DJPLOMATIO CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 235 



Intercourse between the diplomatic representatives 



them un.l tlu-ir irovernmenU at 

 .'iflj intercourse should t>u allowed at all, 

 ,. .'in^' t'.-ivi- in.iy |ireM'i-il>e the condition* 

 it luill 1m permitted. Tin- ri;,'lit Hcoms 

 further i < 1)0 claimed upon the alleged impropriety 

 ,,f ,llpl'>m:itio agents continuing to reside in a be- 

 leaguered city which contains persons in authority 

 whoao title thereto has not boon recognized by tho 

 assailant. 



iinilerMiriied, aflcr a careful consideration of 

 ; .jr.-t, uii'l with every disposition to acknowl- 

 : ami necessary belligerent rights of the 

 I'.i'u' force, cannot acquiesce in tho pretension 

 set up on behalf of that force. It is true that, when 

 Mich :i f.'ivi' Invests a fortified place with a view to 

 .in-: ion, one of the moans usually relied upon 

 .' purpose is, the interruption of ordinary com- 

 munication by messengers or by letters. This is 

 acknowledged to be not only a belligerent right, but 

 also one incident to the actual sovereignty over the 

 enemy's territory occupied by the assailant adjacent 

 to the blockaded place. Pans, however, is the capi- 

 tal of France. There the diplomatic representatives 

 of neutral states had their official residence prior to 

 the investment. If they think proper to stay there 

 while it lasts, they must expect to put up with the 

 inconveniences necessarily incident to their choice. 

 Among these, however, the stopping of communica- 

 tion with their governments cannot bo recognized. 

 The right of embassy to a belligerent state is one 

 which it is both the duty and the interest of its ene- 

 mie> to acknowledge, and to permit the exercise of, in 

 every usual or proper way. If this right should be 

 denied or unduly curtailed, wars might be indefi- 

 nitely prolonged, and general peace would be im- 

 practicable. 



The privilege of embassy necessarily carries with 

 it that of employing messengers between the embassy 

 and its government. This is a privilege universally 

 recognized by publicists. There is no exception or 

 reservation made for tho case of an embassy having 

 its abode in a blockaded place. Indeed, the denial 

 of tho right of correspondence between a diplomatic 

 agent in such a place and his government seems 

 tantamount to insisting that he cannot elect to be a 

 neutral, but must be regarded as an adversary if he 

 continues to stay there, especially when the legiti- 

 macy of the authority of those directing the resistance 

 is denied by the other assailant. 



The opposite course, which it has suited the con- 

 venience of some neutral government to adopt, is 

 obviously liable to be construed, partly, at least, the 

 occasion of withholding the privilege or correspond- 

 ence. Should this be a correct view of the case, no 

 independent state, claiming to be a free agent in all 

 things, could in self-respect acquiesce ina proceeding 

 actuated by such a motive. The undersigned does 

 not charge tho Government of the North-German 

 Union with being so actuated, but deems himself 

 warranted in thus referring to the point, as it is ad- 

 verted to by the representative of that Government 

 both at Berlin and before Paris. 



The undersigned is consequently directed to claim 

 that the right of correspondence between the repre- 

 sentatives of neutral powers at Paris and their gov- 

 ernments is a right sanctioned by public law which 

 cannot justly be withheld without assigning other 

 reasons therefor than those which have hitherto been 

 advanced. Tho burden of a proof of the sufficiency 

 of those reasons, in furtherance of the belligerent 

 rights of the assailant, must be borne by him. 



While, however, the undersigned is directed to 

 claim the right as due to all neutrals, he will not omit 

 to acknowledge the partial exception made in favor 

 of the minister of tho United States for the reasons 

 assigned. 



The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to 

 renew to Baron Gerolt the assurance of his very high 

 consideration. HAMILTON FISH. 



Lately it is understood that tho matter, to 

 far as the Unitxl Stat. s are concerned, has 

 IH-I-II tmtisfactorily adjusted. 



Tho United States Government have had oc- 

 casion to remonstrate with the Government of 

 Peru for the attempted detention by legal pro- 

 cess of W. D. Farrunil, hearer of dispatches 

 from the legation of the United States. Upon 

 the representation of Mr. Hovey, the United 

 States minister, Mr. Farrand was released, and 

 allowed to proceed on his way. The Peruvian 

 Government contended that there were cir- 

 cumstances in the case which rendered the 

 claim of Mr. Farrand to the privileges of his 

 character as bearer of dispatches questionable. 



The views of the United States are expressed 

 in the following dispatch of Mr. Fish to Mr. 

 Brent, of the 19th of October last : 



DEPARTMENT OF STATIC, I 



WASHINGTON, October 19, 1870. ) 



SIB : The question which arose between General 

 Hovey and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru, 

 relative to the right of that government to obstruct 

 the departure of Colonel Farrand, who had been ap- 

 pointed a bearer of dispatches by the general, seems 

 to be of too much general importance to be left un- 

 noticed by this Department. It is of no moment in 

 the particular case, as the Peruvian Government ulti- 

 mately connived at Colonel Farrand's departure. 



The occasion for the colonel's employment in the 

 character adverted to was the conclusion of two 

 treaties between the United States and Peru, which 

 were signed on the 6th and 12th of last month. 

 General Hovey's instructions recognized his right to 

 make such an appointment in such a contingency. 

 The appointment was made accordingly on the 12th 

 of September, and Colonel Farrand's passport in his 

 official character issued to him on that day without 

 any information to General Hovey that any branch 

 of the Peruvian Government or any person objected 

 to the colonel's discharging the duties of his trust. 

 It seems, however, that subsequently, but before the 

 colonel could start on his errand, a person claiming 

 to be a creditor of his sued out judicial process for- 

 bidding him to leave Peru. General Hovey promptly 

 complained of this proceeding as contrary to inter- 

 national law relative to the immunities of couriers, 

 as set forth in Wheaton's treatise on that subject. 

 The minister, in his replv, while acknowledging the 

 authority of Wheaton, endeavors to restrict the privi- 

 lege of couriers as there declared to those appointed 

 by a government to its legations abroad, and en- 

 larges upon the inconveniences which the more ex- 

 tensive enjoyment of such immunities would lead to. 

 It is true that no abuse of the privilege in this case 

 is alleged, but its existence is impliedly, at least, 

 denied. This denial, however, has no support from 

 Wheaton, or from, any other writer on that branch 

 of public law. If the Peruvian minister supposed 

 that he had any reason to hesitate in acknowledging 

 the unqualified character of the rule laid down bv 

 Wheaton, the plain and unequivocal terms in which 

 Calvo speaks upon this point may be enough to re- 

 move any such hesitation. The work of this author 

 on international law was published in Spanish at 

 Paris, in 1868. It is remarkable as embracing every 

 thing illustrative of the subject up to the time of its 

 publication, and its clearness and precision are at 

 least equal to its fulness. At paragraph 240, on 

 page 850 of the first volume, may be found tho words 

 of which tho following is a translation : 



The Inviolability which public ministers enjoy has also 

 been extended to the messengers and connors 

 embassies and to those who proceed to them with official 

 dispatches, and as a geneml rule to all who discharge, u 

 cases may arise, any commission for those embassies. 



