In another part of your letter you observe:  “The publication of my letter, which is to produce this result, is to be the act of the government, and not my act.  But if the President should think that the slightest injury to the public interest would ensue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and rendered harmless.”

To this I have to remark, in the first place, that instances have occurred in other times, not unknown to you, in which highly important letters from ministers of the United States, in Europe, to their own government, have found their way into the newspapers of Europe, when that government itself held it to be inconsistent with the interest of the United States to make such letters public.

But it is hardly worth while to pursue a topic like this.

You are pleased to ask:  “Is it the duty of a diplomatic agent to receive all the communications of his government, and to carry into effect their instructions sub silentio, whatever may be his own sentiments in relation to them; or is he not bound, as a faithful representative, to communicate freely, but respectfully, his own views, that these may be considered, and receive their due weight, in that particular case, or in other circumstances involving similar considerations?  It seems to me that the bare enunciation of the principle is all that is necessary for my justification.  I am speaking now of the propriety of my action, not of the manner in which it was performed.  I may have executed the task well or ill.  I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, and urged them indiscreetly.  All this I leave without remark.  I am only endeavoring here to free myself from the serious charge which you bring against me.  If I have misapprehended the duties of an American diplomatic agent upon this subject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, by a timely resignation, from a position in which my own self-respect would not permit me to remain.  And I may express the conviction, that there is no government, certainly none this side of Constantinople, which would not encourage rather than rebuke the free expression of the views of their representatives in foreign countries.”

I answer, certainly not.  In the letter to which you were replying it was fully stated, that, “in common with every other citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opinions upon public transactions and the conduct of public men.  But it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which he himself has not been charged with any duty, or partaken any responsibility.”