countrymen or with the subjects or authorities of the country. They should use every endeavor to settle in an amicable manner all disputes in which their countrymen may be concerned, but they should take no part in litigation between citizens. They should countenance and protect them before the authorities of the country in all cases in which they may be injured or oppressed, but their efforts should not be extended to those who have been willfully guilty of an infraction of the local laws. It is their duty to endeavor, on all occasions, to maintain and promote all rightful interests, and to protect all privileges that are provided for by treaty or are conceded by usage. If representations made to the authorities of the country fail to secure proper redress, the case should be reported to the Department of State." Printed Pers. Inst., Dip. Agents, 1885. The house of a foreign minister cannot be made an asylum for a guilty citizen, nor, it is apprehended, a prison for an innocent one. And, though it be exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of the country, yet, in such cases, recourse would be had to the interposition of the extraordinary power of the state. 1 Op., 47 Bradford, 1794. As to privileges of minister's home, see supra, § 96. The general approval by the South American Governments, and by those of San Domingo and of Hayti, of the asylum given by foreign consuls and diplomatic agents to heads of governments suddenly deposed by mobs, may be explained on the ground that otherwise the lives of experienced statesmen would be so precarious in those countries as to expose government permanency to risks even greater than those to which it is there at present exposed. As to asylum in Turkey, see App., Vol. III, § 68a. XXIX. MAY EXTEND PROTECTION TO CITIZENS OF FRIENDLY COUNTRIES. § 105. The authority given by this Government to its diplomatic and consular agencies to extend protection to Swiss citizens in places where there is no Swiss consul, leaves the extension of such protection a matter of discretion in the officer appealed to. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cubisol, June 27, 1876. MSS. Inst., Barb. Powers. "In cases of revolution the duties of a minister are not confined to the protection of his own countrymen, but extend to the citizens and subjects of all friendly nations left by the political events without a representative. The government of Miramon having, in 1859, revoked the exequatur of the American consul at Mexico, because the United States had recognized President Juarez, he asked the interposition of the British minister for protection from the de facto authorities for the persons and property of Americans. This protection having been withheld, Mr. Cass, in instructing Mr. Dallas, May 12, 1859, to bring to the notice of the British Government the course of its minister, says: "In countries in a state of revolution and during periods of public ex citement it is the practice of modern times for the foreign representatives residing there to interpose by the exertion of their influence for the protection of the citizens of friendly powers exposed to injury and danger, and left without any minister of their own country to watch over them. The President would not hesitate to visit with marks of his displeasure any American minister who should have it in his power to af ford protection to the persons or property of citizens of a friendly nation placed in peril by revolutionary commotions, and having no national representative to appeal to, should he fail to exert his influence in their behalf."" Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 373, 374. "Soon after the existing war broke out in Europe, the protection of the United States minister in Paris was invoked in favor of North Germans domiciled in French territory. Instructions were issued to grant the protection. This has been followed by an extension of American protection to citizens of Saxony, Hesse, and Saxe-Coburg, Gotha, Colombia, Portugal, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Chili, Paraguay, and Venezuela, in Paris. The charge was an onerous one, requiring constant and severe labor, as well as the exercise of patience, prudence, and good judgment. It has been performed to the entire satisfaction of this Government, and, as I am officially informed, equally so to the satisfaction of the Government of North Germany." President Grant, Second Annual Message. 1870. For details of aid rendered through Mr. Washburne, minister of the United States "I was glad to know that the Department coincided with Mr. Bancroft and myself in the opinion that all these expenses (those for the relief of Germans in Paris during the siege) should be paid by the United States. It would certainly have been unworthy of a great Goverument like ours to permit itself to be paid for hospitalities extended to the subjects of other nations for whom our protection had been sought." Mr. Washburne, minister at Paris, to Mr. Fish, Nov. 18, 1870. MSS. Dispatches, "You are aware that Monseigneur Darboy, the archbishop of Paris, was seized some time since, by order of the Commune, and thrust into prison to be held as a hostage. Such treatment of that most devout and excellent man could have but created a great sensation, particularly in the Catholic world. On Thursday night last I received a letter from Monseigneur Chigi, archbishop of Myre and apostolic nuncio of the Holy See, and also a communication from Mr. Louoner, canon of the diocese of Paris; Mr. Lagarde, the vicar-general of