Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish
Sir: Immediately on receiving your No. 261, respecting the interruption of communication between our minister at Paris and the Department, I explained to the secretary of state the opinion of the American Government, that the diplomatic right of a minister to communicate with his government is paramount to any right that may accrue to a belligerent. The case being a very simple one, it was easy at once to view it in all its aspects. The secretary of state here did not recede, and probably had not power to recede, from the position assumed by the besiegers of Paris. His answer was, first, that the opinion which our Government maintains had been presented by the representatives of eighteen several governments, and that the answer had been the same to them all, so that it was plain that the United States suffered only from a general measure, which was esteemed a necessity. Next, the secretary reminded me that the interruption, which existed at the time of our interview, sprung from those holding authority in Paris, the inference being that the one belligerent had proceeded in the matter as far as the other. [Page 363] Since my first interview with Mr. Von Thile on the subject, the inclosure, No. 269, has been received. I have made inquiries among my colleagues and find that the Swiss Republic presented a paper which I have read, and which in tone and argument is very similar to that of the Department to Baron Gerolt. No other power has taken any further notice of the matter. As a practical question it will soon lose its interest; as a speculative question it is much discussed. There are not wanting those who think that the German view will be maintained. Every disposition has been shown to facilitate the intercourse of this legation with the legation at Paris, but that courtesy does not alter the main question.
I remain, &c., &c.,