to make the correspondence relating to it public under the rules of my government, I conceive that your excellency would be doing full justice to all concerned, as you have the power, in publishing the entire correspondence.

I beg to reassure your excellency of my most distinguished consideration.

His Excellency Sr. Dr. D. J. J. LOAYZA,

ALVIN P. HOVEY.

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

No. 238.]

No. 299.

Mr. Henry M. Brent to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Lima, Peru, September 29, 1870. (Received Oct. 28.)

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith the copy and translation of a note from his excellency the minister of foreign affairs relative to the immunities to be accorded to bearers of dispatches.

I made answer to his excellency that I would transmit the document to the Department and await instructions.

H. M. BRENT.

No. 47.]

Señor Loayza to Mr. H. M. Brent.

[Translation.]

LIMA, September 23, 1870. SIR: I regret having to commence my official intercourse with you in referring to an affair which has taken an unpleasant character, and in which the doctrine sustained by your legation cannot be admitted by my government without establishing precedents of very important consequences. It is understood that I refer to the departure of the American citizen, Mr. W. D. Farrand, violating the judicial orders of detention issued against him, at the request of persons to whom he was under certain responsibilities. Since the violation of these orders, issued in conformity with Peruvian laws and by competent authority, was an accomplished fact, and since the government of Peru could not be silent on such an important point, without admitting the theory sustained by General Hovey, it was found necessary to address to this high functionary the note of protest, with which you are perfectly conversant. I thought that this would terminate the discussion initiated by the American minister, in which this department has sustained, and does sustain, that the appointment of a person as bearer of dispatches is not sufficient to withdraw him from the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the country where he has resided as a private individual, and as such entered into various undertakings of a business character; but, nevertheless, the general addressed me the note which I received on the 19th instant a few hours before he made his official farewell. I find it indispensable to take notice of that dispatch regarding the matter under its true merits, and placing the question of international right in its correct limits, proving thus again that my government has, in this disagreeable affair, observed the proper circumspection, and has adhered perfectly to the principles of the great law of nations.

Following the plan established by his excellency General Hovey, I will first remark the facts preceding the departure of Colonel Farrand, to afterward enter into the question of the privileges of bearers of dispatches.

When, by the first dispatch of his excellency on the 13th instant, I learned of the appointment of Colonel Farrand as bearer of dispatches to Washington, and of the existance of certain orders of detention against him, I was pained at not being able to accede to the request contained in that dispatch, that Farrand might not be impeded from leaving in the steamer sailing for Panama on the next morning; since it was impossible to establish an unjustifiable exception, and violate the laws to which the person detained was liable, the government thus contributing to weaken the respectable orders of the judicial power, and causing the interested parties in the detention to lose their rights by a gubernatorial act, at once illegal and unjustifiable.

Such were the considerations that governed me in replying to General Hovey on the same day, a reply which was delivered to him by Dr. Elmore, the chief clerk of this

department, who likewise brought to me at 12 o'clock on the same night the answer of the American legation. Without awaiting the result of the discussion, his excellency General Hovey departed for Callao in the first train on the morning of the 14th, and going on board the steamer Peru, the scene with which you are acquainted took place. It is said that the letter of the official mayor, transcribed in his excellency's dispatch which I now reply to, was considered as an easy method devised by me to avoid the controversy, and that it was not supposed after this semi-official announcement that any difficulty would occur.

I must be permitted to recall to your honor that when a diplomatic discussion is being carried on in writing, it cannot be considered as terminated by private notes, not even bearing the signatures of the debating ministers, but only that of an employé of the department of the chief clerk; especially as the said employé did not state in his letter that the note was by the order or the request of the minister. On the other hand, from the tenor of this document, to which an importance is given it that is not merited, it appears that the minister who now addresses you insisted in denying the request, and this must be noted, since this department cannot refuse the request of the minister of a friendly power, to afterward concede it in an anti-diplomatic and indecorous manner. Since the minister of foreign affairs cannot and does not accept the responsibility of the acts of others, this point may be considered as fixed. But since the legation has given such importance to this letter, the same must be allowed to a document of the same nature, addressed to me by the official mayor on the same night, thinking he might not find me, and which he delivered to me in my house. In this he says: "The general accompanies Farrand to Callao to-morrow, and says that a very grave international question will take place if the authorities of Peru detain, in such circumstances, an officer of the United States."

