QJflrttfU ICam ^rljool Htbtary 
 
Cornell University Library 
 JX 1405.S67 
 
 Treaties and topics In American diplomac 
 
 3 1924 017 539 564 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017539564 
 
TREATIES AND TOPICS 
 
 rsr 
 
 AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 BY 
 
 FREEMAN SNOW, Ph.D., LL.B. 
 
 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 THE BOSTON BOOK COMPANY. 
 
 1894. 
 
Copyright, 189Jf., 
 By Freeman Snow. 
 
 PRESSWOEK BT 
 JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE, U.S A. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 I. 
 
 Extracts prom European Treaties relating to American History. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Treaty of Utrecht, Articles xii. and xiii 1 
 
 Cession of Louisiana, 1762 3 
 
 Treaty of Paris, 1763, Articles v., vi., and vii 3 
 
 Treaty of 1788 (France and England), Articles iv. , v. , and vi 5 
 
 British Declaration as to Fisheries, 1788 5 
 
 Treaty of 1788 (Spain and England), Article v 6 
 
 Treaty of Armed NeutraUty, 1780 7 
 
 II. 
 
 Treaties and Conventions with European Stater. 
 
 France. 
 
 Plan of Treaties 12 
 
 Instructions to Commissioners, 1776 24 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1778 26 
 
 Treaty of Alliance, 1778 82 
 
 Consular Convention, 1788 85 
 
 Contract for Payment of loans, 1782 39 
 
 Treaty of 1800 41 
 
 Treaty for Cession of Louisiana, 1803 46 
 
 Convention for Payment of Sixty Millions, 1803 - 47 
 
 Conventions for Payment of Sums due by France 48 
 
 iii 
 
IV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 France — Continued. ' page 
 
 Convention of Navigation and Commerce, 1823 50 
 
 Convention concerning Claims, 1831 51 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Instructions for Treaty of Peace, Aug. 14, 1779 53 
 
 Instructions for Treaty of Commerce, Aug. 14, 1779 55 
 
 Act of Massachusetts Legislature in respect to Fisheries. . . 57 
 Eeport of Committee, on Fisheries and Boundary, Aug. 16, 
 
 1783 '. 57 
 
 Treaty of Peace, 1783 63 
 
 Treaty of 1794 68 
 
 Note to Treaty of 1794 73 
 
 Treaty of Ghent, 1814 74 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1815. 76 
 
 Declaration relating to St. Helena, 1815 77 
 
 Convention relating to Naval Force on Lakes, 1817 78 
 
 Convention respecting Fisheries, Boundary, etc., 1818 79 
 
 Note to Convention of 1818 81 
 
 Treaty of Boundaries, etc., 1843 82 
 
 Treaty setthng Northwest Boundary, 1846 84 
 
 Convention relating to Isthmian Canal, 1850 86 
 
 Convention for the Settlement of Claims, 1858 90 
 
 Treaty of Reciprocity, 1854 90 
 
 Treaty for Suppression of Slave-Trade, 1863 92 
 
 Note to Treaty of 1862 , 94 
 
 Treaty for Settlement of certain Claims, 1863 95 
 
 Treaty relative to Alabama Claims, Fisheries, etc., 1871. ... 95 
 Convention for Settlement of Behring Sea Controversy, 
 
 1892 103 
 
 Spain. 
 
 Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation, 1795 106 
 
 Note to Treaty of 1795 109 
 
 Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits, 1819 110 
 
 Prussia. 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1785 113 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1799 116 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1828. 117 
 
 Denmark, 
 
 Convention relating to Sound Dues, 1857 124 
 
 Italy. 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1871 137 
 
 Bussia. 
 
 Convention relative to Rights on Northwest Coast, 1834. ... 133 
 
 Convention relative to Neutrals, 1854 134 
 
 Convention for Cession of Alaska, 1867 135 
 
 Other European States. 
 
 Treaties and Conventions with ; 133 143 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. V 
 
 III. 
 
 Treaties and Conventions with Asiatic and African States. 
 
