citement it is the practice of modern times for the foreign representatives residing there to interpose by the exertion of their influence for the protection of the citizens of friendly powers exposed to injury and danger, and left without any minister of their own country to watch over them. The President would not hesitate to visit with marks of his displeasure any American minister who should have it in his power to af ford protection to the persons or property of citizens of a friendly nation placed in peril by revolutionary commotions, and having no national representative to appeal to, should he fail to exert his influence in their behalf.'" Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 373, 374. "Soon after the existing war broke out in Europe, the protection of the United States minister in Paris was invoked in favor of North Germans domiciled in French territory. Instructions were issued to grant the protection. This has been followed by an extension of American protection to citizens of Saxony, Hesse, and Saxe-Coburg, Gotha, Colombia, Portugal, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Chili, Paraguay, and Venezuela, in Paris. The charge was an onerous one, requiring constant and severe labor, as well as the exercise of patience, prudence, and good judgment. It has been performed to the entire satisfaction of this Government, and, as I am officially informed, equally so to the satisfaction of the Government of North Germany." President Grant, Second Annual Message. 1870. For details of aid rendered through Mr. Washburne, minister of the United States "I was glad to know that the Department coincided with Mr. Bancroft and myself in the opinion that all these expenses (those for the relief of Germans in Paris during the siege) should be paid by the United States. It would certainly have been unworthy of a great Government like ours to permit itself to be paid for hospitalities extended to the subjects of other nations for whom our protection had been sought." Mr. Washburne, minister at Paris, to Mr. Fish, Nov. 18, 1870. MSS. Dispatches, "You are aware that Monseigneur Darboy, the archbishop of Paris, was seized some time since, by order of the Commune, and thrust into prison to be held as a hostage. Such treatment of that most devout and excellent man could have but created a great sensation, particularly in the Catholic world. On Thursday night last I received a letter from Monseigneur Chigi, archbishop of Myre and apostolic nuncio of the Holy See, and also a communication from Mr. Louoner, canon of the diocese of Paris; Mr. Lagarde, the vicar-general of Paris, and Messrs. Bourset and Allain, canons and members of the metropolitan chapter of the church of Paris, all making a strong appeal to me, in the name of the right of nations, humanity, and sympathy, to interpose my good offices in behalf of the imprisoned archbishop. I have thought that I should have been only conforming to what I believed to be the policy of our Government, and carrying out what I conceived to be your wishes under the circumstances, by complying with the request of the gentlemen who have addressed me. I, therefore, early this morning put myself in communication with General Cluseret, who seems, at the present time, to be the directing man in affairs here. I told him that I applied to him not in my diplomatic capacity, but simply in the interest of good feeling and humanity, to see if it were not possible to have the archbishop relieved from arrest and confinement. He answered that it was not a matter within his jurisdiction, and however much he would like to see the archbishop released, he thought, in consideration of the state of affairs, it would be impossible. He said that he was not arrested for crime, but simply to be held as a hostage, as many others had been. Under the existing circumstances he thought it would be useless to take any steps in that direction. I, myself, thought the Commune would not dare, in the present excited state of public feeling in Paris, to release the archbishop. I told General Cluseret, however, that I must see him to ascertain his real situation, the condition of his health, and whether he was in want of anything. He said there would be no objection to that, and he immediately went with me, in person, to see the procureur of the Commune; and upon his application I received from the prefect a permission to visit the archbishop freely at any time. In company with my private secretary, Mr. McKean, I then went to the Mazas prison, where I was admitted without difficulty, and being ushered into one of the vacant cells the archbishop was very soon brought in. I must say that I was deeply touched at the appearance of this venerable man. With his sleuder person, his form somewhat bent, his long beard, for he has not been shaved apparently since his confinement, his face haggard with ill-health, all could not have failed to have moved the most indifferent. I told him I had taken great pleasure, at the instance of his friends, in intervening on his behalf, and while I could not promise myself the satisfaction of seeing him released, I was very glad to be able to visit him to ascertain his wants, and to assuage the cruel position in which he found himself. He thanked me most heartily and cordially for the disposition I had manifested toward him. I was charmed by his cheerful spirit and his interesting conversation. He seemed to appreciate his critical situation, and to be prepared for the worst. He had no word of bitterness or reproach for his persecutors, but on the other hand remarked that the world judged them to be worse than they really were. He was patiently awaiting the logic of events and praying that Providence might find a solution to these terrible troubles without the further shedding of human blood." Mr. Washburne, minister at Paris, to Mr. Fish, Apr. 