The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-24


and that he afterwards renewed his protest before
the IT, s. Dist riot Court informing it that ne based
his right TO attend or to abstain from attending as
4 witness on the second articles OF the convention
N the 23d February which distinctly declares that
Consufs Of France shall in no case De compened 10
attend witnesses in the United States, as also on
the third article Of the said convention, wnch pro-
claims the inyioability of the Consular residences
and forbids the court authorities to invade them or
to seige or examine the papers therein contained
under any pretext Whatever
The undersigned further represents that the said
Honorable, the District Court aforesaid, which had
admitted these motives for nonattendance, when
first submitted to be sufficient, and which, on more
ample consideration rejected the same as insult
Gent did ultimately, but not before violence had
been done to the person Of the undersigned, con-
trary TO the law of nations, and the solemnly
plighted faith of the American government, return,
by third and still more matured opinion to its first
decision. merely proclaiming that the undersigned
justified in his declining to attend, also in
bis declining to produce the papers called for, and
which formed part of the archives of the said Con-
suate Of France.
The undersigned had supposed that this final and
more matured decision of the Hon. o. S. District
Court aforesaid would have set the matter at rest
% far as he was concerned, and that he would be
allowed, thenceforward, to attend to his consular
duties without further annoyance or interruption;
his surprise has therefore been great to learn that
bench warrant had been issued under date the 10th
of the present month Of May, in consequence of an
Indictment Of the Grand Jury, for his arrest to
swey to the charge Of having committed violation
It the Act Of Neutrality Of the goth April, 1878,
proceeding which has been followed up by his actual
rrest on the 10th of said month.
In reference to this new feature OF the prosecution
10 which he is now subjected, the undersigned SUBJ
mis the following remarks, which will serve to ex-
plain why he should protest, as ne does now pro-
est against the whole proceeding, both before the
Grand Jury and the honorable District Court in this
seC0nj stage of the affair."
First Tie undersigned respectfully submits that the
proceedings before the Grand Jury vitatei and
nu1e3 b. the fact of there having been, among the
members of the said Grand Jury, more persons
States w the Consul Of Mexico and who entered upon
their second task with opinions already formed against
ths undersigned which opinions the undersigned is
prepared to show they had previously expressed
against him on the question now at ISSUE second
y, the data submitted to the Grand Jury consisted
~ Of newspaper articles and of letters published in
newspapers which articles and letters not cannot
United States unless they part testimony
OF their authors which they did not in this instance the
having only learned the decision Zee. o. the
were al ended and the grave injury done him. by the
United States District Court of issuing presumption
nd uncontradiced as undscussed testimony warrant
secondly The second article of the convention of the
trance ana the United States shall enjoy respectively
privileges usually accorded to their Offices, such
whca word Is understood what is NAHUM in se' and
agaDat the laws of civilized nations, such as murder
rape etc and not the mere violation of municipal
guaon of act of Congress- that may forbid in
the present instance thing Indifferent in ITSELF
eAeoty the offence imputed to the undersigned, even
had no committed IT, which he did not belongs to that
sass municipal local one which the trainers of the
second article Of the convention Of the 23d February had
in view when they guaranteed to their respective Con-
Khiriy Tie procuring to enlist ande even the ensting
parties to go and serve in the army of the Mexican re
and with It's neighbors-supposing such acts to have
been committed by the undersigned which he formally
deniesis practced in all civilized countries, and in
continuously than in the United States which
have not ceased to enlist officers in France from the time
OF the Marquis de Lafayette who enlisted at Paris
the 7ta Of december i778 by the Commissioner Of the
United States Silas Deane, to fight the battles Of the
American revolution, down to General Bernard who was
enlisted n the country of France to direct and
coast OF the United States.
April, 1918 Is neutrality law the sole object Of which
IS to prevent the government people of the United
states from getting Angled in the disputes Of nation
beng - actual war with neighb oring nation, with
some OF 80 own provinces the with Spain
whea the aforeme ntioned act passedthat country
being thcn at with the recently revoted States Of
period and Of the proceedings in the United States Con
ss snow that the introducing and passing Of the said
neutrality act originated in aremonstrance of Mr. Luis
de 0uis Minister Of Span bearing date the oath Janu
arg, 1918. the occasion of certain parties having
laien o-cbe possession of the Island of Amelia the
coast OF florida. The neutrality laws never meant
alen having military in ,linations to exercise them in
what be deems the most profitable feld-a right he en-
Joys under the constitution and laws of the United States
provided he does not compromise the neutrality Of the
United States by minglng himself up in conflicts then
pending abroad We're this not true the American mer
chant who sells in time of peace to foreign government
munitions of war; steamers destined for
ike purposes would while he quietly pursues the pur
poses OF commerce violate unconsciousy, the neutral
ty act OF toe Goth April, 1916
Ffthiy Because the bench warrant issued on the 9th
May b. ae United States District Court for Upper Cali
forn consequence of the bill of indictment brought
IN by the Grand Jury states that the undersigned had
not yet appeared or pleaded whereas the undersigned
could not have appeared pleaded he having been
invited summoned do either notified that any
proceedings we're pending against him course which,
been extended him. through the natural courtesy due
TO his OF cia position should condemn said Indictment in
the mind Of this honorable Court as improper in ITSELF
ana invsd from its being in contradiction with the said
cood article of the Convention OF the 2d of February
which guarantees personal immunity to consus in
cases Of actual commission of crime.
Sxthly, Because attempts have been made and are
beng made, by certain influential federal officers to
make appear that the honor of the American people is
interested IN the undersigned being compelled to do
what he "a exempted from doing by treaty, namey-to
appear "a witness before American courts of law to
De arraigned under some FORM before the said court
The constitution and laws of the United States,
wisely foreseeing such cases, have made special
provisions therefor, in removing beyond the reach
Of these local influences all cases likely to be
affected thereby, wherein ambassadors other public
ministers and cOnsuls are concerned. CONSTITUTION
OF the United States, article 3, sec. 81 The under
signed VINO shrinks from no inquiry, however full
and competent, submits these facts and reasons to
the honorable United States District Court, while
lac protests anew against the issuing Of its warrant
Of the 10th inst. as irregular in itself and in oppo
stlon to existing treaties and especially the con-
veniion OF the 23d Of February, which is part of
tue Law o. the land. The undersigned AYERS that
this protest proceeding is but continuation of
those previous measures which led to the arrest of
the undersigned under circumstances admitted by
lbe Court itself TO be unlawful end insufficient.
Acting Consul for II. NJ. the King of Sardinia,
tnd for u. NJ the Emperor Of the French. DIrLoS
THE FINALE OF THE CASE.
On She 10Th May the following order was made
In Tho United Sfates District Court.--
NE raijd States rs. P1tyIoe Dillon (tbe French
satiadctsd for violation of the neutrality law of
1873 his former trial for which resulted in disagree
meat o. tas jury On motion of the United States Dis
tr.es htto nev MOLE prosequ entered in this
Tx FhAtE OF TIE CASE AGAINST THE MEXICAN
CONSUL.
. On the same day the following order was made in
tnls CASE
1he Craed States ~ Luis del Yale, (the Mexican con-
snCon7icte OF violation Of the neutrality law of
1878 On motion Of the United States District Aitorney
sentence IN this case suspended, the defendant
vas ordered to be discharged This is virtually termi
az az