Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1900
  4. Document 547

Mr. Porter to Mr. Hay.

Embassy of the United States,
Paris , November 13, 1899 .
No. 560.]

Sir: Referring to the question of the inviolability of the consular dwelling of Mr. Tourgée at Arcachon, I have to report that in accordance with your instruction. No. 636, of August 9, I laid the matter before Mr. Delcassé in a dispatch dated September 19, in which I followed as closely as possible your own language, as used in the abovementioned lucid presentation of the case.

Mr. Delcassé replied to this communication under date of the 8th instant, in terms almost identical with those used by the French embassy at Washington in its memorandum of August 14, a copy of which accompanied your No. 683 of November 3, received this morning.

Mr. Delcassé draws a distinction between the consular dwelling and the personal dwelling of the consul. He contends that Mr. Tourgée should have appealed to the courts to vindicate his rights as he understood them instead of resisting an order of the court. He states that the French Government has not the power of disavowing any judicial act performed by a magistrate in his judicial capacity. He denies that the French officials used any language offensive to the United States, and finally states that as the case has been practically settled between the parties the only point remaining in question is whether the language of the treaty can be construed as meaning that the inviolability of the consular dwelling extends to the personal dwelling occupied temporarily by a consul for his convenience. To this construction the minister says he can not adhere before taking the advice of the legal adviser of his department, and he has requested them to examine the question.

Your memorandum of August 27, having already acquainted the French foreign office with your understanding of the meaning of the language of the treaty with regard to consular dwellings, I deemed it unnecessary to reply to Mr. Delcassé’s note. The proper time for so doing will be when he communicates the opinion of the legal adviser of his department on the question in point.

I have, etc.,

Horace Porter.