The Washington herald., 1907-06-04
THE GLEN ECHO CASE.

regard to stopping automobiles convey
ing the persons Of diplomatic representa-
tives by the town officers Of Glen Echo,
raises very interesting question Of in
ternational law
1t does not appear that any Of the acts
made criminal by section 1852 Of the Re
vised Statutes have been committed by
the mayor or town marshal of Glen Echo.
What has been done is 20 stop the vehicles
while exceeding the speed limited by the
police regulations Of the town. Upon
ascertaining that the vehicles contained
diplomatic representatives. they were re-
leased In one instance only was there
temporary detention OF the chauffeur.
though he was almost Immediately per-
mitted TO depart on his own recognizance.
If there had been any complaint Of the
violation Of the personal liberty or the
exemption from arrest Of A diplomatic
Minister there would be good ground for
complaint. When however, the diplo-
matte character is resorted to as the
foundation Of an affirmative claim Of the
right TO violate police regulations Of
safety, quite a different question Is pre-
sented. Il is quite clear that the charac-
ter Of a diplomatic representative confers
no right upon its possessor TO disregard
regulations made for the health and
safety Of the public, and that the police
have the power to prevent a violation Of
such regulations even. If necessary, by the
use Of force. Mr.. John Bassett Moore. in
his Digest Of international Law" a work
Of the highest authority. officially pub
lished by the Department Of State, says,
Vol. ". sec. 559:
In considering the immunities n diplomatic Of
hcers It is important 10 draw distinction, which,
il is believed has not usually been noticed, between
measures of punishment and measures Of prevention.
The theory of diplomatic immunity is not that the
diplomatic officer is freed from the restraints Of the
law and exempt from the duty of observing them.
but only that be cannot be punished for his failure
10 respect them. The punitive power n the State
cannot be directly enforced against him. II viii
hardly be denied. however that il Is his duty 10
respect the laws n the country in which be resides,
and that he may IN MANY conceivable cases be pre-
vented from doing unlawful acts. for which, II he
were allowed 90 commit them. he could not be run-
isled. This distinction IS peculiarly applicable %
police regulations made FOR the purpose q assuring
the public health and safety Take for example The
case u regulations with regard 70 the use q public
highways Immunity from punishment for the viola
ton q such regulations hy no means implies that
actual coercion might not be employed in protecting
the public from injury a. b7 running down persons
in The street Foreign menofwsr. in spite n their
eytrateut01ality are As has been seen required tG
observe ha-h0r and sanitary regulations The I'M
muuity from judicial process cannot b. perverted
into license 20 disregard the health and safety ~
The public nor can it be construed prseludng the
actual prevention o. injuries % person 1r property
f4f ff rfrrTr4f1a a
iTTeparable damage is threatened.
According 10 this high authority the
town officers Of Glen Echo seem 20 have
acted strictly within their rights in stop
ping the vehicles IN the first place. BY
no possibility could they have known In
advance that the cars contained dplO-
matte officials When they did so learn.
the persons Of the diplomats were not re-
strained, neither We're their vehicles held.
II would seem, from the authority quoted
that the officers might have gone farther
and prevented the vehicles from proceed
ing especially II. as later developments
appeared 90 Indicate there was no in
tentiOn on the part Of the occupants Of
observing the regulations even when they
were informed what was the limit Of
speed permitted.
Was the temporary detention Of the
chauffeur in violation Of any diplomatic
/ immunity I have not seen in any OF the
very full and impartial statements which
you have published about this matter
that any force was used for the deten-
ton Of the chauffeur any more than for
that Of his master. the diplomat
II viii he noticed that section 1852 OF the
Revised Statutes says nothing about the
immunity OF anybody but the Minister
/ himself The next two sections. 4063 and
1864. do. however. prohibit, under penalty
suing out any writ or process
/ Whereby the person of any public minister oi
suy foreign prince state authorized and received
as uch hy the President, or any domestic, or DO
nestle servant Of any such Minister. is arrested or
imprisoned, or his goods or caattels are distrsnsd
/ seized or attached
Here. again. there seems to have been
no violation Of the law. The stoppage Of a
/ vehicle I'm the act OF violating the speed
| regulation, and simply as a preventive
measure, is a very different thing from
either a distrsint. seizure, or attachment
/ Of a minister's goods. In any case. no
immunity could be claimed for the chauf-
/ feur, unless his name were registered as
I
/ In the office Of the marshal Of the District
/ Of Columbia as a person entitled 10 diplo-
matte immunity. Whether the name was
/ So posted as a regular servant OF whether
/ he is even a regular servant Of the Min
/ lister al all, is not stated, his name only
being given as Mahoney. I do not know
/ Mr Mahoney, but it IS safe to say that
/ he IS not an Austrian, so that the dignity
/ of the Emperor of Austria does not ap-
! pear 10 have been violated in the person
| Of even one Of the humblest Of his sub
! jects.
Apart frcph the strict legal view. let US
/ look at the matter in its larger aspects.
/ This can best be done by reversing the
/ case. Suppose that We were 10 learn by
/ frequent cable messages that the Ameri-
/ can Ambassador TO Great Britain was in
/ the habit Of dIsregarding London traffic
/ regulations. driving TO right or left as he