The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-01-20
The Rights - Diplomatic Agents-The Dutch
q international Law.

- international Law.
The correspondence with the Netherlands 20
vernment on the conduct Of its representative,
N. Dubois, in the Herbert case, opens up ques-
ton which, like other notifications in inter-
national law, seems now ripe for discussion.
Whilst policy as well as long established usage
dictates the necessity of our surrounding the
persons of diplomatic agents with all the protec-
ton and security which their high functions de-
mand it is evident that Wis necessity is frequent
ly strained to point Inconsistent with the ideas
and rights Of the nations to which they are &C
credited Wedo not at present allude to the absurd
conflicts with national prejudices to which the
rigid rules of European etiquette sometimes give
rise. We can afford to laugh at the coat and
breeebes controversies and the disputes about
precedence which occasionally agitate the diplo-
matte world. Our concern at present is with
certain privileges claimed by foreign dplo-
matists which conflict with the laws and rights of
our citizens, as well as with the dictates of
humanity and common sense.
OF this character is the position assumed by
NJ Dubois, the Netherlands Minister, in refusing
to appear and give evidence on the trial of Mr.
Herbert for the murder of Heating, and in which
he was backed up by mis- government The mo-
tive assigned for this refusal was that if he had
submitted to an examination in court questions
might have been put to him calculated to wound
his personal and official dignity. 1t is true that
NJ. Dubois adopted a middle course and offered
to make q sworn declaration of the facts in the
Office Of the Secretary Of State; but as he ap-
pears by his correspondence to be thoroughly
posted up in American laws, he must have been
well aware that such testimony could not have
been received on the trial Such q course Of
proceeding may be very effective and very regu-
lar u De Dutch colonies Of the Indian archipela-
60, wide Captain Gibson,) but our citizens have
unfortunate prejudices in favor of fair play,
which will not tolerate secondary evidence of this
character. Now the manner in which the ends of
justice were defeated by this recusancy of the
Dutch Minister, under frivolous pretext raises
an important question in internationally law, which
will have to be decided one of these days. We
have shown by our example in the privateering
controversy and other disputed points of interna-
tiOnal relations, that are not to be fettered by
the interested dogmas and etfete theories of Euro
pean diplomatists The divinity that hedges
round the representatives Of royalty in the Old
World will, with us, be subjected to such modif.
cations as republican notions and interests de-
mand. The Cicis Romdnus sum would indeed
be mere empty phrase, it, asserting the right to
protect our citizens abroad, we should ALLOW the
extravagant doctrines Of European diplomatists |
to prevent our protecting their lives and proper
ties at home. And yet such is the actual effect |
Of the position assumed by the Netherlands Nj |
mister with the concurrence of his diplomatic col
leagues at Washington.
This refusal Of M. Dubois to give evidence in
the Herbert case has hitherto been regarded
merely as a crochet, in which he was justified, if
not by his conscience, a. least by his diplomatic
privileges This position is doubtful one, and
even if correct it raises the question whether we
are bound to recognize rights on the part of To-
reigners which conflict so directly with our in
terests. In criminal prosecutions OH constitu-
ton gives TO the accused the right Of enforcing
the attendance Of witnesses whose evidence he |
may think beneficial to him, as well as of con.
fronting those whose testimony may be adverse. |
To both these rights the Dutch Minister opposes |
certain personal immunites which he conceives |
TO be secured to him by treaty, and by his refusal
to obey the process of our courts the ends Of |
cr treaty made by Congress with foreignS ate |
can override the provisions Of the constitution. |
Ii i. were so, the foles of our federal legislature
might be continually pleaded in bar against the |
rights Of our citizens. But admitting, |
for argument sake, that such is the fact, we say |
from these absurd trammels Of international law |
which have been framed TO meet cases resulting
from the complicated aud ticklish character OF |
European relations. 1t does not comport with |
ither the efficiency or dignity Of republican in
stitutions that we should allow these foreign dog |
mas to limit the ext snt Of our national rights OF
10 arrest the free operation of our laws.
1.-THE impolicy Of recognizing these privileges
In purely diplomatic agents be admitted 1t viii |
be conceded that there is still greater impro-
priety in granting them to foreign
Consuls The latter are, generally SPEAK |
ing commercial men, whose affairs are
likely TO bring them into frequent
litigation with our merchants. The injustice
likely to result from SUCH state of things is M
nifest A foreign consular agent has only 10 pleaa
bis personal immunity a. ap electual bar againsi
any proceedings that may be instituted asans s. |
him in our courts. We have seen howM Dillol |
he French Consul in San Francisco, succeeded
IN evadlng the process of the California tribunas.
and at present there is civil action pending De-
fore the Supreme Court Of New York in which |
The defendant pleads his privileges as a consular
agent ~ o full answer to the suit. The common
sense Of the enlightenment OF the present age VIII
DO lonler admit Of thesl anomalies IN inLernr