Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-02-06

found in the fidelity OF tho minister to his trust he
NAV urge with perseverance a claim OF his own Gov
eminent which is dsagreeable to the Government to
which he is accredited But be this it may these III
stances do not affect the right of embassy, which belongs
to every sovereign State whilst at peace. 10 deny TINS
right is an insult the Government thus aggrieved and
violation OF the law OF nations Vattei says, b. T.
"a sovereign attempting to hinder another from send
ing and receiving public ministers, does him an injury,
and offends against the law of nations. 1t is attacking
nation in one of its most valuable rights, and opposing
what nature herself gives to every independent society
is breaking the BONDS by which nations are uhiieo,
and offending them all
WIN sir this denial of right of embassy to us by the
French Government was once a cause OF grave COM
plant on our part The preamble OF the act OF Con-
gress which, 1898 abrogated the treaties between us
and France recited the dismissal OF minister as one
OF the causes of grievance which justified the course OF
the United States tna oeG we
war" Why sir, as said before, to deny the night OF
embassy shut hedoor OF peace; and trust we shall
not setting such tins s age 81 boast
viewed in connexion with all its attendant circumstances
think might venture to challenge the production OF
precedent which shall sanction it.
There is however, another, and IN my view, st4,
more fatal objection to the proposition before 1t
sumes the right of government to interfere in the
domestic affairs Of another-a right which would be
dangerous in the last degree, to the peace and liberties
of mankind Ii this resolution have any meaning at all
it must be intended rebuke to Austria Tor her con-
duct not towards but towards her own subjects The
whole proceeding would be utterly without meaning, it
it had not been based upon the avowed grounds OF In
dgnaton and adherence at the course OF the Austrian
Government towards the Hungarians, towards its own
subjects Upon such grounds as these, this measure
would be fragrant and direct insult to the Austrian
Government An insult is injury, and injury often
of the deepest kind National honor is national pro-
perry of the highest value The sentiment in the mind
OF every citizen is national strength Ii ought there,
address. Now, if we have right to punish Austria
for her conduct towards the Hungarans in this mode,
why not in any oher2 If the right to punish for such
offence exits at ALL it must exist to such an extent as
may be necessary to afford remedy for the evil. II
we have the right to punish them by insults, why not
by blows? No man can show any distinction IN
principle between the two pretensions. Ii the right ex-
lists at ALL it exists to whatever extent may be necessary
to make it efectual. Now this claim to punish TO-
reign government for its conduct towards its own sub
ects the right to supervise and control their
management OF their domestic affairs Can any pre-
tension be conceived which is more arrogant and in
sutng? 1t is virtual denial Of the sovereignty of the
foreign State upon whlchwe are acting For, II soye-
reign at all, the government-no, the peope-accordDR
to notions, constitute the supreme authority in the
land, and they would not be supreme in authority
another nation could control them.
Mr. fOoTE, | do not wish to interrupt my friend at
ALL but am sure he will be misunderstood in manner
dsagreeabe to himself. His present words would lead
us to underestimate do not believe he to be
derstood-that is his opinion that the Government OF
Austria is legmately supreme in hungary which will
certainly deny, and attempt to prove ii the honorable
Senator persists.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman had attended to what
said he would have perceived that modified the pro-
position so as adapt the proposition to particular
views. But it matters not to this argument in what
part of that body polite the sovereignty resides 1t is
sufficient for that the sovereignty OF that country
not in u.s. that resides somewhere there and sentited
to control the domestic affairs OF that country without
supervision interference on our part There is no
supreme power there, il we can control It, Every exist
ing Government is supposed to be the creation OF the
sovereign power in the State unit is overthrown, and
foreign nations must respect as the representative OF
that sovereignty so long as il is clothed with its powers
saw them Mr.. President that this resolution assumes
the right interfere in the domestic affairs of other
tions and in doing makes petenson neither con-
sisten with the laws OF nations nor consonant with
views OF the rights OF man.
will dispose of the latter branch OF the proposition
first because it may be done briefly. Is this
assumption OF control in the affairs of Hungary claim
"pro tanto' OF the right OF Government there2 see
distinction between the two and So we are claim
ing to govern those who did not delegate to that
right thought that it cardinal maxim with us,
the fundamental principle OF our institutions, that men
had the right OF self-goyernment And yet we claim
the right interfere in the domestic affairs of people
who gave authority to represent them, and OF
whose language, wishes and necessities ale gno
rant. Do such pretensions as these square with our
notions of republican principle! | think not sir; and
yet, in effort to show sympathy for human rights,
we are called upon to act negative the pre-
cious OF all social rightsthe right OF man to selfgo
vernment But, Mr. President, this claim of interview
ton is opposed to the law Of nations; and this resolution
renounces all that has been gained in the ameoration
of that code for the protection OF the right of sefgo
vernmen by the friends OF human liberty in the course
of the present century. As the law of nations now
expounded no nation is allowed the right of interior
ence in the domestic affairs of another except when
becomes necessary to do so for its peace and safety
or in other words, in seltdeence Does our proposed
interference in this within the exception which
have just stated9 No man can say that it does.
Mr.. President, will venture the assertion that since
the treaty OF Westphaa no such broad pretenson has
been made to the right of Intervention by any civilized
nation which has led such dis
couraged the repetition OF such acts which has
been opposed by some one OF the firs-rae Powers Of
Europe violation OF the law oil nations. | say
since the peace of Westphaa, because that war
of religion, civil in the great Christian republic be-
tween Catholic and Protestant who fought whenever
and wherever they met each other, without reference
to distinctions of territorial boundary or Of race
Since that time there have been OF intervention
know; but they were followed by the consequences
which have stated. shall have cited to me, per-
haps, the interference OF other European Powers with
revolutionary France. But were the consequences such
to encourage the repetition of the experiment? Why,
sir France launched herself like fire ship amidst the
nations OF the earth and kept all Europe in uproar and
conAagraton for nearly the third of century. The
consequences of this intervention such as to teach
Europe lesson this subject which has remembered
and respected There have been two popular revolu-
tons in France since that period; but other Govern
ments have inierered, although they probably would
have been glad to have done So had they not remem-
bered the past,
France herself, sir, hasno forgotten the lesson; for
the affairs of neghboring Governments even in her
first outbre ak of republican zeal. The exception sbe
made to the rule was, that she would interfere in favor
Unpopular rights if other nations nterposed against
them Indeed scarcely case can be cited in which the
Powers interfering did not JUS y the act by assigning
some other reason for than that Of the right inter-
pose In the case OF Greece they justified themselves
under the necesstypretended or realofkceping open
the Levant for their commerce And so in relation to
the nterposition between Turkey and Egypt by certain
great powers OF Europe. They pretended as iusti-
caton that they nteered to preserve the balance of
power in Europe which concerned in this question
Whether these pretences true false the neces-
stY for making them was tacit homage to the great
principle OF intervention 1t true that the holy
al lance did make at one time extensive preten-
sons on hshead than were recognised as Just either
then now These pretensions alarmed the friends Of
human liberty all over the world, and created great
anxiety here. This was one of the causes which
led to Mr.. Monroes celebrated declaration, to which |
shall presently refer more particularly Great Britain
too, protested against these claims, which viewed
of other Powers in he affairs of Nanas DC