Before dismissing this subject entirely, I will add another word on that of the tone of some of our agents abroad.  It is not necessary for me to say, for the tenth time, that it is often what it ought not to be; the fact has been openly asserted in the European journals, and there can, therefore, be no mistake as to the manner in which their conduct and opinions are viewed by others.  Certainly every American has a right to his opinions, and, unless under very peculiar circumstances, a right to express them; but, as I have already said to you in these letters, one who holds a diplomatic appointment is under these peculiar circumstances.  We are strangely, not to say disgracefully, situated, truly, if an American diplomate is to express his private opinions abroad on political matters only when they happen to be adverse to the system and action of his own government!  I would promptly join in condemning the American agent who should volunteer to unite against, or freely to give his opinions, even in society, against the political system of the country to which he is accredited.  Discretion and delicacy both tell him to use a proper reserve on a point that is of so much importance to others, while it is no affair of his, and by meddling with which he may possibly derange high interests that are entrusted to his especial keeping and care.  All this is very apparent, and quite beyond discussion.  Still circumstances may arise, provocations may be given, which will amply justify such a man in presenting the most unqualified statements in favour of the principles he is supposed to represent.  Like every other accountable being, when called to speak at all, he is bound to speak the truth.  But, admitting in the fullest extent the obligations and duties of the diplomatic man towards the country to which he is sent, is there nothing due to that from which he comes?  Is he to be justified in discrediting the principles, denying the facts, or mystifying the results of his own system, in order to ingratiate himself with those with whom he treats?  Are rights thus to be purchased by concessions so unworthy and base?  I will not believe that we have yet reached the degraded state that renders a policy so questionable, or a course so mean, at all necessary.  It really appears to me, that the conduct of an American minister on all these points ought to be governed by a very simple rule.  He should in effect tell the other party, “Gentlemen, I wish to maintain a rigid neutrality, as is due to you; but I trust you will manifest towards me the same respect and delicacy, if not on my own account, at least on account of the country I represent.  If you drag me into the affair in any way, I give you notice that you may expect great frankness on my part, and nothing but the truth.”  Such a man would not only get a treaty of indemnity, but he would be very apt to get the money into the bargain.