The Democratic Pioneer

Case of H. Poussin.

The last advices from Europe do not inform us that Mr. Rives has as yet been accredited by the French government. We presume that despatches have been received by Mr. Clayton, probably exhibiting the real difficulty in the case. It is said that the true state of the matter has not been properly understood in the United States. The French government do not complain of the granting to M. Poussin of his passports by Mr. Clayton. The Secretary, indeed, was unfortunate in the course which he pursued in the manner of dismissing the minister. He might either have applied to the French government to recall him upon assigned reasons, or he might at once have dismissed M. Poussin, and afterwards explained the reasons to his government. Either of these measures was perfectly consistent with precedent. But Mr. Clayton pursued neither; but resorted to the less decisive course of laying the correspondence before the French government, without intimating his purpose, and founding upon those documents the application for a recall. Still the French government, though it might have felt the irregularity of the proceeding, does not complain, we understand, of his final dismission. That course it is admitted this government had full right to adopt, leaving the question of propriety to be discussed and settled afterwards; and that it is no just cause of offence for one government to dismiss the minister of another, or refuse to receive such minister on the ground of personal objection to the individual, is conceded. But the French government take the ground that, in this matter, the mode and manner of proceeding adopted by Mr. Clayton has been a violation of the rules of diplomatic courtesy and etiquette, and an affront to France; which until some amende honorable is made, will delay the reception of our minister. We learn that Mr. Rush was requested by Mr. Clayton to continue in France till Mr. Rives should arrive. He consented to do so, and the French government was advised of this arrangement. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Clayton, it seems, did not send his letter advising M. de Tocqueville of the dismissal of M. Poussin through the regular official and proper channel, Mr. Rush yet remaining there as plenipotentiary; but presuming that Mr. Rush may have left Paris, he despatched his epistle through the ordinary channel by the steamer, and it is said through the post office, directed to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. This mode of communication, adopted under these peculiar circumstances, and in this case of a delicate nature, is deemed by M. de Tocqueville such a manifest departure from the observances and rules of diplomatic courtesy, that, without some explanation, Mr. Rives may not be immediately received. Mr. Clayton cannot well explain the faux pas, as he was advised of Mr. Rush's consent to remain in France. How he came to select the post office as the medium of correspondence with M. de Tocqueville, it is rather difficult to conjecture. If he meant nothing—if it was merely because it was most convenient, he should it is said, have so stated to the French government at the time. As the affair stands now, the existing difficulty is entirely caused by his not being au fait in his department duties. We have heard that he did not understand any foreign language, and his mispronunciation of M. Poussin's name in the commencement of his intercourse with that gentleman annoyed the latter exceedingly, as the Secretary insisted on calling him Mr. Powsang; but we did not suppose he would get the United States into difficulty by a disregard of the proper mode of sending despatches to a foreign court, and will do him the justice to withhold our opinion until we understand the matter more fully.—Union.