Paris, and Messrs. Bourset and Allain, canons and members of the metropolitan chapter of the church of Paris, all making a strong appeal to me, in the name of the right of nations, humanity, and sympathy, to interpose my good offices in behalf of the imprisoned archbishop. I have thought that I should have been only conforming to what I believed to be the policy of our Government, and carrying out what I conceived to be your wishes under the circumstances, by complying with the request of the gentlemen who have addressed me. I, therefore, early this morning put my self in communication with General Cluseret, who seems, at the present time, to be the directing man in affairs here. I told him that I applied to him not in my diplomatic capacity, but simply in the interest of good feeling and humanity, to see if it were not possible to have the archbishop relieved from arrest and confinement. He answered that it was not a matter within his jurisdiction, and however much he would like to see the archbishop released, he thought, in consideration of the state of affairs, it would be impossible. He said that he was not arrested for crime, but simply to be held as a hostage, as many others had been. Under the existing circumstances he thought it would be useless to take any steps in that direction. I, myself, thought the Commune would not dare, in the present excited state of public feeling in Paris, to release the archbishop. I told General Cluseret, however, that I must see him to ascertain his real situation, the condition of his health, and whether he was in want of anything. He said there would be no objection to that, and he immediately went with me, in person, to see the procureur of the Commune; and upon his application I received from the prefect a permission to visit the archbishop freely at any time. In company with my private secretary, Mr. McKean, I then went to the Mazas prison, where I was admitted without difficulty, and being ushered into one of the vacant cells the archbishop was very soon brought in. I must say that I was deeply touched at the appearance of this venerable man. With his slender person, his form somewhat bent, his long beard, for he has not been shaved apparently since his confinement, his face haggard with ill-health, all could not have failed to have moved the most indifferent. I told him I had taken great pleasure, at the instance of his friends, in intervening on his behalf, and while I could not promise myself the satisfaction of seeing him released, I was very glad to be able to visit him to ascertain his wants, and to assuage the cruel position in which he found himself. He thanked me most heartily and cordially for the disposition I had manifested toward him. I was charmed by his cheerful spirit and his interesting conversation. He seemed to appreciate his critical situation, and to be prepared for the worst. He had no word of bitterness or reproach for his persecutors, but on the other band remarked that the world judged them to be worse than they really were. He was patiently awaiting the logic of events and praying that Providence might find a solution to these terrible troubles without the further shedding of human blood." Mr. Washburne, minister at Paris, to Mr. Fish, Apr. 23, 1871. MSS. Dispatches, France. Doc. accompanying President Hayes' message of Feb. 6, 1878. "He was taken from this cell a little before 8 o'clock on Wednesday evening, the 24th ultimo. The curé of the Madeleine, the Abbé Deguerry, the Senator Bonjeau, and three other distinguished hostages were taken from their cells in the same prison at the same time, into the court of the building, and all were placed against the wall, which incloses the somber edifice of La Roquette. The archbishop was placed at the head of the line, and the fiends who murdered him with their knives had scratched a cross upon a stone in the wall at the very place where his head must have touched at the moment when the fatal shots were fired. He did not fall at the first volley, but stood erect, calm, and immovable. Before the other discharges came which launched him into eternity he crossed himself three times upon his forehead. The other victims fell together. The marks of the bullets, made upon the wall as they passed through their bodies, were distinctly visible. The archbishop's body was afterward mutilated, his abdomen being cut open. All the bodies were then put into a cart and removed to Père la Chaise, which is but a few squares off, where they were thrown into the common ditch, from which they were happily rescued before decomposition had entirely taken place. Returning from La Roquette, I came by the 'Archevêché,' where the body of the archbishop was lying in state. He was so changed that I should scarcely have known him. Thousands and thousands of the people of Paris were passing through the palace to look for the last time upon him who was so endeared to them by his benevolent acts, his kindly disposition, and his love of the poor and the lowly. In all of the six or seven interviews I had with the archbishop in the prison, except the last, I always found him cheerful, and sometimes even gay, and never uttering one word of complaint. No man could be with him without being captivated by his cheerful and Christian spirit and enlightened conversation. The archbishop was learned, accomplished, and eloquent, and was a most liberal man in his religious and political sentiments. He met his fate with the firm. ness of a Christian martyr, and all generous hearts will join in a tribute of