given, diplomatic instructions are always regarded as confidential communications, with the contents of which the government to which he is credited has no right to be made acquainted. Instances have occurred where ignorant and unskillful ministers have communicated such instructions without authority, to the embarrassment and injury of their own government. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, §9; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 20; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 2, § 16; Wicquefort, l'Ambassadeur, liv. 1, §14; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 227; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, § 12; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, § 5.)

§ 29. It is the duty of every diplomatic agent, on his arrival at his destined post, to notify the government to which he is accredited. In case of a minister of one of the higher classes, he is furnished with a duly authenticated copy of his letter of credence, which is delivered to the minister of foreign affairs, requesting an audience of the sovereign or chief magistrate of the state, for the purpose of delivering the original letter of credence. Chargés d'affaires, and other subordinate agents, notify their arrival to the minister of foreign affairs by letter, at the same time requesting an audience of the minister for the purpose of delivering their letters to him. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 11; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 42; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 5, § 39; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol 2, § 232; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, §6; Heffter, Droit International, § 218; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 4.)

§30. The ceremony of solemn entry, which was formerly practiced with respect to ambassadors and other ministers of the first class, is now usually dispensed with, and they are received in a private audience in the same manner as other ministers. On their presentation, by the minister of foreign affairs, they usually deliver their original letter of credence, (which is returned to them,) and pronounce a short complimentary discourse, which is replied to by the sovereign, or chief of the state, to whom they are presented. Such presentation and reception is a sufficient acknowledgement of their official character to enable them to enter on their functions. Each court has its particular ceremonial for the presentation and reception of foreign ministers, which such

ministers conform to as a matter of etiquette. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 12; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §42; Phillimore, On Int. Law., vol. 2, § 232; Horne, On Diploplomacy, sec. 5, § 39; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, §§7, 8; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, §6; Heffter, Droit International, §218; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 4.)

§ 31. Although the minister's character is not declared in its whole extent, so as to secure to him the enjoyment of all his rights, till he has had his audience and been acknowledged and admitted by the chief authority of the state to which he is accredited, he is, nevertheless, under the protection of the law of nations from the date of receiving his letter of credence, or official document of appointment. In passing throngh the country to which he is sent, in order to reach his destined post, he only requires, in time of peace, a passport from his own government, certifying to his official character. But in time of war, he must be provided with a safe conduct, or passport, from the government of the state with which his own country is in hostility, to enable him to travel securely through its territories. A refusal to give such safe conduct is a virtual refusal to receive or admit such ministers. "If they undertake," says Vattel, "to pass privately, and without permission, into places belonging to their master's enemy, they are liable to be arrested; and of this, the last war furnished a signal instance. An ambassador of France, going to Berlin, by the imprudence of his guides, took his way through a village within the electorate of Hanover, of which the sovereign, the king of England, was at war with France. He was arrested, and afterward sent over to England. As his Britanic Majesty had herein only made use of the rights of war, neither the court of France nor that of Prussia, complained of it." (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 7, § 85; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 10; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 22; Flassan, Hist. Dip. Fran., tome 5, p. 246; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 2, § 19; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 119; Bynkershoek, Foro Legatarum, cap. 9; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, tit 2, cap. Ad., 2; Real, Science du Gouvernement, tome 2, p. 297.).

§ 32. In passing through the territory of a friendly state, other than that of the government to which he is accredited, a public minister, or other diplomatic agent, is entitled to the respect and protection due to his official character, though not invested with all the privileges and immunities which he enjoys in the country to whose government he is sent. He has a right of innocent passage through the dominions of all states friendly to his own country, and to the honors and protection which nations reciprocally owe to each other's diplomatic agents, according to the dignity of their rank and official character. If the state through which he purposes to pass has just reason to suspect his object to be unfriendly, or to apprehend that he will abuse this right by inciting its people to insurrection, furnishing intelligence to its enemies, or plotting against the safety of the government, it may very properly, and without just offense, refuse such innocent passage. But if an innocent passage is granted, (and it is always presumed to be by a friendly power, unless specially denied,) he is entitled to respect and protection, and any insult or injury to him is regarded as an insult or injury, both to the state which sends him, and that to which he is sent. The following remarks of Vattel, on the assassination of the French ministers, on the Po, are both appropriate and just. "Francis the First, king of France, had all the reason in the world to complain of the murder of his ambassadors, Rincon and Fregose, as a horrible crime against public faith and the law of nations. These two persons, destined, the one to Constantinople, and the other to Venice, having embarked on the Po, were stopped and murdered, in appearance, by order of the governor of Milan. The negligence of the emperor, Charles V., to discover the author of the murder, gave room to think that he had ordered it, or, at least, that he had tacitly approved of the act. And as he did not give suitable satisfaction concerning it, Francis I. had a very just cause for declaring war against him, and even for demanding the assistance of all other nations. For an affair of this nature is not a particular difference, or a litigious question, in which each party wrests the law over to his side; it is a quarrel of all nations who are concerned to maintain, as sacred, the right and means of communicating together, and treating of