It therefore appears that the decision of his excellency to accompany Farrand was not the result of the letter from the official mayor, but had been formed from the morning of the 13th. This cannot be denied, unless it is agreed that the private letters of which I have spoken have not the semi-official character, which, if given to the first, must also be conceded to the last.

A number of quotations are made in the dispatch, which I have the honor of answering from noted writers, respecting the immunities, inviolability of the person and dispatches and papers of the messenger. These are hardly to the point, since I do not pretend to sustain that messengers while in the country to which they are sent, or in a third nation through which they must pass, can be detained. The present question is of a distinct character. It is whether an individual domiciled in a country in which as a private citizen he has made business transactions and contracted certain responsibilities can escape these by being named bearer of dispatches by a diplomatic agent. The question now fairly put is not sustainable by the theory invoked in favor of Farrand, and certainly no authority will be found to assert the immunity of the messenger simply from having received that character, and against whom, before his entrance upon his duty, the orders of arrest were issued. It cannot be otherwise, since, if the doctrine upheld by the legation of the United States is admitted, it follows by clear logic that a diplomatic agent naming as messenger some person against whom legal writs were pending, or who from certain responsibilities was prohibited from leaving the country where they were contracted, was authorized to protect with his flag such a person even if before his entrance on duty the grave impediment against the messenger was known. Your honor will agree with me that such a theory, absurd and wholly untenable, and even supposing, as it must be supposed, that at the time of naming the messenger the minister was unaware of the obstacles existing, once cognizant of them the person should be left to justice, and another person named to discharge the commission, thus reconciling the exigencies of the diplomatic service with those not less to be respected, of the due administration of justice.

I have been very far from affirming in any of my communications that a messenger sent by a legation, an embassador, or a minister, should not leave the state from which he carries the dispatches. I have affirmed, calling upon the authority of Baron Martens, that the messenger is inviolable in the state to which he is sent, or in the territory of a third, through which he may pass to perform his duty, and that Martens, in not stating the case of the messenger being detained in the territory from which he is sent, clearly insinuates that the messenger may be there detained, if there are motives for so doing, since it is easy to replace him; since his responsibilities should not be ignored, contracted in the place of his residence, and since establishing a contrary theory, diplomatic agents would have the additional privilege of withdrawing from the courts of the country where they are accredited, any person subject to civil or criminal responsibilities, only by alleging the person was being sent as bearer of important dispatches. This necessary rectification made, the argument referred to is destroyed.

But even supposing that the Baron de Martens had made no distinction in this matter, it would always be impossible to sustain that a commission as bearer of dispatches would free a person from the action of the courts of the country where he resides, and

from the liabilities he had there contracted. Bearers of dispatches cannot pretend to the same immunities as the higher members of the diplomatic corps; and if the Baron de Werch, plenipotentiary of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel in France, was detained in Paris because he had not paid his creditors, and was not allowed to leave that capital until the Landgrave had assumed the responsibility of his debts, what would take place with respect to persons not having such rank in the diplomatic family? The question needs no reply.

The difference of opinion on the point in discussion does not alter the good understanding between the two governments, nor the harmony and personal consideration between the two ministers who have been engaged in the question, which I think is now concluded.

I must observe to your honor that in mentioning the delay in receiving the note I have just answered, it was only to fix that delay on record, and not to give the matter any undeserved importance.

I beg to assure your honor of my highest consideration.

Hon. HENRY M. BRENT,

Chargé d'Affaires of the United States.

J. J. LOAYZA.

No. 3.]

No. 300.

Mr. Fish to Mr. Brent.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 19, 1870. SIR: 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 appointed a bearer of dispatches by the general, seems to be of too much general importance to be left unnoticed by this Department. It is of no moment in the particular case, as the Peruvian government ultimately 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 forbidding him to leave Peru. General Hovey promptly complained of this proceeding as contrary to international law relative to the immunities of couriers, as set forth in Wheaton's treatise on that subject. The minister, in his reply, while acknowledging the authority of Wheaton, endeavors to restrict the privilege of couriers as there declared to those appointed by a government to its legations abroad, and enlarges upon the inconveniences which the more extensive 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 by Wheaton, the plain and unequivocal terms in which Calvo speaks upon this point may be enough to remove

any such hesitation. The work of this author on international law was published in Spanish at Paris, in 1868. It is remarkable as embracing everything illustrative of the subject up to the time of its publication, and its clearness and precision are at least equal to its fullness. At paragraph 240, on page 350 of the first volume, may be found the words of which the following is a translation:

The inviolability which public ministers enjoy has also been extended to the messengers and couriers of the embassies and to those who proceed to them with official dispatches, and as a general rule to all who discharge, as cases may arise, any commission for those embassies.

