further and inform the Government of the nature of the claim.
In 1866, Farrand & Co. procured a charter from the Prado government here to construct a tram-way from Callao to Lima, and with the privilege of running street railroads through Lima. Under this charter shares of stock were issued, a few being given out gratuitously to persons who favored the road. Five of these shares, by some manner, came into the hands of Abraham Wendell. They never have had any marketable value in Peru. The name of Farrand appears upon the certificates as president. After the fall of Prado, at Arequipa, the charter granted to Farrand & Co. was declared void by the succeeding and present governments, and hence the roads were never built. Upon these certificates of stock, a wise court held Farrand personally liable for the full face of the same, and without any security being given by his adversary, and only a few hours notice, forbade him to leave the country as above stated. An affidavit is already on file in the Department of State, affirming that said stock was never of any marketable value. If necessary it would be easy to prove by all the principal merchants of Lima that such is the fact. * * * * * *
On the 17th I received another communication from his excellency substantially reiterating his former positions, (inclosure No. 5.) To this, on the same date, I replied, making a statement of all the facts, citing authorities and making an argument against the position assumed by his excellency, (inclosure No. 6.)
The Department will see by a perusal of my answer that under any and every phase of the case Colonel Farrand was fully authorized to depart, and that no just censure or liability can attach to this legation, or to the United States.