Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-11-25

| tive any authority or control over the Judiciary
which acts for the protection of private rights in it
own appropriate sphere, wholly irrespective of tn
| Government If there was any wrong in tn,
matter, it was merely an error of judgment Of thu
Judge in favor of another foreign Consul on tria
before him and surely of all possible errors that i
the most yena and one of all others to be regarded
leniently BY any foreign Government. But the
wrong, whether grave or light, was not wrong
perpetrated by the Government of the United
States
Moreover, it is nice question to determine
whether the Court erred as NIr. Dillon insists, in
first requiring his attendance or did not rather err
as Mr.. Del Vale eontended, in the second conclu.
sion, which produced the discharge Of Mr.. Dillon
The exemption set up by the latter was under a
treaty negotiated by Mr.. Everett on the 23d OF
February, 1862 which contains the following
clause
They French Consus) shall be compelled to
appear witnesses before the Courts When any deca
ration for judicial purposes deposition is be re-
ceived from them in the administration Of justice they
shall be invited in writing appear Court, and II
able to do SO, their testimony shall be requested in
writing or be taken orally at their dwellings"
But the Constitution of the United States pro-
yides that
In all criminal prosecutions the accused Shall enjoy
the right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shah
have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertaned by law aud to be informed of the
nature and Of the accusation: to be confronted
with the witnesses against him have pulsory pro-
fer obtaining witnesses in his favor and have the
assistance of counsel for his defence"
In view of this provision Of the Constitution, Mr.
Del Vale's counsel argued that the clause Of the
treaty must be construed with exception of the par
cular case of the constitutional right of an accused
party de handing the personal attendance of q
French Consul and there is much plausibility, to
say the least in this view of the case. But the
Court, reflection, decided otherwise, and there
fore discharged Mr.. Dillon.
Now, when Mr.. Dillon proceeded to haul down
his flag, and thus to treat the momentary error Git
indeed it was an error) of most honorable and up
right Judge national affront it is impossible not
to suspect that he did so for the purpose Of covering
up his personal crminaity under an osentatiouz
parade of pretended national wrong done to his Gov
ernment; for Mr. Dillon was himself charged WITH
crime. To be sure, when he came afterwards to be
tried the jury did not agree, although majority
were for conviction and therefore the District At
torney entered ao2le prosequt in the case But if
he had been tried at later period after the pub
lie belief Of the criminal purpose Of Raousset de
Boulbon and his men had become knowledge by
reason of what had occurred at Graymas, he could
not have escaped conviction and he remains con-
victed by sound public opinion of guilt towards
Mexico, as well as guilt towards the United States
This impression is confirmed By another conside-
ration The condition Of the treaty is that French
Consuls, whose testimony is needed, shall be IN
vted in writing to appear IN court, and, una5e to
do 50, their deposition shall be requested in writing
Was Mr. Dillon unable to attend No; he was
aoilRng, not unable, and his refusal to attend was
based on mere pretext 1t was extreme courtesy
on the part Of the Judge to accept this excuse for
if disposed to push the rules Of legal practice 70
extremes, he might have insisted on considering and
determining tae question of inability himself, in
stead Of taking it the declaration of Mr.. Dillon
THERE'S one other relation of tie subject which
renders the conduct of Mr. Dillon in this whole
affair pc suliarly Objectionable TIE United States,
are continually accused, both at home and abroad,
Of want of viii or of strength to prevent or to
punish unlawful enterprises of our people against
friendly Governments. These impusations are quite
common in France. And yet here ewo foreign Con-
suls in San Francisco the hreneh and the Mexican,
detected in the violation of our neutrality Laws,
by participation IN the enlistment, within the Unit
ed States Of F-enchmen for the object, as the re-
suit proved, of Invading Sonora as fi5ustiers and
in the midst of cur well-naended and honest e1er-
tions to maintain our neutrality Laws in this emer-
gency, the French Consul aontrivss to cover up his
own delinqpencies under the smoke Of quarrel
which he gets un between his Government and chat
of the United Stafes.
Not only is the American Government drawn
against its viii into a controversy with that of
France By this snisconducs Of Mr Dillon, Dus not
with the Mexican Government also !;
fer, until the occurrence Of the difficulties raised BY
were able to convict the companions Of Walker.
But all is now changed in consequence Of the
emotion prodaeed by the tragisal fate Of the fi5us-
tier Raousset de Boulbon for Walker, on being
brought to trial. is acquitted and the strongest in,
dcatons exist at present that the many adventurers
in California viii now organize third and more
successful invasion of Sonora, in spite Of all the
counseractiag efforts Of the American Government