This, it seems, should be conclusive of the question. If General Hovey had been aware that Colonel Farrand was justly liable to arrest, and had willfully appointed him a bearer of dispatches to screen him therefrom, this would have been sufficient cause of complaint on the part of the Peruvian government, and perhaps of censure of its minister by this Government. Even this knowledge on the part of the general, however, would not, it is conceived, have impaired the immunity of his courier under the public law. If alleged delinquencies or pretended claims are trumped up against persons appointed or about to be appointed couriers in foreign countries to prevent them from starting, the immunity guaranteed to them by public law may at any time be annihilated by an envious or malicious person. This is a result to be deplored and guarded against by all governments, by the government of Peru as well as by the Government of the United States.

No. 5.]

No. 301.

Mr. Davis to Mr. Brent.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, November 1, 1870. SIR: Your dispatch, No. 238, of the 27th ultimo, accompanied by further correspondence in regard to the appointment of Colonel Farrand as bearer of dispatches, has been received. The arguments of the Peruvian minister for foreign affairs against the legality of that appointment appear to have been answered by anticipation in the instruction to you, No. 3, of the 19th ultimo.

No. 54.]

RUSSIA.

No. 302.

Mr. Schuyler to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

St. Petersburg, July 17, 1870. (Received August 3.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that his Majesty the Emperor, sanctioning the report of the Holy Synod, has seen fit to appoint the Archimandrite John archbishop of the Aleutian Isles and of Alaska. He was formally nominated on Wednesday last, and was consecrated

to-day. The diocese of this new bishop includes the whole of the United States, but it is not yet decided whether he will have his residence in New York, San Francisco, or New Archangelsk. His salary is three thousand rubles, paid by the imperial government. The bishop himself is only thirty-two years old, and has been but eight years in orders, but is highly spoken of for learning and character. As this is, I believe, the first instance where a foreign sovereign (the Pope excepted) has sent a functionary of this kind to the United States, and certainly the first where the functionary receives his pay from the treasury of a foreign power, I have thought it necessary to call your attention to this fact.

I may add that a few weeks ago a Mr. Nicolas Behring, formerly a Catholic professor of Baltimore, came to St. Petersburg and embraced the Russian orthodox religion. He was at once ordained a priest for service in America, the rite being performed in the German language. EUGENE SCHUYLER.

No. 66.]

Mr. Schuyler to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

St. Petersburg, August 31, 1870. (Received Sept. 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose you an abstract of the law regulating cities, the latest of the great reforms of the present reign. The constitution of the Russian cities, now in force, was adopted by Catherine II, and continued almost unchanged until 1866, when charters similar in spirit, though less liberal than this new law, were granted to St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa. These reforms were found to work so well, that a special commission was charged with the duty of elaborating a general law for all the cities of the empire. This commission was at work for more than a year, making public from time to time its proceedings and propositions, which were ably discussed in the leading journals. The project of the commission was adopted, with slight alterations, by the council of the empire, and is now sanctioned by the Emperor.

By an imperial ukase of the 28th of June, published on the 4th of August, this reform has been ordered to be introduced into all the cities of European Russia, except St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa; and the cities of Poland, Bessarabia, (except Kishinef,) and the Baltic provinces. The first three, owing to their exceptional position, are left as they are for the present, and their city councils are given six months to show what changes may be needed for them. After consultation with the authorities of the western and Baltic provinces, special laws will be made suited to the needs of those regions. The abolition of the old German and Swedish charters in the cities of the Baltic provinces will probably be attended by some difficulty.

The reform seems conceived in a very liberal spirit, with the aim of decentralizing as much as possible, and of accustoming the people to representative institutions. The peculiar mode of protecting the property-owning classes in the election of the city councils is an interesting experiment in municipal government. The lowest class in the cities of Russia, composed of artisans and laborers, is constantly changing; and other things being equal, it would be found very difficult to arrange for their voting. The restriction as to the number of non-Christians in the city governments seems a blot in an otherwise liberal measure, and it has been remarked as such by some of the journals.

EUGENE SCHUYLER.