their affairs." In time of general war, or public danger, and when peculiar caution is necessary to be observed in the admission of strangers within a country, although an innocent passage is not often refused to a foreign minister, or other diplomatic agent, yet it is not unusual or improper, in such cases, to restrict it within very narrow limits, by prescribing the particular route he must travel. Thus, at the famous congress of Westphalia, whilst peace was negotiating amidst the dangers of war, and the noise of arms, the routes of the several couriers sent or received by the plenipotentiaries were marked, and out of such limits their passports were of no protection. The Spaniards found similar maxims to prevail even in Mexico and the neighboring countries. The ambassadors were respected all along the road, but if they went out of the highway, they were to forfeit their rights. Such reservations are sometimes necessary to guard against spies being sent into a country, under the guise of diplomatic agents. (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv, 4, ch. 7, §§ 84, 85; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 20; Martens, Causes Célèbres, tome 1, p. 310; Bynkershoek, de Foro Legatorum, cap. 9; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 172–175; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 23; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, § 26; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 204, 212; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, § 3; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 2; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5; Rayneval, Institutions, etc., Appen. No. 2; Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv. 1, § 29; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 4, cap. 18, § 5; Miruss, das Europ. Gesandschaftsrecht, § 365; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 119; Foelix, Droit Int. Privé., § 212.)

§ 33. The public mission of a minister may be terminated in various ways, as, for example, by his death, by the expiration of the period of his appointment, by the termination of the special negotiation or object of the mission, by his recall, by the death of his sovereign, or a radical change in the sovereignty or government of his state, by a change in his diplomatic rank, by his own withdrawal, and termination of his mission, or by his dismissal by the government to which he is accredited. Custom has established particular forms of proceedings applicable to each case, which forms are followed

as a matter of etiquette, rather than of strict right or obligation. When, by any of the circumstances above mentioned, the minister is suspended from his functions, and in whatever manner his mission is terminated, he still remains entitled by courtesy to all the privileges of his public character, until his return to his native country. The time, however, may be limited for such return, at the termination of which his privileges will cease. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 23; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 59, et seq.; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 9, § 126; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 239; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, §7; Heffter, Droit International, § 223; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, caps. Ad., 1, 2; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 7; Real, Science du Gouvernement, tome 5, p. 287.)

§ 34. Where the mission is terminated by the death of the minister, the secretary of legation, or, if there be no secretary, the minister of some allied or friendly power, places seals upon his effects, takes charge of his body, and makes the arrangements for its interment, or for sending it home. The local authorities do not interfere, unless in case of necessity. All the honors and respect due to the minister while living, are usually paid to his remains; and although, in strictness, the personal privileges of his dependents expire with the termination of his mission by death, the usage of nations extends to the widow, family, and domestics of a deceased minister, for a limited period, the same immunities which they enjoyed during his lifetime. The validity of his testament, and disposition of his movable property, ab intestato, must be determined by the laws of his own country, on the principle of the ex-territoriality of his residence. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 23; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 60-65; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 240; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 7, §§ 54-57; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 242; Heffter, Droit International, § 225; Moser, Versuch, etc., B. 6, pp. 192, 569; Miruss, das Europ. Gesand., etc., §§ 180-182; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, caps. Ad., 1, 2; Real, Science du Gouvernement, tome 5, p. 337.)

§ 35. Where the mission is terminated by an ordinary formal letter of recall, nearly the same formalities are observed as on the arrival of the minister at the court to