 Barbary States. page 
 
 Morocco, Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1787 143 
 
 " General Treaty relative to Protection in Morocco, 
 
 1880 148 
 
 Algiers, Treaties with 154 
 
 Tripoli, Treaties with 154 
 
 Tunis, Treaties with 155 
 
 China. 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1858 156 
 
 Treaty concerning Trade, Consuls, etc., 1868 162 
 
 Treaty relating to Chinese Immigration, 1880 163 
 
 ^Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 Treaty of Reciprocity, 1875 165 
 
 Convention extending Treaty of 1875, and for Coaling 
 
 Station 169 
 
 Japan. 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1854 170 
 
 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 1858 170 
 
 Convention for Payment of |3,000,000 by Japan, 1864 171 
 
 Convention revising Commercial Treaties, 1878 172 
 
 The Ottoman Porte. 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1830 173 
 
 Note to Treaty of 1830 174 
 
 Other Asiatic and African States. 
 
 Treaties and Conventions with 174^176 
 
 IV. 
 
 Treaties and Conventions with Latin American States. 
 
 Colombia. 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1824 177 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1846 188 
 
 Mexico. 
 
 Treaty of Peace, Limits, etc., 1848 185 
 
 Treaty of Boundaries, Transit, etc., 1853 192 
 
 Convention of Reciprocity, 1888 (not yet ratified) 194 
 
 Note to Treaties with Mexico 196 
 
 Nicaragua. 
 
 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, and Canal 197 
 
 Other Latin American States. 
 
 Treatieswith 201-204 
 
VI TABLE OP CONTENTS, 
 
 V. 
 
 Consular Conventions. 
 
 FAQE 
 
 France, 1853 305 
 
 Belgium, 1880 311 
 
 Other States, viz. : New Granada, 1850 ; Hanseatic Eepublios, 1858 ; 
 Netherlands, 1855; Italy, 1868 and 1878; Austria-Hungary, 
 1870 ; German Empire, 1871 ; Roumania, 1881 ; Servia, 1881 ; 
 
 Zanzibar, 1886 317-318 
 
 Note to Consular Treaties 318 
 
 VI. 
 
 Conventions fob the Extradition of Criminals. 
 
 France, 1843 319 
 
 Prussia, 1853 320 
 
 Belgium, 1883 223 
 
 Other States 338-339 
 
 Note to Extradition Treaties 239 
 
 VII. 
 
 Naturalization Treaties. 
 
 North German Union, 1868 280 
 
 Great Britain, 1870 333 
 
 Austria-Hungary, 1870 233 
 
 Other States ' 234 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Conventions concerning Droit D'Aubaine ; Trade-Marks; Indus- 
 trial Property ; Submarine Cables. 
 
 Droit D'Aubaine gag. 
 
 Trade-Marks ogg 
 
 Submarine Cables ' oag 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. vii 
 
 PART II. 
 
 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 The Monroe Doctrine. page 
 
 Origin and History of the Monroe Doctrine 337-294 
 
 The Panama Congress, 1826 394-313 
 
 American Congresses, 1847-1882 313-316 
 
 International American Conference, 1890 316-336 
 
 Interoceanic Canal and Clayton-Bulwer Treaty 336-346 
 
 Yucatan, 1848 347 
 
 Cuba 349-357 
 
 San Domingo 357-360 
 
 The Hawaiian Islands 361-397 
 
 Samoa 398-^3 
 
 Remarks on the Monroe Doctrine 433-427 
 
 The Fisheries Question 427-470 
 
 The Behring Sea Arbitration 471-509 
 
 Index 511 
 
PART I. 
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 
 
 I. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM EUROPEAN TREATIES 
 RELATING TO AMERICAN HISTORY. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. 
 
 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1713 (Utrecht). 
 
 Article XII. — " The most Christian king shall take care to 
 have delivered to the queen of Great Britain, on the same day 
 that the ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged, solemn 
 and authentic letters, or instruments, by virtue whereof it shall 
 appear, that the island of St. Christopher's is to be possessed 
 alone hereafter by British subjects, likewise all Nova Scotia or 
 Acadie, with its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port 
 Royal, now called Annapolis Royal, and all other things in 
 those parts which depend on the said lands and islands, together 
 with the dominion, propriety, and possession of the said islands, 
 lands, and places, and all right whatsoever, by treaties, or by 
 any other way obtained, which the most Christian king, the 
 crown of France, or any of the subjects thereof, have hitherto 
 had to the said islands, lands, and places, and the inhabitants 
 of the same, are yielded and made over to the queen of Great 
 Britain, and to her crown, forever, as the most Christian king 
 
