The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1831-03-03
notwithstanding yaitei is Of q diffeten
opinion, do establish this doctrine.

able subject without observing, that the privi
, egvs in question have been carried by som,
to an extent even greater than that which w
] avebeen examining. In the treatise Of Vat
.c' we hnd the following poaitions That al
though tho sovereign to whom an ambassado,
Is addressed, is particularly called upon q
protect him in hisprivleges; yet that the same
outy extends TO other sovereign to whom be
Is not addressed, bat through whose country
he is obliged TO pass for the purposes of his
mission. To insult him. saws Vattel, is TO af.
front his master and his whole nation; TO arrest
him, or 10 offer violence to his person, 10 to
wound the rights Of embassies, which belong
10 every sovereign.
\ lhis doctrine arises out Of somo eoBside-
rations upon the case of Rineon and Fregose,
Ambassadors Of Francis l. of France, the eae
70 the Forte, the other TO Venice. These
ministers passing down the Po in their pas.
sage, and being suspected ofbearing Dispatch
es preJudicial to the int. rests Of the Emperor
Charles V. were set upon and murdered, np-
parenily by the orders Of the Governor of
Milan. But tho Emperor, although at that
time at peace with Francis, appears not to
have been inclined to punish the authors of
the murder. Upon this transaction, Vattel
OBSERVES, that II was an atrocious attempt
against the Law Of Nations; that Francis had
4
hmperor, but also TO demand the assistance
ofal other nations in it's support. For il was
an affair, not OF two individuals, who each Of
them supposed they had right on their side
nnt OF all States whatsoever, who were inter-
ested in maintaining the rights Of Embassy.
IL perhaps does not fall exactly within the
scope OF this treatise, TO examine whether this
opinion 10 really law ne il is received at pres.
ent. But we may venture TO observe, that in
this position, Vattel stands sole. At least all
the authors on the law Of Nations who have
preceded him, after discussing tho point at
length, have come to conclusion directly the
reverse OF his; and that which they have con-
cuded, 10 supported by great variety Of ca
ses, both OF an ancient and a recent date Thus
Aiberieus Gentilis, upon this very case of
hincon and Fregozs. observes merely Pro- |
bosum i'd Carolo fuisset Sed ALA Questio
est. adds Bynkershook de jurs legations ,alia !
de jure honestatis Grotious who followed
Gentils, after having given his opinions at !
length upon the invioabity of arnbasssd doris !
says expressly That it is only to be understood
Ia be binding on those sovsreigns to whom |
they are sent, Non pertinct ergo lIPc Lex ad |!
cos per quorum fines, non accepta venie, tran !
scum lcgati.' 1t istrue, the non accepta vena |
may be made bs some to amount to an in vio- l
liability, provided they hnve passports. But IL /
may be fairly ques toned. whether the posses.
sian ~s pa.Ar.-siii~sss, s>-.s-. .s.:-,z
more than ths common protection 10 which
common aliens have right. 8ynkershook al
least, without taking notice Of pass ports at all
understands Grotius To mean, generally, that
the privilege in question shall not have place |
in countries to which ambassadors are not |
addressed. Ofthis opinion also were Couch, |
Wicquelort, who has been deemed the very !
champion of The rights Of ambassadors and !
who declares that the case Of Rincon and |
Fregoze. though an atrocious murder, was
not violation oi'tho Law Of Nations, us 10 |
Embassies Huber, and lastly, Bynkershook, /
who had particular occasion TO examine tho [
point but short time before Vsttel. The
subject came before the latter in considering !
the meaning Of the passage, which formed
part of declaration of the States General in |
favor Of the inviolobility Of ambassadors and |
the difficulty was, 10 know whether the word |
'Passerende,' was applicable to ambassadors
to other powers, passing through Holland, or |
confined simply TO those addressed TO tho |
States, coming, residing. and passing away, |
or retiring. To solvo this difficulty, he in !
quired into the opinions Of the juris,s concern.
ing the point in discussion, and determined |
that it applied solely TO Ambassadors who |
were addressed to the States"
"Selim II, in the 10th century being at
psace with Venice, but medi,aiing war, sent a !
Minister 20 the King Of France to know his
sentiments Of it. He endeavored to pass
through Venice, but was arrested, and tho
French Ambassador ihcre, and the King
himself, claimed his liberty as addressed TO
them. But they were forced To yield TO the
arguments Of the Republic: that a sovereign
power need not recognize a public Minister
as such, unless il is to him that his credentials
are addressed"
"In 1879, Elizabeth, of England, having
reason to be jealous Of the Vaccinations ofths |
French in Scotland, arrested all Frsnchmen
passing through the kingdom 10 that country !
without q passport. Among those was Du
Croc, the French Ambassador to Scotland, and |
his Court complained loudly Of this as vio.
lation of ihe Law of fNations But Walsing. !
ham the Secretary, pleaded, that it was Du
Crocs own fault for not taking q passport, he |
might Justly be detained, and with this plca
tho French were content, notwithstanding
bis quality Of Ambassador"
Sir. what issthc mission inpented in this |
case by Mr.. Secretary Van Buren and
what the diplomatic character of the Min
ister now under consideration This gen
tleman was, BY order of,he Executive, car |
ried out from Norfolk to Russia in q ma
tional ship, with every circumstances Of
high respect, and at cost Of no, less than
$4,000 for his passage. lie arrived a
St. Petersburgh; was presented 10 his I'm
perial Majesty the Emperor Of Russis; cx- |
hibited his credentials; was sccrediied as
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- |
potentiary Of the United States at that
Court; retired and took his departure
from the Russian territories, all in the
short space often days. II is sontended
by gentleman, who support this sppropria-
,ion, that he is our Minister. If so, he