Mr. Fish to Mr. Bancroft
Sir: I have received your No. 183 of the 21st ultimo, accompanied by the original of a letter from Count Bismarck replying to my note of November 21 to Baron Gerolt, and also a translation of the same. I am happy to think that the question discussed in my note, and in Count Bismarck’s reply, is no longer one of practical application to any probable occurrences. It is therefore quite unnecessary to consider whether the approach of a hostile force, and its military preparations for the capture of a city which has been for ages the seat of government and the capital of the country, where the political head of that country is and has been established, where its minister of foreign affairs has his office and his archives, where the representatives of other powers have been and are resident, can so convert that city into a military fortress as to apply to it the rules of war applicable to fortresses as distinguished from other towns. Or whether such approach and military demonstrations of a hostile force impose upon the diplomatic representatives of other and neutral states the alternative of abandoning their posts and their duties, or of privation of the right of free and uninterrupted correspondence with their government, which public law, no less than international comity, accords in the interest of peace. I inclose herewith copies of a correspondence between Mr. Washburne and Count Bismarck on the subject of the transmission of Mr. Washburne’s dispatches. You will observe that in this correspondence Count Bismarck, under date of January 15, admits that the delay to which the transmission of the correspondence of this Government with its minister in Paris was subjected depended upon the principle adopted by the general staff of the German army, allowing no sealed packages or letters to pass through their lines in either direction without a stoppage of several days, and he cautiously disclaims one act of immediate transmission being taken as a precedent. The President desires to make all proper allowance for the military exigencies which are represented to have led to the withholding and detaining of the official correspondence of the minister, and is gratified to receive the recognition in Count Bismarck’s letter of 28th January to Mr. Washburne of the right of correspondence contended for in my note to Baron Gerolt of 21st November last, and his assurance that the delay to which it was subjected proceded from causes which he could not remove.
Recent events, it is confidently hoped, have removed the probability of any recurrence of the interruption of free correspondence. And Count Bismarck’s assurance to Mr. Washburne that “the delay occurring now and then in the transmission of your dispatch bag is not occasioned by any doubt as to the right of your Government to correspond with you, but by obstacles it was out of my power to remove,” confirms this Government in its confidence of an entire agreement between it and North Germany on the question of the right and the inviolability of correspondence between a government and its representative, and of the absence of any intentional interference with that right in the case of its minister to Paris. I send, herewith, a copy of a dispatch of this date to Mr. Washburne.
As Count Bismarck’s recognition of the right for which I contended in my note, to Baron Gerolt is subsequent to his letter to you of 15th [Page 378] January, and admits what I felt it my duty to claim, there does not appear to be any necessity for continuing the discussion, unless the subject be again referred to by the German minister, in which case you are authorized to read to him this dispatch.
I am, &c.,
(For inclosures see correspondence with United States Legation, Paris.)