2 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 doth, at present, yield and make over all the particulars above 
 said ; and that in such ample manner and form, that the subjects 
 of the most Christian king shall hereafter be excluded from all 
 kind of fishing in the said seas, bays, and other places, on the 
 coasts of N^ova Scotia, that is to say, on those which lie towards 
 the east, within thirty leagues, beginning from the island com- 
 monly called Sable, inclusively, and thence stretching along 
 towards the south-west." 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — " The island called Newfoundland, with the 
 adjacent islands, shall from this time forward belong of right 
 wholly to Britain ; and to that end, the town and fortress of 
 Placentia, and whatever other places in the said island are in 
 the possession of the French, shall be yielded and given up, 
 within seven months from the exchange of the ratifications of 
 this treaty, or sooner, if possible, by the most Christian king, 
 to those who have a commission from the queen of Great Britain 
 for that purpose. ~ Nor shall the most Christian king, his heirs 
 and successors, or any of their subjects, at <iny time hereafter, 
 lay claim to any right to the said island and islands, or to any 
 part of it, or them. Moreover, it shall not be lawful for the 
 subjects of France to fortify any place in the said island of 
 Newfoundland, or to erect any buildings there, besides stages 
 made of boards, and huts necessary and usual for drying of 
 fish ; or to resort to the said island, beyond the time necessary 
 for fishing, and the drying of fish. But it shall be allowed to 
 the subjects of France to catch fish, and to dry them on land, 
 in that part onlj', and in no other besides that, of the said island 
 of Newfoundland, which stretches from the place called Cape 
 Bonavista to the northern part of the said island, and from 
 thence running down by the western side, reaches as far as the 
 place called Point Riche. But the island called Cape Breton, 
 as also all others, both in the mouth of the river of St. Law- 
 rence, and in the gulph of the same name, shall hereafter belong 
 of right to the French, and the most Christian king shall have 
 all manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there." 
 
GREAT BBITAIN AND FRANCE, 1763. 3 
 
 FRANCE AND SPAIN. 
 
 1. The Family Compact, 1761. 
 
 This was a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance between 
 France and Spain, signed August 15, 1761, to which the adhe- 
 sion of the other Bourbon Princes was to be procured. 
 
 2. Cession oe Louisiana. 
 
 By a secret treaty between France and Spain, concluded 
 November 3, 1762, Louisiana and New Orleans were ceded to 
 Spain, the cession being in the nature of a recompense for the 
 loss of Florida, which Spain had ceded to Great Britain by the 
 preliminary treaty of Paris signed the same day. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. 
 
 Treaty of Paeis, Fbbeuaey 10, 1763. 
 
 Article V. — " The subjects of France shall have the liberty of 
 fishing and drying, on a part of the coasts of the Island of New- 
 foundland, such as is specified by Article 13 of the Treaty of 
 Utrecht ; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present 
 Treaty except what relates to the Island of Cape Breton, as well 
 as to the other Islands and coasts in the mouth and in the Gulph 
 of St. Lawrence. And His Britannic Majesty consents to leave to 
 the subjects of the Most Christian King the liberty of fishing 
 in the Gulph St. Lawrence, on condition that the subjects of 
 France do not exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 
 three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as 
 well those of the continent, as those of the islands situated in 
 the said Gulph St. Lawrence. And as to what relates to the 
 fishery on the coast of the Islands of Cape Breton out of the 
 said Gulph, the subjects of the Most Christian King shall not 
 be permitted to exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 
 fitfteen leagues from the coast of the Island of Cape Breton ; 
 and the fishery on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and 
 
4 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 everywhere else out of the said Gulph, shall remain on the 
 footiag of former treaties." 
 
 Aeticle VI. — " The King of Great Britain cedes the Islands of 
 St. Pierre and Miquelon, in full right, to His Most Christian 
 Majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen ; and 
 his said Most Christian Majesty, engages not to fortify the 
 said islands ; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for 
 the convenience of the fishery ; and to keep upon them a guard 
 of fifty men only for the police." 
 
