234 



DIPLOMATIC COEEESPONDENCE AKD FOEEIGN EELATIONS. 



the desire expressed by the diplomatic corps to send 

 a courier each week with the dispatches for their 

 governments. 1 did not hesitate, in accordance with 

 the rules established by international law, to give 

 the answer dictated to me by the exigencies of the 

 military situation. It has seemed proper to the men 

 actually in power to establish the seat of their 

 government in the interior of the fortifications of 

 Paris, and to choose this city and its environs for the 

 scene of war. If the members of the diplomatic 

 corps accredited to the preceding government have 

 decided to share, with the Government of national 

 defence, inconveniences inseparable from a stay in a 

 besieged fortress, the responsibility for it does not 

 rest with the Government of the King. 



Whatever may be our confidence that the sub- 

 scribers to the letter of the 6th October will submit 

 personally, in the communications addressed to their 

 governments, to the obligations which their presence 

 in a strongly-besieged place may impose on diplo- 

 matic agents, in accordance with the rules of war, we 

 must not the less take into consideration the fact that 

 the importance of certain facts in a military point of 

 view might escape them. It is evident, besides, that 

 they could not offer to us the same guarantee for the 

 messengers whom they are to employ, and whom we 

 shall be obliged to,allow to pass our lines. A state 

 of things has been produced in Paris no analogous 

 precedent to which is offered by modern history, 

 viewed from the stand-point of international law. 



A government, at war with a power which has not 

 yet recognized it, is shut up in a besieged fortress, 

 and sees itself surrounded by a party of diplomatists, 

 who had been accredited to a government for which 

 the Government of the national defence has been sub- 

 stituted. In presence of so irregular a situation, it 

 will be difficult to establish, on the basis of the law 

 of nations, rules which would be incontestable from 

 all points of view. 



I believe myself entitled to hope that your Excel- 

 lency will comprehend the justice of these observa- 

 tions, and will appreciate the considerations which, 

 to my lively regret, prevent me from giving assent to 

 the desire expressed in your letter of the 6th October. 

 Besides, if the subscribers cannot admit the justice of 

 this denial, the governments which they have rep- 

 resented at Paris, and whom I shall, without delay, 

 make acquainted with the correspondence exchanged 

 between us, will put themselves in communication 

 with the Government of the King, in order to examine 

 the questions of the laws of nations, which are at- 

 tached to the abnormal condition which events and 

 the measures of the Government of the national de- 

 fence have created in Paris. 



I have the honor, etc., BISMAECK. 



The Secretary of State, in receiving informa- 

 tion of what had occurred, on the llth of No- 

 vember addressed the following dispatch to 

 Mr. Bancroft: 



DEPABTMENT OF STATE, | 

 WASHINGTON, November 11, 1870. f 



SIE : The refusal of the German authorities at the 

 investment of Paris to allow the United States minis- 

 ter there to send a messenger to London with a 

 pouch, with dispatches from nis legation, unless the 

 contents of the pouch should be unsealed, must be 

 regarded as an uncourteous proceeding, which cannot 

 be acquiesced in by this Government. Blockade by 

 both sea and land is a military measure for the re- 

 duction of an enemy's fortress, by preventing the 

 access of relief from without, and by compelling the 

 troops and inhabitants to surrender for want of sup- 

 plies. When, however, the blockaded fortress hap- 

 pens to be the capital of the country where the 

 diplomatic representative of a neutral state resides, 

 has the blockading force a right to cut him off from 

 all intercourse by letter with the outer world, and 

 even with his own government? No such right is 

 either expressly recognized by public law, or is even 



alluded to in any treatise on the subject. The right 

 of legation, however, is fully acknowledged, and, as 

 incident to that right, the privilege of sending and 

 receiving messages. This privilege is acknowledged 

 in unqualified terms. There is no exception or reser- 

 vation looking to the possibility of blockade of a 

 capital by a hostile force. Although such blockades 

 are not of frequent occurrence, their liability to 

 happen must have presented itself to the minds of 

 the writers on public law, and, if they had supposed 

 that the right of sending messengers was merged in 

 or subordinate to the belligerent rights of the assail- 

 ant, they certainly would have said so. Indeed, the 

 rights of legation under such circumstances must be 

 regarded as paramount to any belligerent right. 

 They ought not to be questioned or curtailed, unless 

 the attacking party has good reason to believe that 

 they will be abused, or unless some military neces- 

 sity, wjiich upon proper statement must be regarded 

 as obvious, shall require the curtailment. 



The condition upon which the sending of mes- 

 sengers was offered was humiliating, and could not 

 be accepted by any diplomatic agent with any self- 

 respect. Correspondence between those officers and 

 their governments is always more or less confiden- 

 tial, and it is unreasonable to suppose that its in- 

 spection by the blockading force should be permitted. 

 Indeed, the requirement of such a condition must be 

 regarded as tantamount to an imputation both upon 

 the integrity of the minister and the neutrality of his 

 government. 



You will consequently remonstrate against the ex- 

 ercise of authority adverted to, as being contrary to 

 that paramount right of legation which every inde- 

 pendent nation ought to enjoy, and in which all are 

 equally interested. 



Prussia has heretofore been a leading champion of 

 the rights of neutrals on the ocean. She has, even 

 during the existing war, made acknowledged sacri- 

 fices to her faith and consistency in that respect. 

 The course of her arms on land does not seem to 

 warrant or require any enforcement of extreme bel- 

 ligerent claims in that quarter as against neutrals. 



An analogous privilege of legation was upon sev- 

 eral occasions successfully asserted by this Govern- 

 ment, during the late war between Brazil and her 

 allies on the one side, and Paraguay on the other. 

 Mr. Washburn, the United States minister to Para- 



fuay, applied for a permit to take him through the 

 ostile lines to Asuncion, his destination. The ap- 

 plication, though at first rejected, was ultimately 

 granted. Application was subsequently made for leave 

 for General McMahon, his successor, to pass the same 

 lines, and for the vessel which carried him to bring 

 back Mr. Washburn. This, also, though at first re- . 

 fused, was ultimately granted. There is reason to 

 believe that the course taken by this Government on 

 those occasions was approved by other governments. 

 It is probable that other governments would also 

 sanction the claim of the United States in this case. 

 HAMILTON FISH. 



On the 21st of the same month a note on the 

 same subject was addressed to Baron Gerolt by 

 the Secretary of State. 



Mr. Fi&h to Baron Gerolt. 

 DEPABTMENT OF STATE, 



WASHINGTON, November 21, 1870. f 

 SIB : The undersigned, Secretary of State of the 

 United States, duly received the note of the 4th 

 instant, with the accompanying documents, addressed 

 to him by Baron Gcrok, envoy extraordinary and 

 minister plenipotentiary of the North-German Union, 

 relative to intercourse betv. een the diplomatic repre- 

 sentatives in Paris of the governments of neutral 

 states and their respective governments. In that 

 communication it is assumed that, Paris being in a 

 state of siege by the German forces, the latter have a 

 belligerent "right, under the public law, to cut off all 



