Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-11-22

InQIT1lLY- AmbaSSadOF
the Enquirer of yesteday the Circumstances of the al
fair were narrated in detail,
The London Times essays to justify the outrage
upon Mr.. Soae in article which we transfer to
our own columns but it exhibits a feeblenesS and
ciunlsiness in playing the apologist of Louis Napo-
leon, which contrasts strikingly with the power
and effect with which it was wont to denounce
him to Christendom purjured asurper and blood
thirsty despot The assumption that no distinction
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 estab-
lished OF clearly defnd than that which Vattel
enunciates in this proposition " 1t is true that the
Sovereign to whom an Ambassador is sent rs more
especially bound to to be respected the rights
attached that character but he is not the less en-
titled to be treated in the territory of third power
with the respect due to the envoy of friendly Sow
eign. He is above all, entitled to enjoy complete
personal security; to injure and insult him would
be to injure and insult his Sovereign and entire ma
ton to arrest him commit any other act OF Vlo-
lence against his person. would be to infringe the
rights of Legation which belong to every sovereign
To the same effect Mr.. Wheaton affirms in his adj
mrable treatise on the Law of Nations, that 1.-THE
nviolability Of public minister in this case de-
ponds upon the same principle with that of his SOW
eign coming into the territory of friendly state by
permission, express implied, OF the local govern
ment. Both are equally entitled to the protection
of that government against every act OF violence and
every species of restraint inconsistent with their sa
cred character" The distinction, therefore, between
the personal and official character of public minis
ter by which the Times attempts to excuse the ndig
nifty Mr.. Soule and to degrade it to the level of
trivial and unmportant incident, is against reason
and against authority. The insult to our ambassa-
dor, is insult to our government aud to our Sow
ereign, the people, and must be expiated by some
adequate atonement We cannot dispute the right
of Louis Napoleon to expel Mr. Soule from his do
minion even to put him to death; but 1t IS right
for the exercise of which he is amenable to the laws
of nations, and responsible to this government. In
the pages of French history we may find an illus
tration of this principle Francis l. went to
with Charles Y. to avenge the death of the French
ambassadors who were murdered in the dominion5
of the Emperor. The arrest and expulsion of Mr..
Soulc from the French territory is an atfront for
which this government must exact adequate repara-
ton, intiict appropriate punishment The Lon
don Times intilnates that Louis Napoleon will de-
cline to render any apology or satisfaction for his
conduct; then this government will have no alterna
tive but to discontinue diplomatic relations with the
French court Indeed it is probable that Mr. Mason,
who resented the insult to his country with admir-
able spirit and energy will quit France of his own
impulse in the event of refusal by the Emperor to
render a satisfactory apology. BY such conduct he
would but anticipate the instructions of his govern
ment, and express the profound indignation of the
American people.
In view of this contingency, the propable conduct
Of the French Emperor becomes matter of anxious
speculation, but in the absence of any informama-
ton respecting the motive which prompted the out
rage upon Mr. Soule, is impossible to affirm with
will grant refuse satisfactory explanation Some
persons suspect that Louis Napoleon actuated
by an impulse of personal resentment in intiicting
indignty upon the man who chastised the inso-
lencc OF his ariStocritic brother-n-aw and his I'M
pertinent ambassador Others allcge that Mr.. Soue
driven from France in consequence Of his COM
plicity with the enemies of Louis Napoleons govern
ment-an mputation which our Minister indignant
ly repels. If either of these motives prompted the
insult to Mr.. Soule the French ruler will readily dis
claim any discourtesy to the American government.
But if, persons maintain, the expulsion of
Mr. Soule from France designed deliberate
insult to this government, the London Times Is
doubtless correct in the opinion that Louis Napoleon
will refuse to render any apology for his conduct.
1t may lie within the scope of policy projected by
the Anglo-Gac alliance, that the pride of his coun-
try is to be abated, and its power restrcteda con-
lecture to which support is given by the unriendly
tone of the French and British press and the con-
centration coasts of large detachment from
the Baltic squadron. If such be the purpose of the
Allies, it is very probable that the insult to Mr. Sou
lie was meant defiance to this country, and that
the justification of the outrage by the British press
is indication of the concurrence of the British
government.
The public journals, with scarcely an exception,
regard the insult to Mr.. Soule atfront to the
country: and even the timid and conservative
clamorous for PREPARATION. Without displaying eth
unnecessary violence nexcusable hesitation, the
government will doubtless demand and enforce an
explanation which shall satisfy our honor. The past
ustifies our confidence in the firmness and discre-
ton of the Administration.
Richmond Enquirer.
To DEMOCRATS. The following remarks of the
Boston Post to the democracy of Massachusetts, are
equally applicable to the democracy of Michigan:
Now is the time for every democrat to stand by
his colors. Let him took back the grand old ro-
ganization of his party with pride in the past-with
confidence for the future. This party has never
been ashamed of its pInciples-never stood other
wise than squarey the constitution-never herd
ed as a national party with dangerous prescription
for creed race with the political free sellers
that would rcnd asunder that Union. 1t has stood
it is true, principe-as on the independent treas
ury principle-and been defeated, and then endured
the taunts of its enemies; but though the oupou ing
of calumny and misrepresentation drove the workmen
who framed this meaSure-the Woodburys, the Silas
Wrghts, and their compensation power yet the
work went on, and even the aohig politician no4c
would be deemed crazy man who would raise the
banner of a repeal of the independent treasury The
principle of the Nebraska bill which the opposition
rely obatter down the democratic administration
is, on its own merits, deeper, and stronger, and
thousand times more vital, than the principle of
the independent treasury. Nothing is surer than
that the democratic party will cling to it. and moth
ing is more certain than that this principle will stand
Democratsl before you march off under the wing
or free soil republican fusion banner of repeaI
of the Nebraska bill-before you thus war npon
your old friends-count the cost. The politician
who does this, and who thus determines to keen ND
eternal hostility to this great constitutional measure
is an enemy to the democracy let him call himself
what he plcases, and does not deserve support
DEMOCRATS, who mean to share in future honors
and triumphs, hesitate long before you desert the
old colors. New victories are in store for the old
organization. Stand by your party. Resolve 10 get
out a full vote for the true men of your party: for
democrats who will be turn in trying emergencies