WELTI, Vice-President for the Federal Council to George Harrington, United States, July 25, 1868

The High Federal Council to Mr. Harrington.

The federal council thought proper to communicate to the authorities of the canton of Valais the note of the American minister, dated 2d of May last, relating to the complaint of Mr. Nisbet against the guides Rouiller and Pierroz, with the order for a new examination of the facts that gave rise to the complaint, taking into consideration the observations presented by the plaintiff.

This having been done, the federal council now sends Mr. George Harrington a copy of the report dated the 21st instant, and the result of the second investigation, confirming the first, and to repeat to the minister resident the assurances of very high consideration.

The State Council of the Canton of Valais to the Federal Council.

Gentlemen: According to your order of the 13th of May, 1868, we have caused a second investigation of Mr. Nisbet’s complaint against the guides, Rouiller and Pierroz, from Martigny, as presented by the United States minister.

This second inquiry confirms the evidence given in our first report.

On starting, the travellers wanted to send back one of the guides engaged, and keep his horse. The guide claimed compensation for loss of time. This being refused, he proposed to take back his horse. Thereupon a dispute arose, and with hard words, Mr. Nisbet struck the guide with his cane, who in a rage threatened to take his horse away. At, this moment the horse and rider fell in a ditch, doing no harm.

Both parties were wrong here. If the traveler had paid the guide what was due him, and had not struck him, the consequences would not have been serious. Mr. Nisbet did not ask a judicial inquiry, but only an examination before a magistrate, as a police offense.

We accept the investigations of the prefect of Martigny, though not conducted with due formality.

In this inquiry the prefect got a report from Mr. Clerc, the hotel-keeper, Mr. Nisbet’s witness, showing, first, that it is not customary to sign orders for guides and mules; second, that Mr. Brooks’s order called for two guides and three mules; third, that the number of guides was reduced to one, at the request of one of the travelers, who returned to Martigny for that purpose; fourth, that Mr. Clerc, on hearing of the dispute, told one of the travelers he could send the guide back if he paid him. Mr. Nisbet said he knew nothing of the widow Genx-Crosier, one of the witnesses. Now, the inquiry shows her house to be near the road—the window where she was, only one and one-half yards from the ground, and four and one-half yards from the ditch in which Mr. Brooks’s horse fell; so she could well hear everything that passed. She heard the guide say he was satisfied with the twelve francs paid him; and there is no doubt of this, for Mr. Nisbet and the guide both confess it.

Another disinterested witness, the guide Alexander Giroud, gave testimony before the prefect, in favor of the guides.

The inquiry also shows that the persons present (said to be twenty by Mr. Nisbet) came up after the horse fell, and could not have seen what passed previously.

In view of this inquiry, the state council cannot alter its decision temporarily suspending the guide Rouiller from the exercise of his profession.

The state council, learning that the commissary of guides acted imprudently in advising the guide to take his horse back, it was determined to reprimand that official. In conclusion, we must say it is the commissary’s duty to settle disputes with guides, and Mr. Nisbet ought to have applied to that official, and not to the hotel-keeper, to settle his dispute with the guide.

Accept, gentlemen, the assurances, &c., &c.

(Signatures of the councilmen follow hereunder.)