tween na

WE have hitherto considered the duties and usages of nations, so far as they relate to their treatment of in- General dividual aliens who are within their territory. We comity benow pass on to the conduct which is due from one body politic to another, and to the representatives by whom public intercourse is managed.

tions.

The general duties here required are those which are included in the word comity: we call them duties at their origin, as being more or less indefinite, and not of strict obligation; but they become obligatory, if by compact or compliance with usage a nation takes them upon itself in a specific shape. These duties are such as polite treatment of a sovereign or of his ministers in a foreign country, courtesy in diplomatic intercourse, the observance of court etiquette, and of respect on the sea towards a foreign flag. Besides duties such as these, we place under this head respect for the reputation of a foreign state, which is, as we have seen (§ 18), a thing of strict justice.

The use of formal expressions of courtesy among nations consists in their preventing jealousies and quarrels. At the same time they may themselves be the causes of disputes, for when once established by usage, to withhold them is a slight;

and to pay attentions of different kinds, or in different degrees, to equal and sovereign states, may be more provoking than if both states had been treated with equal want of politeness. But on the whole, as in the society of individuals who are equals, so among states, it is probable that without them there would be a far greater amount of unfriendliness. § 82.

Regard for the reputation of another state.

Every nation, as we have seen, has a right of reputation : every other, therefore, is bound to abstain from deeds and words, which are calculated to wound its sense of character, or to injure its good name, or that of its sovereign, before the world. No nation, then, through its public documents, or by its official persons, can with right reflect on the institutions or social characteristics of another, or make invidious comparisons to its disadvantage, or set forth in any way an opinion of its inferiority. The same is true in respect to its functionaries, an intended insult to whom is an insult to the state which they represent. But a state is not bound to repress the free remarks made by the press and private persons upon foreign states and sovereigns; although comity, if not justice, requires that foreign sovereigns should have the power to prosecute for libel or scandal before its courts. Nor again ought regard for the feelings of another government to preclude a state from remonstrating, even in strong terms, against conduct which it judges to be oppressive or flagitious, although that conduct may be confined in its effects to the subjects of the wrong-doing state. (Comp. § 115.)

The Hülsemann affair.

It may be made a question, how far documents, which are not strictly public, may be complained of by foreign states, as embodying insults against themselves. A noted case of such complaints occurred in 1850, after our gov1 In England, in 1799, certain English subjects, prosecuted for a libel on Paul I., of Russia, were punished by fine and imprisonment. In 1803, Jean Peltier, a French refugee, was found guilty in England of libelling Napoleon, then First Consul. War intervening, he was not called up to receive judgment.-T. S. (Phillimore, i., 447.)

ernment had sent a secret agent to ascertain whether Hungary, in its war with Austria, was likely to achieve its independence. So much the government had a right to do, as it interfered in no manner in the struggle. But when the instructions to this agent were published, containing the expression "iron rule," applied to the sway of Austria over Hungary, the Austrian government directed its chargé d'affaires at Washington, Mr. Hülsemann, to communicate its displeasure at this offensive expression, and at the apparent sympathy with a part of the empire in revolt. It was replied by the United States, that there had been no interference in the quarrel between Austria and Hungary; that a sympathy with a people struggling for its independence was, on our part, unavoidable; and "that a communication from the President to either House of Congress, is regarded as a domestic communication, of which ordinarily no foreign state has cognizance." This is true, because ordinarily the departments of a government do not discuss the affairs of foreign countries, with which one or other of them has nothing immediately to do. But it is evident that communications may be made between the departments of a government, for which a foreign state may demand redress. The degree of publicity now given to political documents is such, that they are brought before the eyes of the world, and cannot be regarded as private. If a man allows his private letters, reflecting on individuals, to be published, he may commit a wrong; and so may a nation or a government if it make or allow to be made public what may fairly be called insults to foreign states.

§ 83.

sovereigns,

It may be inexpedient to admit foreign sovereigns into a country, but comity requires that this be ordinarily Treatment allowed, and that, besides the exterritoriality which of foreign they enjoy (§ 68), such marks of respect should be etc. paid to them, and to the members of sovereign houses, as may be required by the usages of Christian states. So also

in their transit through, or passage along the coasts of another country, they are to be saluted in a manner becoming the dignity of their stations, as the highest representatives of an independent state.

A more free and indefinite treatment of sovereign houses by one another, consists in friendly announcements of interesting events, as births, deaths, betrothals, and marriages; and in corresponding expressions of congratulation or condolence, amounting in the latter case even to the putting on of mourning. These courtesies of intercourse are called by some text writers state gallantry.

Ceremonial of courts.

Every court has its own ceremonial and rules of precedence at state festivals and the like. While observing these, which are nearly alike wherever there is a monarch and a court, a state is bound to make no distinctions in external politeness between foreign representatives, so far as such traditional rules do not make it necessary; and foreign representatives are bound to conform to the ceremonial lex loci, if consistent with the honor of their country. It is evident that correspondence between the legate of one state and the minister or sovereign of another requires both the forms of address which are usual among diplomatists, and an abstinence from all expressions of anger and of contempt. Otherwise, an offense against the self-respect of the nation with whose functionaries he holds intercourse is committed, and he may need to atone for his fault by apology or by recall, or else furnish ground of complaint against his nation.

Diplomatic correspondence of states.

Ceremonial of the sea.

§ 84.

In regard to the forms of international politeness on the sea, a distinction is to be made between what is done within the waters of a nation, and what is done on the high seas, where nations are entirely equal. On the high seas, and, indeed, in the waters of third powers, ships of war are under no imperative obligation from usage or law to salute one another, and yet such marks of respect are not

unusual, and are in some degree expected; so that the absence of them, although no insult, might be regarded as discourteous. They ought generally to be returned if offered by one of the parties. But within its own sea line, a sovereign state may prescribe the ceremonies with which its forts and ships of war are to be approached or passed, but it must require nothing which can be degrading to other states. And in cases, where the claim of a nation over certain waters is not acknowledged, to refuse compliance with a prescribed ceremony is a mode of showing national independence, at which no offense can be justly taken.

Forms of

on the sea.

Various forms of international politeness on the sea, are, or have been in vogue, such as furling, inclining, or lowering the flag, lowering the topsails, firing salutes politeness with cannon, sometimes accompanied with salvos of musketry, lowering and raising the flag several times in succession, salutations with the voice, and finally, complimentary visits to each other's vessel. To take down the flag, or to lower the topsails, is a token of inferiority, which is now nearly or quite obsolete. "To lower or furl the flag," says Ortolan, "is not now practiced between vessels of war, as a token of respect, and is a sign, rather, of mourning or of danger. But merchant vessels often greet vessels of war by lowering and raising the flag three several times."

The etiquette of the sea requires that a ship of war entering a harbor, or passing by a fort or castle, should pay the first salute, except when the sovereign or his ambassador is on board, in which case the greeting ought to be made first on the shore. So also the earliest salutation should proceed from a ship meeting or joining a fleet, and from an auxiliary

1 Bynkersh., Quæst. J. P., 2, § 24. "Quod ad mare exterum, quod in nullius Principis dominio est, nullius quoque est aliis reverentiam imperare, et salutem navibus suis præstandam exigere. Sunt quædam, quæ, tametsi honeste præstentur, inhoneste tamen petuntur. Inter ea refero, si quis minor dignitate majorem, in publico sibi obviam factum, salutet vel non salutet, et si qua minorum Principum navis, in mari extero, navibus majorum Principum, quaqua etiam dignitate sint, salutem dicat vel neget."

2 Diplom. de la Mer, vol. i., book 2, ch. 15.