The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-26
The French Consul's Case AZ San Francisco-
Trouble on the Pacific Coast.


The French ConsuIs Case at San Francisco
Trouble the Pacific Coast.
The late arrivals from California bring rs ex-
citing pol teal new. The HERALD readers
have already been Informed tina. the Mexican
Consul, acting under secret instructions from |
his government, proceeded to enlist men for |
service in Sonora, upon border forays. For
this misdemcanor he was arrested, tried and
convicted in the United States District Court,
then sitting in San francisco. The prosecution
invited the French Consul, NJ. Dillon, (the
same gentleman who created a disturbance in
the Sandwich Islands some time since,) to tes-
tify as to his knowledge of the action Of the
Mexican Consul. The French Consul did not
appear, and q second invitation was sent to
him, with like result. The United States
Marshal then proceeded to the consular resi-
dence, and arrested NJ. Dillon. The Consul
stated that he would 60 by another street, and
meet the Marshal at the court room The
Marshal refused to allow him this privilege,
and said that he intended to take him to the
court room q dead or alive" M. Dillon ac-
companied the Marshal alive, and, returning
from the court, he struck his flag, declining to
act again as Consul for France until he re-
ceived instructions from the Emperor. N.
Dillon being Sandman Consul, transfer
red the powers Of the French consul
ate to himself, and now uses the consul
late seal of Sardinia in transacting business
which properly belongs to the French Consul.
He was arrested on the ground that every ac-
cused person has right to compel the attend
ance Of such witnesses as he may deem impor-
tant to his case; and as after the first in
vitation to M. Dillon the prosecution aban-
,doned the matter, the defence took it up,
and made affidavit that M. Dillon's evidence
was important, the federal authorities had a
right to compel NJ. Dillon to testify, or at least
to use force to ensure his attendance M.
Dillon, however, holds that under existing
treaties between France and the United States,
his attendance could not be compelled, and
that the federal authorities had only power to
invite it. In this position he is maintained by
the treaty referred to; the legal authorities have
violated the treaty, and it will be the duty of
our government to apologize for this violation
M. Dillon is right legally, but wrong moral
ly. The circumstantial evidence against him
is very strong, and we have no doubt that he
was cognizant of the attempt by the Mexican
Consul to enlist the three thousand men for
border forays in Sonora. The private instruc-
tions to the Mexican Consul instruct him to
enlist for this service Frenchmen and Germans,
not Americans. The Mexican Consul did enlist
Frenchmen and Germans-the Frenchmen and
Germans would have proceeded to Sonora had
not the ship Challenge been prevented from
sailing by the Custom House officers, on the
ground that she had infringed our law by car
rying greater number Of passengers than her
tonnage allows. Now, taking into considera-
ton the piratical expedition Of the Count
Raousset de Boulbon and other French move
ments on the Pacific, is it any longer matter
of doubt that M. Dillon was fully informed of
all these facts, as above stated, and that he was
really particeps eriminis with the Mexican
Consul in the enlistment Of troops for Sonora?
NJ. Dillon refused to testify in the matter.
That is another strong point against him. He
was the representative of o nation with which
we have the most friendly relations. He was
invited to testify in matter where the United
States was party concerned, and it was his
dntv-a drtv which he owed both to France
and the United States-to comply with the re- !
quest thus courteously made. His refusal. I'M
der the circumstances goes to prove that he
superintended or was cognizant of the enlist
raent OF the three thousand Frenchmen and
Germans, as q guard to his Serene Highness
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. By this act
ne made himself an accomplice in secret con-
spiracy against the laws of the United States
The people have, then, right to demand that
Marcy, while he tenders an apology for the
violation of the treaty between the United
States and France, shall also demand from the
French government an explanation of the con-
duct of their representative at San Francisco.
M. billions erequatar should also be with |
drawn, and if the French flag is again raised |
in San Francisco, it should not be allowed to |
float over bis residence.
The events of the last two years 60 to show |
that the French nation desires to obtain q foot |
ing upon the Pacific coast, and that Louis Ma |
poleon watches with jealous eye the growth |
and prosperity of the American possessions on |
that coast. Among the various instances of |
depreciation committed under the shadow of |
the French flag, we may mention the seizure Of |
the island of New Caledonia, in the South Pacific |
ocean; and the strong naval force which the
French government maintains in those waters
is strong argument to prove that that nation
is ready at any time to make the most Of any |
political disturbances which may break out in
any of the States.
In view Of all these facts, it becomes the |
duty of Marcy, if he has settled all the vexed
questions appertainng to breeches and decided |
upon the proper coats for all our representa-
tves abroad, to call upon the French Minister
for some definite information as to the policy
Of his government relative to the various ques-
tions which have arisen out of the unexampled |
growth and prosperity of our possessions on