Senator Lindsay of Kentucky, has a story of a judge in that State who, by reason of his own ill-temper, found considerable dif ficulty in controlling individuals in the court room. On one occasion there was unusual disorder. At last the judge could stand it no longer. "It is impossible to allow this persistent contempt of court," exclaimed his Honor, "and I shall be forced to go to the extreme length of taking the one step that will stop it!" There followed a long silence in the court. Finally, one of the leading counsel arose, and without the suspicion of a smile asked : If it please your Honor, on what date will your resignation take effect?"
CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of THE GREEN BAG;
Sir:— I have been in hope that I should see in your excellent publication some treat ment of what seems to me to be the kernel of the Gurney incident in its application of international law to the facts. The arrest of a secretary of the British legation for furious motor driving was a clear violation of international amenities. The contempt which he showed for the court, and his behavior in the court room, clearly in contempt of court, and the action of the Justice in treating them as such, were other clear violations. The fines have been remitted, a suitable apology offered, and Mr. Gurney in return has expressed in con ditional language his regret "if he did any thing wrong." As the London Lena Times says, if Mr. Gurney did break the law of motor driving he would probably have been more discreet and have acted more in the spirit of international comity if he had paid his fine without invoking his diplomatic character. There are a number of instances where gentlemen have pursued that course, and there must be a number of other instances where they have not only pursued that course but kept a complete silence upon the subject.
827
But the meat of the matter was not pre sented for consideration until some time after the incident itself. Then, in a dispatch which the Associated Press and other au thoritative sources of news-supply treated as semi-official, we were told that the rea son that Mr. Gurney had not been dis ciplined by the British Embassy was the circumstance that it was not he who had committed the offence. Mr. Gurney was praised for his chivalry in shielding a young American who was in fact the person who directed the motor car, exceeded the speed limit, and broke the law. But this version of the affair presents a far more serious breach of international comity than any which has been previously set before us. Clearly it was the duty of Mr. Gurney, while residing in the United States of America, to obey the reasonable laws and regulations which lie found there in force. Clearly also his immunity was given not even to him, but only to his superior officer the Ambas sador, and it was given to the Ambassador only for the necessary purpose of keeping him free from all entanglements with local matters. When such a privilege in the Am bassador, continued in the Secretary, is used as a means of saving one of the inhabitants of the country to which the Ambassador is accredited from responsibility for an ad mitted criminal act, then a grave breach of international law is committed. It is impossible to speak with authority upon a subject where our information comes only from the newspapers and where from the nature of the case, and of the courtesy which Mr. Gurney tried to show, the facts will probably never be made clear. But it seems to me that some legal authority like your excellent publication should place itself upon record and call attention to this gross violation of international law. It is scarcely right that such action, which may serve as a precedent for other courtesies like it should pass without comment upon its far-reaching possibilities and its grave character. Yours respectfully, H. R. Boston, November 30, 1904.