23, 1871. MSS. Dispatches, France. Doc. accompanying President Hayes' message of Feb. 6, 1878. "He was taken from this cell a little before 8 o'clock on Wednesday evening, the 24th ultimo. The curé of the Madeleine, the Abbé Deguerry, the Senator Bonjeau, and three other distinguished hostages were taken from their cells in the same prison at the same time, into the court of the building, and all were placed against the wall, which incloses the somber edifice of La Roquette. The archbishop was placed at the head of the line, and the fiends who murdered him with their knives had scratched a cross upon a stone in the wall at the very place where his head must have touched at the moment when the fatal shots were fired. He did not fall at the first volley, but stood erect, calm, and immovable. Before the other discharges came which launched him into eternity he crossed himself three times upon his forehead. The other victims fell together. The marks of the bullets, made upon the wall as they passed through their bodies, were distinctly visible. The archbishop's body was afterward mutilated, his abdomen being cut open. All the bodies were then put into a cart and removed to Père la Chaise, which is but a few squares off, where they were thrown into the common ditch, from which they were happily rescued before decomposition had entirely taken place. Returning from La Roquette, I came by the Archeviché,' where the body of the archbishop was lying in state. He was so changed that I should scarcely have known him. Thousands and thousands of the people of Paris were passing through the palace to look for the last time upon him who was so endeared to them by his benevolent acts, his kindly disposition, and his love of the poor and the lowly. In all of the six or seven interviews I had with the archbishop in the prison, except the last, I always found him cheerful, and sometimes even gay, and never uttering one word of complaint. No man could be with him without being captivated by his cheerful and Christian spirit and enlightened conversation. The archbishop was learned, accomplished, and eloquent, and was a most liberal man in his religious and political sentiments. He met his fate with the firmness of a Christian martyr, and all generous hearts will join in a tribute of mourning." Same to same, May 31, 1871; ibid. That a consul cannot use his position to become a means of communication with an enemy of the country to which he is accredited, see infra, § 119. XXX. AVOIDANCE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ENJOINED. § 106. The alleged course of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, when in France, in rendering advice and support to the reactionary party, was the cause of much embarrassment to President Washington. "He [the President] said he considered the extracts from Ternant very serious, in short, as decisive; that he saw that Gouverneur Morris could no longer be continued there consistent with the public good; that the moment was critical in our favor, and ought not to be lost; that he was extremely at a loss what arrangement to make. I asked him whether Gouverneur Morris and Pinckney might not change places. He said that would be a sort of remedy, but not a radical one. That if the French ministry conceived Gouverneur Morris to be hostile to them; if they would be jealous merely on his proposing to visit London, they would never be satisfied with us at placing him at London permanently." Conversation between Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, and President Washington, Feb. 20, 1793. 2 Randall's Life of Jefferson, 116. See further, for criticisms on Morris's course, 1 John Adams' Works, 500; 3 ibid., 219, 320; 9 ibid. 307. As to embarrassments arising from Mr. Gouverneur Morris' active participation when abroad in European politics, see Mr. Vaughan, in Monroe MSS., Mem. of 1826. MSS. Dept. of State. · For Gouverneur Morris' correspondence in Paris, in 1792-'93, see 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 312, 329. Mr. Monroe's course as minister to Paris in 1794 was severely criticised at the time by the Federalists on the ground that it was unduly conciliatory to France. See, as to Mr. Monroe's course in other respects, infra, §§ 107, 150b; supra, § 85. We must remember, however, that Mr. Monroe's instructions, which were drawn by Mr. Randolph, as Secretary of State, required him to take every step to conciliate the revo lutionary authorities who were at the time the de facto Government of France, and that his generous sympathies with that movement were well known at the time of his appointment. In no point in this respect did Mr. Monroe outstep Lafayette; and of Lafayette's course General Washington wrote letter after letter of approval. General Washington at that period of his administration sought to balance parties among his diplomatic agents in the same way that he sought to balance parties in his Cabinet. Such being the case, nothing was more natural than that he should have sent to France Mr. Monroe, whose attachment to Lafayette and to the new movements in France was well known, while Mr. Jay, whose French Huguenot descent gave him a peculiar dislike to France, while his conservatism led him to cling with reverence to the English constitution, was sent to England. It should also be remembered that, as the records of the Department show, Mr. Pickering, who succeeded Mr. Randolph as Secretary, left Mr. Mouroe, during the most critical period of his mission, without instructions. It was natural that Mr. Monroe should have felt that he was thus left to his own judgment; and there is no doubt that his judgment, affected as it naturally was by his enthusiastic belief that the French revolutionary movement tended not merely to liberty but to safe government, was that he should return with ardor the ardent