New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-06-24
THE Expulsion OF7HE FRENCH PRlN CES


The passage of the bill prov ding for the ex-
pulsion of the French Princes through the SEN
ate settles the question SO far. The bearing of
the measure will be regarded from widely
differing points of view and it is peculiarly
of the situation that there is justification for
radically divergent interpretations. Thus NJ.
de Freyclnet is accused, and not without evil
dence, of having been driven to introduce the
bill as sop to the radicals in fact. some critics
have gone SO far as To intimate that the measure
adopted as the only means of saving the
Minis ers. On the other hand, NJ. de Freycinet
and the advocates of the expulsion who do not
be Ong' to the radical party, affirm, and clearly
with reason, that though the radicals favor the
law its passage never wOnld have been possible
GpOn the grounds taken by them; that the ex-
pusion was voted because the Orleanist in
trigues which have been carried on wi h foreign
courts have tended TO compromise the republic
seriously and because. though exile will not
stop intrigue, it will at least relieve che Gov
ernment of France from all responsibility for
those who carry it on.
1t is further argued that notwithstanding
their protestations and their apparent passivity,
the Princes while residing in France keep alive
ence of actual and accessible Pretepders. And
it is contended that though in theory the re-
public ought to regard and treat these men as
ordinary citizens in effect, so long as they are
held by neighboring courts, unfriendly to the
republic, to be rightful heirs To the throne il is
impossible to prevent them from having a
formidable following and exercising q political
influence which. whether small or great, is GER
tainly hostile TO the present form of govern
ment. Nor must it be forgotten that European
criticism upon the present action of Frauce is
deeply preiudica 1t proceeds from monarch
lists and imperialsts; that is to say, from men
trained to believe that the claims of the Prince
to the throne of France are equitable, and that
the republic is a standing menace 20 the Powers
OF Europe. When therefore these critics pre-
tend solicitude concerning the maintenance of
consistently democratic course by France, and
pronounce the expulsion of the Princes viola
ton of republican principles, it is not necessary
to permit much emphasis to these structures.
Certainly the French republic has the right TO
protect itself against c.bals and ntrgues from
within or from without. Now the question
most vital to the present case is whether the
Princes have been connected with such in
trignes. Foreign critics deny their connection.
French critics assert it, and we think the latter
are the best authorities under the circum-
stances. Moreover, the votes By which the
bill passed the Chamber and the Senate afford
proof that the conviction of the wisdom of the
measure was far more general than could be
the case If the original charge against NJ. de
Freycnet-of having pandered to the ex-
tremism of the radcals-were true The weight
of the vote cast for The passage of the bill in
fact must be considered strong ey dence that
the expulsion is serious and well -considered
measure, and that it Is not, as 50 peIsisten,ly
alleged, mere stroke of opportunism. AS to
the assertion that the act proves the weakness
Of the republic, it is true in precisely the same
sense that the refusal of England to permit the
Stuart Pretenders TO land in the United King
dom proved the weakness of the monarchy. Ii
is measure Of precaution which any Govern
ment has perfect right to take, and even il
the apprehensions about the Princes lust now
are s0mew hat exa ggerated, there is no reason TO