Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-21

Mr.. West; that her MsIesty's Governments
was unable 10 assent 10 the view OF inferns.
tIons, usage laid down by Mr.. Phelps, ana
thar the principles which govern interns-
tional relations on ibis subject appear 10
have been accurately stated by Lord fal-
mersion on the occasion OF Bulwer's sudden
dismissal IRON the Court OF Madrid IN 1870.
He then proceeds: "It Is sufficient unuer
existing circumstances 10 say that there was
nothing in Vests eonduct 70 les1ny ~
striking A departure from tue circumspect
and deliberate procedure ~ wnicn 10 SUI
cases II Is the usage OF friendly States 10
mark their considerations for each other. 1
will abstain from comment upon the con-
siderations not Of an international ehorsc.
Ter 30 which yon refer as having dictated
the action OF the President. j will Only loin
with the Government OF the United STATES
in expressing my regret that personal lu-
cidept Of th;s character should In any 1e-
gree qualify the harmony which for long
time past, endearing the syDpathies oil tne
two n,tIons, has impressed itself upon Tue
mutual relations Of their Governments.
The correspondence closes with letter
from Bayard 10 Phelps dated January 80
1889. acknowledging the receipt Of the reply
OF salisbury to the Phelps note ~ Deeeni-
Der 4, 1888. TLis letter is review OF the
entire subject. Bsysrd restaies for the puf-
pose Of reply The points Of contention on tne
part Of Great Britain. Bayard says thal
while be cOncurs IN his Lordships opinion
that the general principles Admired
b. the practice Of nalions upon lnF
matter are OF more Importance than tns
nariicular case. be deemed II essential, bow
ever. 10 state TO her Maiesty's Governments
more fully than heretofore the Views OF tbs
q l. 81 ~
sackviiie's dsmissal-not, however. with a
purpose Of inviting a discussion OF their
sufticiencv, for on this subject this Govern
menf has entertained no doubt. but IN a
friendly way 10 acquaint her Msisiy's Gov
eminent with tho views OF this Government
ia reragd 70 the misconduct Of then
envoy. After feciting the fact oil
ihe receipt by ssckvile Of the letter signed
bv Charles r. Murchison, from which ne
literally quotes, the Secretary says: "Such
wss the letter addressed 10 and received bY
Sackviile ~ the representative Of her Brl-
'annic Majesty. Whether It was obviously
fraudulent. or q thuly-Yeied frauduent
scheme, IS now question OF minor signlh-
cance. But whether dciitious. or frsudu-
lent. or no, there are certain facts undouOt-
odlv and decidedly stamped upon us iace. IL
declared iIs writer 10 be actuated by mo-
iives Of manifest peTti0ity to the Uni'e1
states. II grossly lmpugned and asperse1
the motives ot toe President. l. solicited
from the official 10 whom it was address
cd an authoritative confirmation or denisl oil
those impugnmonts and aspersions upon in
formation which bis official relations to this
Government were supposed TO supply, and
thus 10 abuse the confidence be enjoyed"
ssckville's reply 10 MurchisoD is quoted, and
Bsvard prOceeds II il true that the letter OF
cackville was marked "priYate," and that
hts correspOudent stated thar It would be
kent secret. In relation to this the Marquis
~ Salisbury observed: "Priyiie communi-
cations msde by an Ambassador IN good
faith have never, / believe, before been
made the subject o. international com
nlaintv The precise force or applicability
Of This observation IN the present ease
Il not perce,yed. Lord Sackyille has
stated that his correspondent was unknown
10 him. The request for his advice could
not. therefore. rest upon personal relations
OF intimacy, duty, or confidence. The sole
besis Of the appeal for his counsel was de-
chred By tie correspondent to be bis pre-
ference ~ q native Engli'bman for the IN
tere-ts Of England a. against those OF the
United states on behalf OF " Motherland
he made his appeal His assurance OF Sc
crocY was p2lpablY an invitation 70 the re.
n,esontative oi that Govern ment TO commit
an act Of lmpr0Drlety inconsistent with bis
Gutv and wholly outside toe scope OF his
IN 1ctions. lie plainly informed Lord sack
Vile fbat ne sought bis advice not only In
order 10 determine how 70 cast his own vote,
hut also in order TO influence the political
course Of many Of our cOuntrymen In
an election which be syerred to be
critical, referring by that designation 10
persons who. like himself had by the bun
dreds yes, by the thousands - become
American citizens with the intent 10 favor
England q Interests. The character OF Lord
Sackyille's act, the Secretarv declares, Is not
altered by the fact that another purpose than
the one avOwed may have been, "and prOba-
bly was" contained in the application.
Nor am able to perceive" be adds, thar
any dimlnuiion Of his offence eau ne argued
from the supposition that his reDly would be
treated as entirely sec'et. Had the OBJ
iactiouabie conduct % Lord SackVlle ended
with his reply 10 the Murchison letter the
situation would have been sufficiently Sc
rious. but IN the various statements
made by him 10 the representatives Of the
public press the Improvements Of the action
OF this Government were emphasized" The
Secretary then proceeds TO the consideration
note LAYING down the rule which, IN his
his opinion, governs the dismissal Of diplo.
mstlc SCENTS and which Salisbury holds TO
appear 10 have been accurately laid down bv
Lord Palmfrs'On on the occasion OF sir
Henry BulWel's sudden dismissal from the
Court OF Madrid N 1913. the circumstances
of which Bayard sets forth az considerable
length. The Secretary contends that the
case of Sackyie Is wholly dissimilsr to that
OF Rulwer, and says: "ln BuIwer's ease the
objection Of SPAN was 10 the action OF
Lord PalmerstOu and presumptiyely Of
the ministry OF Great Britain, 81 which
Bulwer was but The channel OF communioa-
ton. and throughout the entire transaction
Bulwer received the entire approval Of bis
LOrdship. The offence OF Sackyille consisted
IN personal misconduct wholly inconsistent
with hi. official dutv and relations, OF which
no suggestion OF approval by his Govern
ment has vet been intimated. Thus .he
present issue Is not whether it is requisite
that sovereign asking the recall Of foreign
Minister should give reasons for the applis
cotton. but whether when, as in the present
case. such recall has been asked for on the
ground OF interference in the politics Of the
country IN which he u accredited the ques-
ton OF culpability or degree Of such inter
ference is to be left not 10 the decl.
sion OF the offended sovereign, but
10 the determination OF the sovereign
by whom the offending Minister was ae-
credited. In concluding MIR. Bsyard says I:
Gan envoy is intended 10 be a confidential
lntermediary between two governments pro-
Tossing friendly relations. and in reliance
upon his good faith the best assurance Of
continued amity aud good understanding
will be found. 1t cannot, therefore, be
Justly regarded as cause OF international
offence 10 request the recall OF an envoy
whenever It is discovered that his conduct
has been such as to unsettle the confidence
Of the receiving Government, nor for that
Government 10 dismiss him whenever in it,
Judgment circumstances have arisen owing
10 his misconduct which endsuger its own
safety aud welfare or tend 10 ieopardiZe the
good relations OF the two Governments
Personal.
Count Herbert Bismarck cynicAlly says ::
" The only advantage OF better society is
that its morality Is worse"
Johnston. the African explorer, Is now
fsr-a al all mir