welcome with which he was received. Nor even in his address to the French convention, which was at the time so much blamed for the exuberant friendliness with which it abounded, do we find anything in the way of conciliation that had not the example of General Washington (supra, § 47a), and has not been at least equaled by our ministers in England in more recent days. Nor can Mr. Monrce be justly charged with any deep-seated prejudices against England which disabled him from acting fairly as a negotiator with France. Not more than six years after his mission to France he was sent by Mr. Jefferson to negotiate, in connection with Mr. Pinkney, a treaty with England; and the treaty which they agreed on was held back from the Senate by Mr. Jefferson on the ground that the concessions it made were too liberal. (Infra, §§ 107, 150b.) Even after the war of 1812, when the burning of Washington by the British was, to say the least, not calculated to increase the kindly feelings of Mr. Madison's Cabinet to Great Britain, we find Mr. Monroe, as Secretary of State, and afterwards as President, pursuing towards Great Britain a course whose moderation and courtesy no one questioned; and, as appears by his papers on file in the Department of State, he was careful to insist on examining the documents sent to England by Mr. J. Q. Adams, as Secretary of State, for the purpose of striking from them acerbities in which Mr. Adams was supposed to have a tendency to indulge in that particular correspondence. It would be difficult, taking Mr. Monroe's whole history in consideration, to fasten on anything in his conduct in Paris in 1794 which is inconsistent with his duties as the minister of a neutral power. Mr. Monroe's address to the French Directory on Dec. 30, 1796, on presenting his letter of recall, with the reply of the Directory, are given in full in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 747, and is noticed supra, § 85. Mr. Monroe's letter to the Secretary of State, of Sept. 10, 1795, in reply to the censures of his course by the Department, is given in full in 1 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 742. As to the embarrassments of the mission of the United States in France in 1798, consequent on the attempts of Talleyrand to discriminate between the ministers on the basis of their party relations, see 2 Life of Gerry, 190, ff. Infra, § 148, I. As to Genet's interference in politics, see supra, §§ 79, 84. In 1804 Yrujo, minister from Spain, was charged with the attempt to purchase the insertion in a newspaper in Philadelphia of an article defending the position of Spain and criticising the administration. He replied that such an act was not unusual in diplomacy, that there was no attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of the United States, that it was simply issuing a document expository of the views of his Government. This not being regarded as an adequate defense, keeping the character of the article in view, his recall was asked for. Yrujo, however, declined to leave his post, and used offensive language towards the United States. (See supra, § 84.) Mr. J. Q. Adams, upon this action, introduced into the Senate a bill giving the President authority to order foreign ministers to leave the country at his discretion; a measure, however, which was not pressed to a vote. Explanations of the request for Yrujo's recall, based on his interference with politics in Philadelphia, as well as his insulting tone to the Goverument, are found in instructions by Mr. Madison to Mr. Pinckney of April 10, 1804, and by Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe of May 23, 1805. On January 20, 1807, Mr. Madison informed Mr. Erving that unless Yrujo should leave the country extreme measures would be necessary to remove him; and a statement was inclosed (which, however, cannot now be found) giving the details of his misconduct. On May 1, 1807, Mr. Madison informed Mr. Erving that Yrujo had announced his departure, but had made no preparations to leave; and on October 18, 1807, his continued stay, with its incidents of annoyance to the administration, is announced by Mr. Madison to Mr. Erving, though it is mentioned that Foronda was then received as chargé d'affaires. No note of Yrujo later than February 6, 1806, is on file in the Department. (As to Yrujo, see further §§ 84, 94, 107.) As to Cobbett's attack on Yrujo see Whart. St. Tr., 322. "There is reason to believe that Yrujo (the Spanish minister) has worked against us with all his might, seeking to advance himself by flattering the prejudices of his Government, instead of consulting its obligations or its true interest. He behaved so badly as to require the recall signified in my public letter. (Charles) Pinckney's recall has been asked by the Spanish Government, and a letter of leave goes to him." Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. Monroe (confidential), Nov. 9, 1804. 2 Madison's Writings, 209. The intercepted letter of Mr. Onis, Spanish minister, on political parties in the United States, dated Jan., 1811, is given in 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 404. Mr. Van Buren's message of Feb., 1838, containing a translation of a pamphlet published in Spanish by Mr. Gorostiza, previously minister from Mexico to the United States, before his departure from the United States, with cor respondenc relative thereto, is given in House Ex. Doc. No. 190, 25th Cong., 2d sess. "The plain duty of the diplomatic agents of the United States is scrupulously to abstain from interfering in the domestic politics of the countries where they reside. This duty is specially incumbent on those who are accredited to Governments mutable in form and in the persons by whom they are administered. By taking any open part in the domestic affairs of such a foreign country they must, sooner or later, |