The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-09-25
The late Diplomatic Flare-up.

Minister and the United States Govern
ment was first presented to the public,
having been in a good measure quoted by
a narration of the facts and the publication
of the correspondence which led to M.
Poussin's DISMISSAL few additional OBJ
servations upon the nature and probable
effect of that misunderstanding may not
be amiss. A large share of the feeling
produced by the announcement of nj,
Poussin's dismissal was no doubt owing to
the fact that, as general rule, when ma
tons quarrel about a matter of sufficient
consequence to produce rupture, the
withdrawal or dismissal of ministers, on
either or both sides, is regarded as indica-
tive of an appeal to arms. 1t is equiva-
lent to saying that the controversy is not
remediable by diplomatic skill, or that the
resources of negotiation are exhausted.
This, be it remembered, is when sub
stantial and bona fde cause of quarrel is
the subect-matter Of negotiation-when
the parties to the dispute deem the matter
in controversy of sufficient moment to JUS
tify passage at arms.
In regard to the late correspondence be-
tween the French Minister and the Secre-
tary of State, no such importance at
taches to the subject-matter of the notes
interchanged. Indeed there is no evil
dence of difference Of opinion, on the
part of the two governments, upon the
facts elected In the discussion In so far
as the conduct of Commander Carpenter
is concerned, the statement of his case
was not even referred to the French Gov
eminent for an opinion. His condemna-
ton was insisted upon by NJ Poussin as
an er-pate presentation OF the circum-
stances connected with the rescue of the
French ship Eugene, made by the cap
tain nf that vessel OF courso an Anneri
can officer has as much right to be hearc
in justification, as the captain of French
merchant vessel has TO be heard in com
plant. The French government has given
no opinion upon the explanatory notes Of
Captain Carpenter, nor does it appear
that the decision of The military court in
the matter of NJ. Port has been reviewe,
by the Cabinet of France. Hence il is
manifest that the merits of neither case are
involved in the dismissal of NJ. Poussin
nor is it probable that either will be the
subject of future complaint or negotiation
The reader will mark the difference be
tween a withdrawal of an ambassador il
consequence of failure to adjust, by
diplomacy, a dispute involving the AMIGA
bic relations between two governments
and the dismissal of a minister for rude,
ness and insult offered in his correspond
ence upon either trivial or grave sub
iect In the one case, the withdrawal i'm
plies an appeal to some other and perhap
less amicable mode of redress OF arbitra
ton whilst in the other, the government
affronted merely signifies its resentmen
Of an insult by refusing to have any fur
ther dealings with the party offering it
In the one case, the termination Of ofhcia
intercourse goes to the matter Of seriou
discussion, and is national in the other, j
relates 10 the conduct Of the minister, anC
only concerns his relations to the govern
ment in merely personal aspect Of the
case.
II has been attempted to show that the
letter Of NJ. de Tocqucville, refusing tc
recall NJ. Poussin upon an inspection o
the offensive notes OF that minister, com
plicates this transaction, and widens th,
breach between the two governments
This does not follow, for there was in fac
no breach TO widen ; and the French Cab
met might have declined administering
rebuke for words which may have beer
attributed to an excess of zeal, when the
American government had redress, unde
the law Of nations, entirely in its own
hands. By submitting the papers to the
French Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
United States Government waived M
right il enjoyed under the usages of ma
tons. The President might have pre-.
fered the recall of NJ. Poussin by bis own
government; but in afording that govern.
ment an opportunity to do 50, he did moi
preclude his right to dismiss him in case il
failed TO act.
M. de Tocqueville, in his note to Mr.
Rush declining to take any action in The
premises, thought fit TO step little be
yond the jurisdiction of a foreign govern
ment, to divide the blame between tn,
French Minister and the United States
Secretary Of State He has been let Il
know that his opinions in this respect