Minister Russell to the Secretary of State.

No. 51.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy and translation of the last note from the Venezuelan minister for foreign affairs in answer to the last note from the dean of the diplomatic corps regarding the detention of Mr. Taigny, chargé de affaires of France, aboard the French steamer Martinique in La Guaira.

I am, etc.,

W. W. Russell.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]

The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps.

Mr. Minister: In advising your excellency of the receipt of your note of yesterday, the 20th, I am charged by the constitutional President of the Republic to say to you the following, so that your excellency can bring it to the knowledge of the diplomatic corps:

When the Government of Venezuela, in conformity with its former note, wished to avoid a categorical reply concerning the matter which was the motive of your excellency’s note, it was wishing and did in effect wish to give a proof of great deference and extreme courtesy toward the resident representatives of friendly governments in Venezuela, avoiding entering with them into the bottom of an affair which did not merit the diplomatic character which had been given it and the false situation in which the said diplomatc corps would be placed. The Venezuelan Government, obliged then by your excellency’s second note to take up the question, the Government of the Republic hastens at once to make the preliminary declaration for the reasons noted; it excused itself from having to treat with the honorable diplomatic corps such a disagreeable question without signifying that this chancellerie would not be ready and pleased to give to each one in particular of the representatives of friendly governments the explanations which in such cases are part of international [Page 1455] courtesy and of good friendship with the governments with whom such relations are cultivated. Unfortunately, the diplomatic corps at present residing in Caracas has confounded the incident concerning M. Taigny, because the case was not one to be treated in diplomatic form, unless by the government to whom the foreigner belonged, who may have been affected, and never to be treated with all the diplomatic corps together in a diplomatic way—que no cabe—it not being a proper case.

And so we see that if the case which occurred with M. Taigny might have been, let us say for example, with a Brazilian, it is clear that it would be the Government of Brazil to whom the right of asking explanations would belong and not to the diplomatic corps. Indeed, the precedent which would be established, if the Government will not accept the intervention in the form expressed, would be fatal, because any one of the nations represented by the said diplomatic corps to-morrow would be committed to accept like cases. If the Government of Venezuela—insulted by the French Government, which has gone so far as to qualify it as a despoiler, after hovering over the troubles and misfortunes of the fatherland, with the war in which conjointly with Venezuelan citizens it trampled on the fatherland, and which by proven documents already known to the public stands compromised—had done what it ought to have done, that is to say, immediately cut oft its relations with the Government of France, then, yes, that would have been a case for handing passports to the fatal Taigny, passports which would have been respected by the Venezuelan authorities, as M. Taigny himself would have been without those passports even if he had been retired by his Government, had he not become liable for the infraction of an ordinary police regulation. Indeed, after the handing in of the note by Mr. Russell in the name of the French Government and the answer by the Venezuelan Government, what character can be given to M. Taigny from the moment when the French Government categorically and finally declared that relations were broken off and that M. Taigny was withdrawn from the representation which he had? For the Government of Venezuela, and for those who represent the diplomatic corps, surely M. Taigny from this moment was nothing more than a French citizen in Venezuela, under the protection of our laws and our Government, but also liable to the action of these same laws, which give him no immunity, even supposing that he still had a diplomatic character, unless it were permissible to think that M. Taigny, after being divested by his Government of the character which he had, could continue to trample on the sacred and august laws of the Republic, a fatal precedent which could be invoked to-morrow in the respective countries represented by the diplomatic corps when similar cases arose. As your excellency said in your answering note that the former note from this chancellerie would be brought in its entirety to the knowledge of the respective Governments represented by the diplomatic corps, the Government of the Republic has made haste to answer your excellency so that the said diplomatic corps may deign to transmit simultaneously the present note also, containing the reasons for which this Government had foundation for sending your excellency the former note.

I renew, etc.,

Alejandro Ybarra.