 'Aeticle VII.—" In order to re-establish peace on solid and 
 durable foundations, and to remove forever all subject of dis- 
 pute with regard to the limits of the British and French ter- 
 ritories on the continent of America ; it is agreed, that for the 
 future, the confines between the dominions of His Britannic 
 Majesty, and those of His Most Christian Majesty, in that part 
 of the world, shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along 
 the middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the river 
 Iberville, and from thence, by a line drawn along the middle of 
 this river, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the 
 sea ; and for this purpose, the Most Christian King cedes in 
 full right, and guarantees to His Britannic Majesty, the river 
 and port of the Mobile, and every thing which he possesses, or 
 ought to possess, on the left side of the river Mississippi, except 
 the town of New Orleans, and the island in which it is situated, 
 which shall remain to France ; provided that the navigation of 
 the river Mississippi shall be equally free, as well to the sub- 
 jects of Great Britain as to those of France, in its whole breadth 
 and length, from its source to the sea, and expressly that part 
 which is between the said island of New Orleans and the right 
 bank of that river, as well as the passage both in and out of its 
 mouth. It is further stipulated, that the vessels belonging to 
 the subjects of either nation shall not be stopped, visited, or 
 subjected to the payment of any duty whatsoever. The stip- 
 ulations, inserted in the IVth article, in favour of the inhabitants 
 of Canada, shaU also take place with regard to the inhabitants 
 of the countries ceded by this article." 
 
GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE, 1783. 5 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. 
 
 Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783. 
 
 Article IV. — " His Majesty the King of Great Britain is main- 
 tained in his right to the Island of Newfoundland, and to the ad- 
 jacent islands, as the whole were assured to him by the Thir- 
 teenth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht ; excepting the Islands 
 of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are ceded in full right, by 
 the present Treaty, to His Most Christian Majesty." 
 
 Article V. — " His Majesty the Most Christian King, in order 
 to prevent the quarrels which have hitherto arisen between the 
 two Nations of England and France, consents to renounce the 
 right of fishing, which belongs to him in virtue of the aforesaid 
 Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, from Cape Bonavista to Cape 
 St. John, situated on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, in 
 fifty degrees North latitude, and His Majesty the King of Great 
 Britain consents on his part, that the fishery assigned to the 
 subjects of His Most Christian Majesty, beginning at the said 
 Cape St. John, passing to the north, and descending by the 
 western coast of the Island of Newfoundland, shall extend to 
 the place called Cape Raye, situated in forty-seven degrees, 
 fifty minutes latitude. The French fishermen shall enjoy the 
 fishery which is assigned to them by the present Article, as 
 they had the right to enjoy that which was assigned to them 
 by the Treaty of Utrecht." 
 
 Article VI. — " With regard to the fishery in the Gulph of 
 St. Lawrence, the French shall continue to exercise it conform- 
 ably to the fifth article of the Treaty of Paris." 
 
 BRITISH DECLARATION, SEPTEMBER 3, 1783. 
 
 (extract.) 
 
 " The King having entirely agreed with His Most Christian 
 Majesty upon the Articles of the Definitive Treaty, will seek 
 every means which shall not only ensure the execution thereof, 
 with his accustomed good faith and punctuality, but will be- 
 sides give, on his part, all possible eflBcacy to the principles 
 
6 TREATIES AND CONVENTICNS. 
 
 which shall prevent even the least foundation of dispute for the 
 future. 
 
 " To this end, and in order that the fishermen of the two 
 nations may not give cause for daily quarrels, His Britannic 
 Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing 
 his subjects from interrupting, in any manner, by their com- 
 petition, the fishery of the French, during the temporary exer- 
 cise of it which is granted to them, upon the coasts of the 
 Island of Newfoundland ; and he will, for this purpose, cause 
 the fixed settlements which shall be formed there, to be re- 
 moved. His Britannic Majesty will give orders, that the 
 French fishermen be not incommoded, in cutting the wood 
 necessary for the repair of their scaffolds, huts, and fishing 
 vessels. 
 
