The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-09-21
The Matter or the French Minister.

termination of Mr.. PoUssIN's diplomatic
relations with the Government of the Uni
ted States, we took occasion to express
the belief that no serious difficulty would
arise between this country and France out
OF the refusal Of the Executive to hold any
further official intercourse with that gen
teman. That the United States Govern
ment desiredpeac and good neighborhood
with the French republic was abundantly
shown in the forbearance observed upon
the first. afront given by Mr.. PoUssrN,
and the steps taken to avoid the painful
alternative of dismissing him, by giving
his Government ample opportunity of re-
calling him, after repetition of his Of
fence There IS no reason to suppose that
France entertains other than amicable SEN
tlments towards the United States; and,
IN the absence of all other motive to COLI
sion, the action Of the United States in
the matter of Mr.. PoUssIN's dismissal
furnishes no ground whatever for any. 1t
is the interest of both nations to be at peace
with one another, and there is no room to
question the desire of each to remain so.
Assuming such to be the policy and dispo-
sition of both countries, it can scarcely be
imagined that a rupture can take place
about a matter which does not imply an
untriendly disposition, much less necessa-
My provoke hostile proceedings
We have said that the refusal of the
Government to hold official intercourse
with Mr.. PoUssIN, on account of the often
sive matter and manner of his notes ad-
dressed to the State Department, does not
present a case about which France has a
right to take umbrage. The law of ma
tons, and the practice Of States under the
law, are well understood and settled in
like cases. We shall content ourselves
by citing the authority Of Judge Kent upon
the right and practice of governments I'M
der the law OF nations
:" If ambassadors should be 80 regardless of the
object of their privilege to insult or openly at
tack the laws or government of nation to whom
they are sent, their functions may be suspended
by refusal to treat with them, or application can
be made TO their sovereign for their recall, or
they may be dismissed, and required 10 depart
within a reasonable time We have had instances,
within tiTnes. of all these modes Of dealing
with ministers who have given offence, and ii Is
NOT TO b. denied that eray government has perfect
night 10 Judge for itself tohee the language
duct Of foreign minister be admissible '-Reafs
Commentaries the Lar of Nations, chap. "a.
Ton 'Arnbassadors.' +"
The law being clear, and the practice
admitted, it will at once be seen that no
government has right to take exception
against another for adopting any of the
modes recited, OF getting rid Of an objec-
tionable ambassador; and every govern
ment is the exclusive judge as TO whether
the language or conduct Of minister is
admissible. Were the law otherwise,
nations might become involved in a war
about the Interpretation of offensive words
or a nation might keep an ambassador
near government which desired has re-
call. The law wisely withdraws misun-
derstandings of this nature from the diff
cultles which breed war, by making every
government its own judge Of what is or is
not admissible language or conduct in a
foreign minister. II matters not whether
the government of the offending ambassa-
dor thinks the language Of It's minister add
missible or not; it has no voice in that
question. The government TO which the
minister il sent can Judge and determine
for itself whether it will continue official
intercourse with him.
There being no dispute about the law.
and the practice under Il admitted, what i,
there in the affair Of Mr.. PoUssIN that
gives IT peculiar, truculent, or ominous
aspectl 1t will not be disputed that his
language to the Government was offensive
and insulting on more than one occasion.
He has brought himself clearly within the
definition of the offences for which min
lster may be dismissed, even admitting for
the moment that the question Of insult was
debatable between the two Governments.
His ofhcial relations to the United State.
Government have been severed by those
who had perfect right to cut them short.
Who has right to complain What Just
cause OF offence has been given to any
power' The right to refuse official inter-
course with Mr.. PoUssIN being absolute.
the propriety of doing so palpable, and the
manner of dismissing him respectful to the
Government whichhe represented, the act,
OF itself, does not imply unkindness, or
point to unpleasant consequences.
We alluded, on another occasion, TO the
dismissal of Mr. Jackson, English minis
ter to the United States, in 1909. Mr..
Jackson's offence was, the imputation of a
knowledge on the part Of the United States