mourning." Same to same, May 31, 1871; ibid. That a consul cannot use his position to become a means of communication XXX. AVOIDANCE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ENJOINED. § 106. The alleged course of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, when in France, in rendering advice and support to the reactionary party, was the cause of much embarrassment to President Washington. "He [the President] said he considered the extracts from Ternant very serious, in short, as decisive; that he saw that Gouverneur Morris could no longer be continued there consistent with the public good; that the moment was critical in our favor, and ought not to be lost; that he was extremely at a loss what arrangement to make. I asked him whether Gouverneur Morris and Pinckney might not change places. He said that would be a sort of remedy, but not a radical one. That if the French ministry conceived Gouverneur Morris to be hostile to them; if they would be jealous merely on his proposing to visit London, they would never be satisfied with us at placing him at London permanently." Conversation between Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, and President Washington, For Gouverneur Morris' correspondence in Paris, in 1792-'93, see 1 Am. St. Pap. Mr. Monroe's course as minister to Paris in 1794 was severely criticised at the time by the Federalists on the ground that it was unduly conciliatory to France. See, as to Mr. Monroe's course in other respects, infra, §§ 107, 150b; supra, § 85. We must remember, however, that Mr. Monroe's instructions, which were drawn by Mr. Randolph, as Secretary of State, required him to take every step to conciliate the revo 1 lutionary authorities who were at the time the de facto Government of France, and that his generous sympathies with that movement were well known at the time of his appointment. In no point in this respect did Mr. Monroe outstep Lafayette; and of Lafayette's course General Washington wrote letter after letter of approval. General Washington at that period of his administration sought to balance parties among his diplomatic agents in the same way that he sought to balance parties in his Cabinet. Such being the case, nothing was more natural than that he should have sent to France Mr. Monroe, whose attachment to Lafayette and to the new movements in France was well known, while Mr. Jay, whose French Huguenot descent gave him a peculiar dislike to France, while his conservatism led him to cling with reverence to the English constitution, was sent to England. It should also be remembered that, as the records of the Department show, Mr. Pickering, who succeeded Mr. Randolph as Secretary, left Mr. Mouroe, during the most critical period of his mission, without instructions. It was natural that Mr. Monroe should have felt that he was thus left to his own judgment; and there is no doubt that his judgment, affected as it naturally was by his enthusiastic belief that the French revolutionary movement tended not merely to liberty but to safe government, was that he should return with ardor the ardent welcome with which he was received. Nor even in his address to the French convention, which was at the time so much blamed for the exuberant friendliness with which it abounded, do we find anything in the way of conciliation that had not the example of General Washington (supra, § 47a), and has not been at least equaled by our ministers in England in more recent days. Nor can Mr. Monrce be justly charged with any deep-seated prejudices against England which disabled him from acting fairly as a negotiator with France. Not more than six years after his mission to France he was sent by Mr. Jefferson to negotiate, in connection with Mr. Pinkney, a treaty with England; and the treaty which they agreed on was held back from the Senate by Mr. Jefferson on the ground that the concessions it made were too liberal. (Infra, §§ 107, 150b.) Even after the war of 1812, when the burning of Washington by the British was, to say the least, not calculated to increase the kindly feelings of Mr. Madison's Cabinet to Great Britain, we find Mr. Monroe, as Secretary of State, and afterwards as President, pursuing towards Great Britain à course whose moderation and courtesy no one questioned; and, as appears by his papers on file in the Department of State, he was careful to insist on examining the documents sent to England by Mr. J. Q. Adams, as Secretary of State, for the purpose of striking from them acerbities in which Mr. Adams was supposed to have a tendency to indulge in that particular correspondence. It would be difficult, taking Mr. Monroe's whole history in consideration, to fasten on anything in his conduct in Paris in 1794 which is inconsistent with his duties as the minister of a neutral power. Mr. Monroe's address to the French Directory on Dec. 30, 1796, on presenting his letter of recall, with the reply of the Directory, are given in full in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 747, and is noticed supra, § 85. Mr. Monroe's letter to the Secretary of State, of Sept. 10, 1795, in reply to the censures of his course by the Department, is given in full in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 742. As to the embarrassments of the mission of the United States in France in 1798, consequent on the attempts of Talleyrand to discriminate between the ministers on the basis of their party relations, see 2 Life of Gerry, 190, ff. Infra, § 148, ƒƒ. As to Genet's interference in politics, see supra, §§ 79, 84. |