 " The thirteenth article of the Treaty with Utrecht, and the 
 method of carrying on the fishery which has at all times been 
 acknowledged, shall be the plan upon which the fishery shall 
 be carried on there : it shall not be deviated from by either party ; 
 the French fishermen building only their scaffolds, confining 
 themselves to the repair of their fishing-vessels, and not win- 
 tering there ; the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, on their 
 part, not molesting, in any manner, the French fishermen, dur- 
 ing their fishing, nor injuring their scaft'olds during their 
 absence. 
 
 " The King of Great Britain, in ceding the Islands of St. 
 Pierre and Miquelon to France, regards them as ceded for the 
 purpose of serving as a real shelter to the French fishermen, 
 and in full confidence that these possessions will not become 
 an object of jealousy between the two nations ; and that the 
 fishery between the said Islands, and that of Newfoundland, 
 shall be limited to the middle of the channel." 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN. 
 
 Treaty of Peace, -September 3, 1783: 
 
 Article V.—" His Britannic Majesty cedes and guarantees, 
 in full right, to His Catholic Majesty, East Florida, as also West 
 Florida. His Catholic Majesty agrees that the British inhabit- 
 ants, or others who may have been subjects of the King of Great 
 
THE ARMED NEUTRALITY, 1780. 7 
 
 Britain in the said countries, may retire in full security 
 and liberty, where they shall think proper, and may sell their 
 estates, and remove their effects, as well as their persons, without 
 being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence what- 
 soever, except on account of debts, or criminal prosecutions ; 
 the term limited for this emigration being fixed to the space of 
 eighteen months, to be computed from the day of the exchange 
 of the ratifications of the present treaty ; but if from the value 
 of the possessions of the English proprietors they should not 
 be able to dispose of them within the said term, then His Catholic 
 Majesty shall grant them a prolongation proportioned to that 
 end. It is further stipulated, that His Britannic Majesty shall 
 have the power of removing from East Florida all the effects 
 which may belong to him whether artillery, or other matters." 
 
 TREATY OF ARMED NEUTRALTY BETWEEN^ THE 
 EMPRESS OF RUSSIA AND THE KING OF DEN- 
 MARK; ACCEDED TO BY THE KING OF SWEDEN, 
 AND THE STATES-GENERAL OF THE UNITED 
 PROVINCES. 
 
 Article I. — " Their respective majesties are fully and sin- 
 cerely determined to keep upon the most friendly terms with the 
 present belligerent powers, and preserve the most exact neu- 
 trality : they solemnly declare their firm intention to be, that 
 their respective subjects shall strictly observe the Laws forbid- 
 ding all contraband trade with the powers now being, or that 
 may hereafter be, concerned in the present disputes." 
 
 Aeticle II.^"To prevent all equivocation or misunder- 
 standing of the word Contraband, their imperial and royal maj- 
 esties declare, that the meaning of the said word is solely re- 
 strained to such goods and commodities, as are mentioned under 
 that denomination, in the treaties subsisting between their 
 said majesties and either of the belligerent powers. Her 
 imperial majesty abiding principally by the X. and XL articles 
 of the treaty of commerce with Great Britain ; the conditions 
 therein mentioned, which are founded on the Rights of Nations, 
 being understood to extend to the kings of France and Spain ; 
 as there is at present no specific treaty of commerce between 
 
8 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 the two latter and the former. His Danish majesty, on his 
 part, regulates his conduct in this particular, by the first arti- 
 cle of his treaty with England, and by the 26th and 27th of 
 that subsisting between his said majesty and the king of France, 
 extending the provisions made in the latter to the Catholic 
 king; there being no treaty ad hoc, between Denmark and 
 Spain." 
 
 Aetiolb III. " And whereas, by this means, the word con- 
 traband, conformable to the treaties now extant, and the 
 stipulations made between the contracting powers, and those 
 that are now at war, is fully explained ; especially by the treaty 
 between Russia and England, of the 20th of June, 1766 ; be- 
 tween the latter and Denmark, of the 11th of July, 1670 ; and 
 between their Danish and most Christian majesties, of August 
 23d, 1642 ; the will and opinion of the high contracting powers 
 are, that all other trade whatsoever shall be deemed, and re- 
 main free and unrestrained. 
 
