The Washington herald., 1913-10-29

1 constant tendency IS toward reStric-
tion of its privilege. This is especially
true concerning consulates. and Secre-
tary Bryan must have known that the
United States Consul at Vera Cruz was
liable to reprimand for grave indis.
cretion when he harbored Diaz within
the last few days. The instructions to
diplomatic officers upon this point arc
most explicit, as follows;
In some countries, where frequent in
surrectienS occur and consequent insta-
bility of government exists, the practice
of extra-territorial asylum has become
so firmly established that it is often in
voked by unsuccessful insurgents and
IS practically recognized by the local
government to the extent of even re-
-specting the premises of a consulate in
which such fugitives- may take refuge.
This government does not sanction the
usage and enjoins upon its representa-
tIVeS III such cases the avoidance of all
Pretexts for its exercise.
Nothing could be palmer than this
language. inspired, as it is, by an appro-
pirate desire to avoid international
offense. Many treaties, in fact, set out
the principle in explicit phrase, and the
convention in 1886 with Persia express
ly declares that ''the diplomatic agents
or consuls OF the United States shall
not protect, secretly or publicly, the
subjects of the Persian government >
There is not apparently any such clause
in our treaties with Mexico, but none
the less the principle outlined in the
instructions must be observed. 1t so
happens that diplomatic history affords
a precedent by which to judge the Vera
Cruz incident. In 1877 an opponent of
President Diaz sought refuge in the
United States Consulate at Mazatlan.
The Consul was promptly informed by
John w. Foster, then Minister to Mex
leo, afterward Secretary of State and
an experienced and able diplomatist,
that the consulate did not possess the
right of extra-territoriality and that 1T
was advisable to avoid giving personal
protection to political refugees" As
matter of fact. the fugitive was taken
from the consulate by an armed force,
and though the Mexican government
offered to return him, with an apology,
it did neither. and the United States
never asked any reparation.
The same doctrine holds as to ships
of war. The Geneva tribunal distinctly
held that these vessels must not be used
as asylums of refuge in contravention
'of the principle of courtesy and MT
tual Difference between different ma
tions." Precedents to sustain this posi-
ton are numerous. Take, for instance,
the effort of a President of Paraguay
to leave on the u. S. S. Shamo-
kin in 1866 on the plea that his
departure would bring peace to his
disordered country. The commander
OF the vessel declined to allow him or
any other Paraguayan on board. and his
position was sustained by Secretary
Fish. The officer was commended for
his judgment and advised to abstain
from any proceeding which could be or
even seem to be departure from the
rigid observance of the principles of
neutrality.
Innumerable instances could be cited
in line with this proper comfy of ma
tions. The wisdom of these precedents
is apparent at a glance. Felix Diaz is
a citizen of Mexico-no more, no less.
If he can find an asylum in an Ameri-
can consulate or on the decks of one
of our warships. so can every other
citizen of Mexico If the United States
undertakes to protect one, it must pro-
tect all. 1t could not undertake to give
refuge to any considerable number
without involving itself in interminable
difficulty with friendly nation.
Perhaps in the present perturbed state
of Mexican affairs the United States
can pursue any course without danger
OF being called TO account. This does
not, however, lessen the grave respon-
sibility now resting upon President Will
son and Secretary Bryan. 1t would
seem, in the light of law and prece-
dent, that their course is plain. Should
they decide to carve out a new pathway |
for themselves, they must be prepared |
to justify themselves and the nation in |
the eyes OF the world.