Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1854-11-24
IndIgnity to MIR. SOule.

for then they might he content to support the laws
and constitution.
IndIgmity to MIR. SouIe.
The story of the expulsion of Mr.. Soule from the
soil of France SO improbable, that we regarded
1t at fist as fabrication for political effect but sub
sequent intelligence of authentic character con-
firms the rumor of the indignity to our ambassador
and our country: In the Enquirer OF yesterday the
circumstances of the affair were narrated in detail
The London Times essays to justify the outrage
upon Mr.. Soule in an article which we transfer to
our own columns but it exhibits feebleness and
clumsIness in playing the apologst of Louis Napo-
leon, which contrasts strikingly with the power and
effect with which it was wont 10 denounce him to
Chrstendom as perjured usuper and hlood-thirsty
despot. The assumption that no distinction or security
attaches to the person Of ambassador above that
which any individual may claim, betrays a singular
ignorance or contempt of the usages of nations No
principle OF public law is better established or more
clearly defined than that which Vattel enuncates in
this proposition " 1t is true that the Sovereign 10
whom an Ambassador is sent is more especially bound
to cause to be respected the rights attached to that
character but he is not the less entitled to be treated
IN the territory OF third power, with the respect due
to the envoy of a friendly Sovereign. He is, above
all, entitled to enjoy complete personal security to
nJure and insult him would be to iniure and insult
his Sovereign and entire nation to arrest him or COM
nit any other act OF violence against his person. would
be to Infringe the rights of Legation which belong
to every Sovereign ITO the same effect Mr. Whea.
ton atirms in his admirable treatise on the Law of
Nations, that I" the involabty of public minister
IN this case, depends upon the same principle with
that OF his sovereign coming into the territory of
friendly state by permission, express implied of the
local government. Both are equally entitled to
the protection of that government against every act
OF violence and every species of restraint inconsistent
with their sacred character The distinction, there
lore between the personal and official character of
public minister, by which the Times attempts to ex-
cuse the lndgnity to Mr. Soue, and TO degrade to
the level OF trivial and unimportant incident is a.
galnst reason and against authority. The insult to
our ambassador is an insult to our government and
to our sovereign, the people, and must be expatiated
by some adequate atonement. We cannot dispute the
right OF Louis Napoleon 10 expe Mr.. Soule from his
domlnlons or even to put him to DEATH but it is right
TOR which he Is amenable to the laws of nations and
responsible to this government In the pages of
french history we may find illustration Of this
principle. Francis |. went to war with Charles V
to avenge the death of the French ambassadors who
were murdered in the dominions of the Emperor
The arrest and expulsion of Mr.. Soue from the
French territory is affront for which this govern
ment must exact adequate reparaton, or nfict ap-
proprlae punishment. The London Times intimates
that Louis Napoleon will decline to render any apollo
gy or satisfaction for his conduct then this govern
ment wall have no alternative but to discontinue di
plOmatic relations with the French court Indeed if
is probable that Mr. Mason who resented the insult
TO his country with admirable spirit and energy will
quit France OF his own impulse, in the event of re-
tusal by the Emperor to render satisfactory apology
BY such conduct he would but anticipate the nstruc
! tlons of his government and express the profound
indignation of the American people.
| In view of this contingency the probable conduct
! OF the French Emperor becomes matter of anxious
speculation, but in the absence of any information
respecting the motive which prompted the outrage
upon Mr. Soule, it is impossible to affirm with any
confidence, either that the French governor will
grant refuse a satisfactory explanation Some
persons suspect that Louis Napoleon was acuated by
an impulse of personal resentment in infcting an
indignity upon the man who chastised the insoence
of his arstocratc brother in-law and his mertinent
ambassador. Others allege that Mr.. Soue was drv-
en- from France in consequence of his complicitv
with the enemies of Louis Napoleon's government
an imputation which Minister Indignantly re-
peIs If either OF these motives prompted the insult
to Mr. Soule, the French ruler will readily dsclaim
! any discourtesy TO the American government But
#, as persons maintain, the expulsion of Mr.
SOule from France designed as deliberate in
suit to this government, the London Times is doubt.
less correct in the opinion that Louis Nopoleon will
refuse to render any apology for his donduct 1t
may lie within the scope of policy, projected bv the
Anglo Gallo alliance that the pride of this country
is 10 be abated and its power restrcted--a coniec-
ture to which support is given by the unfrendIy tone
of the French and British press and the concentra-
ton coast of large detachment from the Baltic
squadron 1t such be the purpose Of the Allies it is
very probable that the insult to Mr.. Soue was meant
as defiance to this county, and that the iustfca-
ton of the outrage by the British press is an ndi.
cation of the concurrence ofthe British government
The public journals. with scarcely an exception,
regard the insult to Mr. Soule affront 10 the
country and even the timid and conservative are
clamorous for the reparation. Without displaying
either unnecessary violence nexcusabIe hesitation
the Government will doubtless demand and enforce
} an explanation which shall satisfy our honor. The
past juslifes confidence in the frmness and dis
, creton of the Administration
The second sale If pa risian 1narhla stafnns Q,n