The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-01

II. 14S; STATE vs.. Dc "a Fores Mott and No, sl7j.
rhese studicAtons are in ensct conformity v,'h The
pssct,s.d less IN Great Britain thkn the other
Stsles of Christ DOM tsss cpin. Now 1894 MSS Also
Kens's Com. vol J. ~ "neas0ns ID BY Ia Ersnss'
me only privilege whcas Consul enjoys ii th;. respect
stution being tried by the sdera COURTS effect OF
which that his aims within the control Of the
general government vhica may deal With according to
without mpcdmsnt from the authority Of any Of the 10
divdusi States Of the Union: (.onst Art. Ill, 2;
The Consul ct Cacinpa appears BY the legal pro-
cedipgs there supposes that he Is entitled bens
venion the Uned france OF February
% 1853. ns were 30 that would not him the
criminal Of either 81 the eonaciug govern
But this convention has application vhatsvsr
CoDsular relations Of Great Britain and the Unired
States Whether II applies governments WITH
which have entered into sipulations to place
respective Consuls the footing OF the most favored
ton, question Jet sub lite But the IL sttpu
Ation Of that azure in existenca between Great
Britain and the United OF the duties and
BritisS Confu IN the United states Itand upon the Ia
OF natone, except the is modified their trea
ties and by the law OF either country The
of each have seem wthhelds from Coo sus d.
plcwa'ic privilege OF exterrtoraty British Consul,
therefore, has 10 just cause OF complaint, ii, when
criminal jurisdiction Of the United States
In abolition to those ordinary Of redress in the
torded By the law Of nations. ihs President OF the
United States has the undoubted power Discretion
to withdraw the ess?sa:tar Of any foreign Consul 70
fact Of technical violation Of law judicaly provei
He may exercise II any reasonable cause whenever.
honor OF The United States de srcq, Guide dos Con-
On epch 81 these points provision va, made IN the
Commercial Convention between the United States and
Great Britain Of July g. 1916, which stpulaes that pe
fore any Consul lin either country shall act as SUCH he
The government to which he is sent and .in cf
Illegal improper conduct towards the laws govern
the country which he ia sent, such Consul
may either be punished according to law II the law Will
reach the case be sent back the offended government
assigning to the other the reasons for the same" art
This Convention by its terms was to subsist only
years. BY subsequent Convention, that OF Oct
90 1915 it's duration was prorogusd years art y;
and afterwards by the Convention OF August for
another ten years. and until denounced BY either party
For be rest the stpuatisns Of the Convention 1885,
- continued By the Conventions Of ISIS and 1877 are
stood both In Great Britain and the United States.
In regard to the Minister, is clear If he violate the
otherwise offend its sovereignty, there ia remedy
cept In h and form prescribed by the law of
nations. He enjoys exemption from Judicial process
which immunity is not much his right that Of his
government.
1t was form rly held 10 England Is We in Marchs
case. reported BY Role, in the time Of James l., .hA
although ambassador is privileged by the Law of
ture OF natons yet he commit any offence against
but not he offend against positive Law Of any realm
(Role's R., p 1852 But such distinction between
now admitted and their sI,erritoray the uaani
doctrine of all publicss and recognized in Eng
The whole question Is lesrnedy discussed Dy wldsn
whose views accordance with those Grotius and
Bynkcrshcck which now prevail throughout Christan-
But the privilege Of s1terrtoraty is not conferred on
public minister shield to crime. For any crimes
which he nay commit the remedy varies according TO
As to offences sgains. the municipal law Of the coun
ss q o e
have statute whih declares that any writ or pro:sss
ns s;sd y '1 sss s s a1ss
D. no And this Immunity OF public ministers has besn
the subject e judicial recognition in several instances
United States Iisdle Ibid EOS; E1 parte Cabrera
Kent's Com vol j. P. - g. Opinion Of Mr.. Attorney
The cases Of criminaity the part public minis
ter may be distinguished into the following classes
l. 1.-THE crime committed by the minister affect inai-
country is 70 demand his recall and his governuent
either expel him by force, bring him to trial
longer entitled to the Inuniues Of minister. lKubcr
Dres des Gems, Sec 2li On. de Martens Guide Diploma
B. If the clme aaect the public safety of the country
sgSyernment may for urgent cause either seize and
bun from the country by force. For tue safety Of
the State which is superior to other considerations
not to be pered by overstrained regard for the rv
legs Of ambassador Ibd. See also Kent, vol.
3s; schooner Exchange McFAdden. VIII Cranch, 1l6
1879 lndeed it has been held in such in Eng
land that the Offending party may be proceeded aga,ns
for treason. ''b 1t is affirmed IN the case OF Rex VI
Sns nsrson n she land rhe,e he he NAV BE- COM
cepned and executed for trssson."-(Rex " Owen,
ROLES r., p 1881 But that ectum il not in accord
the arrest and confinement and the eventual the i'm
mediate expulsion Of public minis or Tor reasonable
acts, dangerous to the security OF the State
signal instances Of the arrest summary expulsion Of
pubic ministers insuoh case, collected by s"r
shock, by w,equefors BY Whitman, and by cnsliss y
very modern Ct great notorety is that Of 81
Henry Bulwer. who, whie British Minis er % Madrid
du.pg the administration Of the Duke of Valencia, Gen.
Naiysez being detected in completely with domestic
voluioDiss required by let OF the Duke of Soto
mayor the Spanish Minister OF Foreign Affairs to quit
Spain immediately and did (ecnand.z Eapans ell
Visctnde Palmerston, Madrid 1881 This incident
cascned brief interruption Of the diplomatic relations
Sir Her ~ Bulwer had acted under the ms ructons Of
lord Psmerston the British Minister OF Foreign Affairs
change Of explanations, conscious that it had been
paced in the wrong BY Lord Pslnerston submitted .
send new minister to Madrid Hansard's Debates
Third Series, vol. 80. p. 347.)
s. Finally il the oifen.e be grave but not such as to
comprs mise the public safety the course OF proceeding in
diplomatic usage is to demand the recall Of the minister,
and Meanwhile refuse not al further intercourse
with him, according TO the circumstances.
The United states have pursued this in several
instances; OF which memorable one, and existy per-
the recall OF IT. Genet, guilty Of enstrnents in this oonn
try without the OF its government. Am State
Papers, For AT, vol. / No. 65.)
The public law and usage in this respect well stated
| by Modsrn EDgIith author, who says
With repec. the Dismissal OF minister's Is usual whore
the matter admits Of delay, frat 10 demand his recall. 2
But this of courtesy, which
occasions Of imminent peril 1be dismissal Of ambassador
eurh occasions assumption u jurisdicion,
of fe defence, which has denied
legal IN the Of ambassadors. II ambassador
use srce ne may be repealed by force When the
danger imminent Ambassador seized public
encrnymay be mprsonednay DE put to DEATH l. Il be In
dpensaDly necessary 10 sale.y Wndnan, Institutes,
| vol l., y. u4)
On the WHOLE the case OF the British minister regarded
in the light Of established rules OF the law nation
diplomatic usage founded thereon would scem to resolve
itself ino-fr, question Of strict right aud ondly
| Of discretion in t. exercise Of that right
II clearly not affecting the security of the
State thus needing ushying the Interpolation Of
summary authority, in the instance Of the Prince OF
CellamaIc in France tCh dc Martens Causes Celeores
tom l. p. 1897 Count Gutenberg in Great Britain Eos
ter's Crown law, lsT) and many other Of his
toTca and legal notoriety interest No acts Of