Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-11-17


don to Madrid, has elected much comment.
A portion Of the press seems predisposed to
the belief that Mr.. Soule has been guilty of
some glaring imprudence which justifes the
conduct of the French Government whilst an
other portion of the press manifests DISPOSE
ton to see, in that conduct, nothing but DELHI
crate insult to the United States which ought
to be promptly resented if it be not promptly
atoned for.
We are always unwilling to believe that an
American minister has acted improperly. Our
prejudices are always strongly enlisted in favor
Of our representatives abroad whenever they
are involved in a misunderstanding with q
foreign government. Further than that, we
do not sympathize either with those who would
excuse the French Government, or with those
who see in the stoppage Of Mr.. Soule, nothing
but. deliberate insult to the nation. All the
B facts have not yet transpired. Mr.. Soule has
not yet made his statement. The French Gov
eminent has not been heard, and the case is
not yet fairly and fully before the country, and
q satisfactory opinion as to its merits cannot
be formed.
We'must be permitted, however, to express
Jour regret on perceiving that portion of the
| American press seem disposed to follow the
lead of the London Times in discussing the
principles of national law, which are involved
in the refusal to permit Mr.. Soule to pass
through France. 1t was held, in former times,
that an ambassador was not entitled to more
privileges than private citizen, except in the
territories of the government to which he was
accredited. This Anticipated principle has been
long since exploded and abandoned, and the
doctrine is now firmly established, that the Off
cial character of an ambassador must be re-
spected, not only in the country to which hers
accredited, but in those countries through
which he may travel in going to or returning
from his post Of duty. Such is the law of ma
tons, recognized at the present day; and there
fore the London Times is entirely mistaken
when it advances the idea that Mr.. Soule is
nothing but private individual, so far as the
French Government is concerned, and therefore
the affront offered to him was entirely personal
and not matter in which the honor of our
government was in any manner implicated.
Mr.. Soule was an American ambassador;
and under the laws of nations he was entitled
to the privileges of an ambassador whilst in
France; and amongst those privileges, was the
right to pass through France on his way to
Madrid. That privilege did not partake of the
character of an absolute vested right, to be en-
joyed at all times and under all circumstances.
1t could be forfeited by offensive conduct as an
individual, but not as an ambassador, because
Mr.. Soule could not exercise any of the func-
tons of an ambassador in France without a
special authority from our government 1t is
clear then, that if Mr.. Soule's conduct furnished
Louis Napoleon with sufficient reason to deny
him passage through France, that reason
must have been furnished by him as an indi-
ridual, and not in his character Of a public
officer. But that does not alter, in any man
ner, the attitude Of the Government of the Uni
ted States or its connection with the stoppage.
No matter what imprudence Mr.. Soule may
have committed--no matter what offence he
may have given to the French Emperor-he
was an ambassador Of the United States, and
as such, he, was entitled by the principles Of
international comfy to passage through
France, and 10 the consideration due to his
official character, unless he had forfeited his
privileges by improper conduct. 1t is, there
fore, the duty Of the United States to demand
an explanation of the French Government, and
to take such action as that explanation may
render necessary.
The effort Of the London Times to separate
Pierre Soule the man from Pierre Soule the
minister is intended only 10 complcate a
plain question by exploded distinctions. The
duty Of the United States is the same, no
matter whether it was the man or the minister,
whose journey was arrested by Louis Ma.
poleon's edict The distinction between the
man and the minister, can only be made by
the French government When comes TO er-
plain the reasons Of its apparent breach 81
comfy. When that point shall be arrived at,
France may make the distinction, by saying
that Mr. Soule was forbidden to enter France,
because he had been guilty Of certain special
offences against the French Government, and
that q passage through France was not de-
MED to him, because he represented the United
States. In that event, it would become the
duty of the United States to consider the ma
ture of the offences charged against Mr.. Soule
and the proofs urged to support them, in order
TO form an opinion as to its duty TO sustain IL
minister. If France gives good and sufdcien
reasons to justify the cosrse IL has pursued
then we have no right to complain but ]
such reasons are not given, we must take tn
position that France has deliberately violated
the usages Of international courtesy and comfy
and retaliate in the manner prescribed by tn
law of nations and by proper regard for ou
own honor