430 AVES ISLAND. 



sador to England, who iiad committed murder in the London exchange, 

 Cromwell, then lord protector, had him seized at the house of his 

 hrother, and he was tried, condemned, and executed. 



The immunity of an embassador is founded upon the principle, that 

 whilst he is embassador^ his acts are presumed to be the acts of his 

 government, and done under its authority ; and it cannot be possible 

 that any decent government can be presumed to authorize its function- 

 aries to perpetrate a felony, or other infamous crime, such as larceny, 

 rape, murder ; and no one doubts that for conspiracy, aiding and abet- 

 ting treasonable practices against the government to which he is accred- 

 ited, such government can proceed, as with other conspirators and 

 traitors, against such embassadors. There are numerous cases on this 

 subject. As to immunities of ministers, the following are recollected : 



A celebrated case is that of Baron de Gortz, minister of Charles XII 

 of Sweden, arrested for conspiracy against England, by the Dutch au- 

 thorities of the Hague, in 1717, on the demand of England. The 

 Swedish minister at London was also put under arrest by the English 

 government. (Marten's Causes Celebres, 1, 75. X -Mareville, French 

 minister at Milan, was executed for murder. (9 Wicque, 1, 847. 

 Flossan, dip.fran. 1, 364.) An embassador in Portugal, and a Ve- 

 nitian embassador at Milan, were put to death for adultery. (Bynk., 

 E. L. XYIII.) And in our own history, Kosseloff, consul general of 

 Eussia, was tried and punished for rape. 



Applying these principles to the recent occurrences in Venezuela, it 

 seems to me that the course of the foreign legations there, in seeking 

 to protect the infamous Monagas and his associates from arrest and 

 prosecution, and just punishment for their crimes against their country 

 and its laws, is without parallel in the annals of diplomatic history ; 

 and if the minister of the United States at Caraccas had not been par- 

 ticipant in such unexampled course, deserves the notice of the federal 

 government of the United States, in the exercise of the appropriate 

 function of every free government as common conservator of the laws 

 of nations. 



The partisan interference of the foreign diplomats at Caraccas in the 

 domestic political disputes of that country, cannot be justified upon 

 any sound principles. The laws of nations demand that all_ interfer- 

 ence in the local affairs of the country to which a minister is accred- 

 ited, should be confined to regular diplomatic action for the maintenance 

 ■ and protection of the legitimate interest of his own country, (and the 

 spirit and policy of our neutrality laws are in accordance with this 

 principle,) and such of his fellow citizens or subjects as may be entitled 

 to such protection. It is true, that some governments have not censured 

 their representatives for interposing the shield of embassadorial immu- 

 nity, from motives of humanity, for the protection of the weak and 

 timid against the violence of popular fury, or the rancor of blind and 

 vindictive persecution ; but no case has occurred in which any respect- 

 able government has sanctioned proceedings like those that have 

 recently occurred at Caraccas. The present emperor of the French, 

 and also Napoleon I, have maintained the doctrine that international 

 comity demanded that a friendly State should not allow the residence 

 of alien conspirators against its own State within its jurisdiction, and 



