The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-02

Tia Ae~itnSr puhtshes to-day - extrAcs nsm
the TsHss, n which the following passage occurs
trasrdinsry measure, but which win Be fully justified
whom all the facts that have Provoeed y are Known
II has refused TO Mr. soais, nniste, Of the United
tory We are informed that Mr.. soule, on his return
70 London, sxprsssed himself in very violent terms,
@ hahn; % a e ..saa II
American Ministers ct Paris and London, regard ~
rational and Peltic. ssr the ss1ns offered 70 Mr.
nded interests important ~ those Of the United
states should display 90 much a~soxr propre in such
70 which Mr. Soule may be exposed. he has largely
ered them by his conduct since he has set foot
IN rsns: =: can q onsr claim Tor am:s the
his diptsnate character sv5asntly exists esy in the
country v which - = ssersditsd-
We have - expAnaai1 - Or q - ~ par
sus sss sss,S :, ~ .A3sa a:'s - = -
70 which II has I'D; but there II point u inter.
national right which it may be important 70 recall
70 the public attention, such - No find i estab-
n n y international law. and By ali the precs-
Ine question, ~ Il appears 70 be now put, II
whether ssevereigD he's right = refuse passage
through HE States TO ono Il his old Mbjects, natu
power n diplomatic agent to third court
We are bound without hsgita1lon 10 give an AMIR
native an wer 70 this question.
MS principle sdopted By al nations that
dor whose presence in his States would bs An Of
fence 70 him. Stu less Il he bound to accord en-
trance to his territory to foreign minister who II
not accredited to him. but who y sent to another
power. ~
We say, then, that . sovereign may refuse to 90.
cept - Ambassador . person whom II does not
please him TO receive 10 his States. In fact, every
sovereign Il independent Vis Of foreign powers.
II he enteTtans diplomatic relations with these
powers Il y simply because Il suits him 70 do 70 II
be consents to receive ct his court the ministers of
those powers, and he guarantees 70 those minis
tsrs certain imnunities, which assure their liberty
and their Independence il ia st1 merely the result
Of his good pleasure. He can, therefore, declare
to nation, which desires to accredft to him
. minkter who may be dispaeasiDg TO him,
viii not recognise In his case the usual diplomatic
immunitiee and privileges. This right Of sovereigps
has existed nom time immem0ria. Grotius, who
proves It, existence, etes IN example which he
has borrowed from antiquity. He mentions that
Lysimachus, King Of Thrsos, refused to receive -
ambassador Theodore Atheos, who was sent to him
by Potency, King Of Egypt, and that this refusal
was not directed either against the King Of Egypt
Athees, but against the ambassador himself person
ally. GrOtius says, In reference TO this, that inter
national law does mot compel sovereign to receive
Unfortunately a. ambassador all those who are
sent to him; but that the sole obligation which, In
this matter, is imposed BY international law on .
sovereign IT, that be shall not refuse without serious
motives to receive foreign minister. Tho opinion
that G.STs based y n from
lions drawn from modern history. Thus, in 1853,
the 6wedish government refused to receive at
stockholm Mr.. Goodrich, Envoy nom his Britannia
Of ssrdn. ' ssu.sS 70 receive h States NJ g
Semonville, the French Ambassador; In 1902 the
Austrian government would not accept, - am
61sador nom Sweden, the Conte DARN
sal was not founded on the motive that
the sovereign to whom the minister was sent was
unwilling 70 keep up diplomat, relations with tho
power that sent him: was addressed 10 the per-
fofe lesitimatized q they were BY the exercise Of
On incontestih,e right, gave rise 70 no diplomatic
differences and Il, in 1902, Austria, after first re
fusal, consented to receive the Swedish envoy Il
friendly perauasione.
II thsfe b case in which sovereign can legit-
ma!ely refuse TO receive person whom he does mot
wish TO sec tn his States, i b certainly when that
bis primitive nationality 70 get himself naturslized
In foreign country. The AMBASSADOR represents
the sovereign Of whom he y the envoy. Now, it
S e SonsSss q %
tive OF foreign power, and will not, therefore
treat with him ON an equal footing, II We may usa
The term This Diff ulty has been toreseen and dis
national law-Bynsker0ek. He suggests the ques-
tion .. to what sovereign II bound to do to whom
foreign nation sends - Ambassador one Of his
former subjects, who had lett Ids States for political
reasons and hs replies to Il In this way -
The sovereign should forbid the crossing Of hsfron-
tiers by the envoy and II BY chance tho latter should
have already traversed Them he should make him re-
trace Ills steps as speedily as possible.
This has always been the practice in the jurispru-
dence Of nations, and what proves the existence of
this rule Of international law are the exceptions
which have been made to them BY virtue Of special
aIthorizssicns By xay Of Illustration. We WIN cite
sons oemposng the suite Of IN ambassador, partci.
pate In the diplomatic immunities which protect
the minister 10 whom they are attached. In 1897,
the English Ambassador Ia France desired 70 have
about him certain French refugees who had fed to
England from religious reasons after the revocsion
Of the Edct Of Nantg, and who had become natural.
lied In that country BE asked for special autho-
dispsnssb!e, for "a Bynskersoek remarks, without
this authorization, the King Of Franse might have
regarded them In the light Of refugees returning to
his States. To this example cited BY the Dutch su
for instance, o. the cases Of n. Pozzo di Borgo,
French subject by origin, who was admitted into
France - an ambassador from Russia, and tho
Comte de Bray, who was received - envoy
the French government did net feel itself
called upon t. exercise the right that Il possessed
70 refuse these ministers - the representatives Of
the States that sent them; but thess were cases Of
and which did NOT engage the liberty Of the French
government ~ regards the future; for nothing has
indicated, at any epoch, on the part Of France the
intention Of renonncing the ancient French doc.
tine which, according TO vattel and n. de CAL
keres, ID that "the King win not receive his sub
jecas In the quality Of ministers from other princes"
Moreover, other powers have laid down the same
principle. Thus, for instance, the Germanic Diet
has declared Ghat no native citizen Of Frankfort
shall be admitted into IL ~ representative Of any
other State than the free city of Frankfort.
It is therefore point admitted without CONTRA
dietion between the different governments, that q
sovereign may refuse - ambassador from foreign
nation every one with respect to whom his refusal
is based on sezious motives; and It is another I'm.
disputed point, that the quality OF former subject
Of the sovereign to whom the ambassador ia sent is
serious metive Of REFUSAL II Is therefore evident
that the French government might refuse to eceiye
rs accredited TO It the minister who has given rise
to this discussion, and that this refusal. derived
from an incontestible right. would have altsred in
n0bI the diplomatic relations Of the two countries
There now remains the more special que siou
raiaod hu iha 2simaa "a ,uhoA,or snunraaer. hoa