Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-11-17

the soil of France was improbable, that we re-
gardcd ii at first fabrication for political effect
but subsequent intelligence of IN authentic character
coniruls the of the ndignity to our ambassa-
dor and our country. In the Enquirer of yesterday
the circumstances of the affair were narrated in de-
tail
The London Times essays TO justify the outrage up
on Mr.. Souls in article which We transfer to our
own columns but it exhibits feebleness and clunl-
siness in playing the apoogist Of Louis Napoleon,
which contrasts strkngly with the power and effect
with which it was wont to dcnouncc him to Chrisen-
dom peured usurper and blood thirsty dcspot.
The assumption that distinction security attach
es to the person of ambassador above that which
any individual may claim, bctrays singular guo-
contempt Of the usagcs Of nations. No prn-
cpc of public law is better established or more clear
ly defined than that which Vattcl enuncatcs in this
proposition "It is true that the Sovereign to whom
| al Ambassador is sent is more especially bound TO
cause be respected the attached to that char
ter but he is not the less entitled to be treated in the
territory Of third power, with tho respect due to the
envoy Of friendly Sovereign. He is, above ALL en-
titled to enjoy complete personal security 10 nurc
and insult him would be to nure and insult his Sov
ereign and entire nation; to arrest him or commit
| any other act of violence against his person, would
be to infringe the rights OF Legation which belong To
every Sovereign."-To the same effect Mr.. Wheaton
atlirms, in his admirable treatise the Law Of Na
tions, that 'the involubility of public minister in
this case, depends upon the same prrc pe with that
of his sovereign coming into the territory of friend
ly state by permission, express or implied, of the
local government. Both are equally entitled TO
the protection Of that government against every
act Of violence and every species of restraint
inconsistent with their sacred character The disnc-
tion therefore, between tho personal and official
character OF public minister, by which the Times
attempts to the ludgni,y TO Mr.. Souc. and to
degrade it to the level ofa trivial and unmportant in.
cident, is against reason and against authority. The
insult to ambassador, is insult TO our govern
ment and 10 our Sovereign, tho people, and must be
| e1piated by some adequate atouenent. We cunnOl
dispute the right of Louis Napoleon to cIpcl Mr..
Soue from his domnions, oven to put him TO DEATH
bat it is right for the exercise Of which he is
| able to the laws of nations, and responsible Ia
this government. In the pages of French history we
may find an illustration of this principle. Francis l..
went to war with Charles w. to uvcngo the death of
the French ambassadors who were murdered in the
dominons of the Emperor. The arrest and expulsion
Of Mr.. SoulG from the French territory is an affron
for which this government must adequate repa
ration, orin intct appropriate punishment. Tie London
Times intimates that Louis Napoleon will decline to
render any apology or satisfaction for his conduct
then this government will have no alternative bu, to
discontinue diplomatic relations with the French court
Indeed it is probable that Mr.. Mcson who resented
the insult to his country with admirable spirit md en-
ergy, will quit France of his impulse in the event
OF refusal by the Emperor to render satisfactory
apology. BY such conduct he would but anticipate
the instructions Of his government and express the
profound indignation of the American people.
In view Of this contingency, the probable conduct
Of the French Emperor becomes n matter of aiIous
speculation, but in the absercc Of any infor-
nation respecting the motive which promptod
the outrage upon Mr.. Sould, it is impossi-
BILE to affirm with any confidence, either that
the French government will grant refuse
satisfactory explanation. Some persons suspect
that Louis Napoleon actuated by an impulse Of
personal resentment in nfliciing an ndignity upon
the who chassed the insolence of his atstocrac
brothern-aw and his impertnent ambassador. others
alege that Mr.. Soulc was driven from France in
OF Dlb Will the cncmleb ol LOUIS
Napoleon's governmcnt-an imputaton which our
Minister Indignantly rcpels. If either of these mo-
tives prompted the insult to Mr.. Soue, the French
ruler will readily disclaim any discourtesy to the
American government But if, az some persons
maintain tho expulsion Of Mr. SoulG from France
designed as deliberate insult to this government,
the London Times is doubtesa correct in the opinion
that Louis Napoleon will refuse to render any apology
for his conduct II may lie within the scope of policy,
projected by the Anglo alliance that the pride
Of this country is to be nbaed and s power restrict
eda conjecture TO which support given by the uli-
friendly tone Of the French and British press and the
concentration our coass ofa large detachment from
the Baltic squadron. If such be- the purpose Of the Al
lies il is very probable that the insult to Mr.. SouG
was meant defiance to this country and that the
justification of the outrage by the British press is an
Indication Of the concurrence Of tine British govern
ment.
The public journals, with scarcely MI exception re-
gard the insult 10 Mr.. SoulG afront the coun-
try and even the tmid and conservative are camor-
Gus for reparation. Without displaying either un-
necessary violence or nexcusable hesitation, the
Government will doubtless demand and enforce an
explanation which shall satisfy honor. The past
usties confidence in the iirinncss and discretion
of the Administrations