New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-04
nyp1ov4T OR NOT DIPLOMAT

The publication of the correspondence relat
ing TO the treatment of NJ Taigny by the ven
ezuelan government confirms Tie explanation
90 that incident which has already been init
mated in these columns, namely that the case
largely turns upon the technical point OF NJ.
Taieny's diplomatic or non-dlplolha'lc s'a'us d.
tbe time when his movements were constrained
bv the Venezuelan police. Was he uIpio-
matte officer. entitled as such to certain Priv
lagos and immunities or merely private GU
zen of France visiting Venezuela and SUBJECT
70 ordinary police control? Upon the answer
TO that question must depend in great measure
our judgment of President Castros conduct.
The facts as thus far made known are as fol-
lows: dispute arose between the Venezuelan
government and the French telegraph company
as a result OF which the government seized the
property of the company and expelled its preSl-
dent from the country. Against this arbitrary
action the French government through its
charge daffares. NJ Taigny. corteously but
strongly protested. President Castro replied
with note in which he accused NJ. TaiSny OF
having himself inspired the French protest
through personal enmity toward him tCasuo)'
and i'm which also he said he could have no
more dealings with NJ Taigny until he had
made satisfactory explanation OF his conduct
This note the French government not unnatu-
rally regarded as offensive, and it demanded
Its Withdrawal Mr.. Castro replied tnat he
would not withdraw it unless the French gov
eminent would withdraw its note of protest.
This France refused to do. Then Mr. Castro
lapsed into silence, and he omitted 10 invite
". Taigny to his New Years Day reception.
This was regarded unofficialIy as tantamount
TO a severance of diplomatic relations though
no official action was taken for ten days there
after. Then the French government Informed
the Venezuelan government through the Ameri-
can Minister that It had suspended diplomatic
relations and had directed NJ. Taigny to cease
10 act as charge d'affaires Thereupon the Ven
ezuelan government considered itself free to
treat NJ. Taigny as a private individual One
day he went out 10 a steamer in the harbor
of La Guayra to get dispatches that the Venez-
ueIan seizure of the telegraphs had compelled
the French government to send by mail, and
the police forbade him TO return to the shore.
on the ground that he had neglected TO provide
himself with a certificate Of health At that
the French government babe him withdraw en-
tirely from Venezuela and expelled the Venez-
uelan Minister from France.
The question is. then, was NJ Taigny an Off
cial parsonage or a private citizen on January
IA last? Did the note which, on behalf of
France, the American Minister, Mr. Russell,
delivered to the Venezuelan government on
January 10 and TO which he received an answer
the next day constitute a withdrawal Of NJ
Taigny from office as charge d'affaires or did
II leave him still In that place. entitled to its
privileges and immunities? If NJ. Taigny was
on January II an official parsonage, the con-
duct of the Venezuelan police toward him would
seem TO be quite indefensible If he had been
Invested Of his official character and was a pri-
vate citizen, the conduct of the police may be
technically Justfabe-thOugh even then II
would have to be regretted as needlessly harsh
q NJ + 1r-iII 10
various foreign representatives at Caracas are
unit in holding that NJ. Taigny had not at
that time been Invested Of his diplomatic char
acter and immunities, and that therefore the
Venezuelan treatment of him was highly i'm
proper, and that they have reported TO their
respective governments TO that effect Their
judgment must have much weight with the
world, and il certainly should commend itself
to Mr., Castro for his most serious consdera-