The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-02

L. .rtan precautions and fofmates, the right OF en-
~ avenues to peace would be closed except those OF
conquest the side and absolute submission on the
other II is and ought 10 be the universal sense OF
closed Instances have been cited. know. in contra
veDtion OF this principle, bat they were not even ex
espiions TO n: rule L has been said that gov,
for his personal misconduct but not for the acts o. his
unless this dismissal is the precursor OF
were dismissed for personal offences which they could
not claim to commit near another under any
tons The Duke OF Orleans, when regent OF France
during the minority OF Louis XIV, imprisoned Spanish
minister but he detected him in plots not only against
o Osssona offences against The municipal law Or for insults
offered TO IT, passports have been given by the offended
governments near which the ministers resided But this
i b. no means absolute We have had very recent
case in the dismissal OF Sir Henry Buwer by the Span
ish government and Lord Pameston, in his correspond
subject controyerts very ably doctrine which he alleges
was advanced by the Duke OF Soomayor that any
eminent was entitled to obtain the recall Of any foreign
that he should be removed" at 10 quite uue. says
Lord Pamerston 'as SAID b. the Duke Of Sotomayor,
that the law Of nations and International usage may
permit government TO make such demand but the
law Of nations and International usage also ene the
government. to whom such request may be preferred,
e decline e comply with H. ne says IN support q ms
desire 70 get rid Of him to be found in the fidelity Of
the minister to his trust He may urge with
the government to which he is accredited But Be this
may, these instances do not affect the right Of en-
bassy, which belongs every sovereign State whilst at
nent thus aggrieved and violation OF the law OF
tons. Vattel says. B. 4. chap. $, Sec SO;
"A sovereign attempting hinder another from sending
tends against lie law Of nations Il attacking nation in
one q s most valuable rights, and opposing wha. nature
the bonds by which nations united and offending them
Why sir, this denial Of the right Of embassy to us by
the French government once cause OF grave
plant part The preamble OF the act OF Congress
which, in 1885, abrogated the treaties between and
France rected the dismissal Of our minister as one OF the
of grievance which justified the course OF the
United States towards that powera course which led to
that state Of hostilites which called quasi
Is to shut The door Of peace and trust we shall not Sc
found setting such example in this age of boasted
fnement and progress When this resolutions viewed
in connexion with all its attendant circumstances, think
Knight venture to challenge the production OF precedent
which shall sanction it.
There is, however. another. and in my view; still
more fatal objection to the proposition before 1t
sues the right Of one government to interfere in the
domestic affairs Of another-a right which would be dan
mankind this his resolution have any nn meaning At all 4
must be intended rebuke to Austria for her con-
duct not towards but towards her subjects The
whole proceeding would be utterly without meaning,
had moi been based upon the ayowed grounds OF ndgna
ton and adherence at the of the Austrian gov
eminent towards the Hungarlans, towards its own sub
be fragrant and direct insult to the Austrian govern
ment An insult is an injury and an injury often OF the
deepest kind NaTp S honor y national Of
citizen is national strength. II ought therefore to be
chenshed"said Mr.. Monroe in his inaugural address
Now il have right to punish Austria for her
duct towards the Hungarian in this mode, why not in
any other II the right punish for such offence
lists at ALL must exist to such an extent may be
cessary to afford remedy for the evil II we have the
right 70 punish them by insults, why not BY blows No
man can show any distinction In principle between the
II the right exists at all it exists to whatever extent
may be necessary 10 make il efectua Now this claim
to punish foreign government for its conduct towards
S
pretenson be conceived which arrogant and in
sullingi II is virtual denial of the sovereignty Of the
foreign State upon which acting. For If
egn 1t a the governmentno, the people-according
our notions constitute the supreme authority in the land
and they would not be supreme in authority, if another
nation could control them.
Mr. FOOTE do not wish to interrupt my friend at
al, but am sure he will be misunderstood in
dsagreeable to himself His present words would lead
dersood-that it is his opinion that the government OF
Austria 10 legitimatey supreme in Hungary, which will
certainly deny and attempt to prove II the honorable
Mr. HUNTER. II the gentleman had attended to
what said, he would have perceived that l modi-
fed the proposition so as to adapt the proposition
argument in what part OF that body polite the SOW
eregny resides II is sufficient for us that the SOW.
sreigny OF that country il not in u.s. that Il resides
somewhere there, and is entitled to control the domestic
Affairs OF that country, without supervision nterfe
ence on part There is supreme power there, il
control it. Every existing government is supposed
TO Be the creation Of the sovereign power in the State until
il 10 overhrown, and foreign nations respect as
the representative OF that sovereignty long II is
clothed with its powers say then, Mr. President that
this resolution the right 10 interfere in the do
mssic Affairs OF other nations, and in doing makes
pretenson neither consistent with the laws OF nations
nor consonant with our own views oil the rights Of man
will dispose OF the latter branch OF the proposition FIRST
because Il may be done most briefly IL not this assump
ton OF control In the affairs Of Hungary claim "pro
tantc" Of the right OF government herei see dis
tincion between the two and. II 90, claiming TO
govern those who did not delegate TO us that right /
thought that il was cardinal maxim with US, the
fundamental principle OF institutions, that had
the right Of self government And yet claim the right to
iaterere IN the domestic Affairs Of people who gave
authority 10 represent them and Of whose language, wish
e. and necesses we are ignorant Do such petensons
thess square with our notions Of republican principle
think not, and yet in effort TO show sympathy for
human rghts called upon to act a. to negative
The most precious Of all social rghsthe right OF man
10 self government But, Mr. President this claim of
inssrventon is opposed to the law OF natons and this
resolution renounces all that has been gained in the
oraon OF that code for the protection OF the right OF
self government by the friends Of human liberty in the
course Of the present century As the Law OF nations Is
now expoundsd no nation is allowed the right Of inter-
fersnce In the domestic affairs OF another, except when il
becomes necessary 10 do for its peace and safety
Or in other words in self-defence Does proposed