 " By the declaration delivered to the belligerent powers, their 
 contracting majesties have already challenged the privileges 
 founded on Natural Right, whence spring the Freedom of 
 Trade and Navigation, as well as the Right of Neutral Powers : 
 and being fully determined not to depend in future merely on 
 an arbitrary interpretation, devised to answer some private 
 advantages or concerns, they mutually covenanted as fol- 
 loweth : 
 
 " 1st. That it will be lawful for any ship, whatever, to sail 
 freely from one port to another, or along the coasts of the powers 
 now at war. 
 
 " 2nd. That all merchandize and effects belonging to the sub- 
 jects of the said belligerent powers, and shipped on neutral 
 bottoms, shall be entirely free ; except contraband goods. 
 
 " 3d. In order to ascertain what constitutes the blockade of 
 any place or port, it is to be understood to be in such predica- 
 ment, when the assailing power has taken such a station, as to 
 expose to imminent danger, any ship or ships that would 
 attempt to sail in or out of the said ports. 
 
 " 4th. No neutral ship shall be stopped, without a material 
 
 and well-grounded cause : and in such cases, justice shall be 
 
 done to them, without loss of time ; and besides indemnifying, 
 
 , each and every time, the party aggrieved or thus stopped with- 
 
THE ARMED NEUTRALITY, 1780. 9 
 
 out sufficient cause, full satisfaction shall be given to the high 
 contracting powers, for the insult offered to their flag." 
 
 Aeticlb IV. — "In order to protect officially the general 
 trade of their respective subjects, on the fundamental principles 
 aforesaid, her imperial and his royal majesty have thought 
 proper, for effecting such purpose, each respectively to fit out a 
 proportionate rate of ships of war and frigates. The squadron 
 of each of the contracting powers shall be employed in escort- 
 ing convoys, according to the particular circumstances of the 
 navigators and traders of each nation. 
 
 Article V. — " Should any of the merchantmen belonging to 
 the subjects of the contracting powers, sail in a latitude where 
 there shall be no ships of war of their own nation, and thus be 
 deprived of the protection ; in such case, the commander of the 
 squadron belonging to the other friendly power shall, at the 
 request of said merchantmen, grant them sincerely, and bona 
 fide, all necessary assistance. The ships of war and frigates, 
 of either of the contracting powers, shall thus protect and 
 assist the merchantmen of the other : provided nevertheless, 
 that, under the sanction of such required assistance and pro- 
 tection, no contraband shall be carried on, nor any prohibited 
 trade, contrary to the Laws of Neutrality." 
 
 Article VI. — " The present convention cannot be supposed 
 to have any relative effect ; that is, to extend to the differences 
 that may have arisen since its being concluded, unless the 
 controversy should spring from continual vexations, which 
 might tend to aggrieve and oppress all the European nations." 
 
 Article VII. — " If, notwithstanding the cautions and friendly 
 care of the contracting powers, and their steady adherence to an 
 exact Neutrality, the Russian and Danish merchantmen should 
 happen to be insulted, plundered, or captured by any of the armed 
 ships or privateers, belonging to any of the belligerent powers : 
 in such case, the ambassador or envoy of the aggrieved party, 
 to the offending court, shall claim such ship or ships, insisting 
 
 on a proper satisfaction, and never neglect to obtain a 
 
 reparation for the insult offered to the flag of his court. The 
 minister of the other contracting power shall at the same time, 
 in the most efficacious and vigorous manner, defend such re- 
 quisitions, which shall be supported by both parties with 
 unanimity. But in case of any refusal, or even delay in redress- 
 
10 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 ing the grievances complained of ; then their majesties will 
 retaliate against the power that shall thus refuse to do them 
 justice, and immediately agree together on the most proper 
 means of making well-founded reprisals." 
 
 Article VIII. — '• In case either of the contracting powers, 
 or both at the same time, should be in any manner aggrieved 
 or attacked, in consequence of the present convention, or for 
 any reason relating thereto ; it is agreed, that both powers will 
 join, act jn concert for their mutual defence, and unite their 
 forces, in order to procure to themselves an adequate and per- 
 fect satisfaction, both in regard to the insult put upon their 
 respective flags, and the losses suffered by their subjects." 
 
 Aeticlb IX. — "This convention shall remain in force for 
 and during the continuance of the present war ; and the obliga- 
 tion enforced thereby , will serve as the'ground'Worh of all treaties 
 that may be set on foot hereafter: according to future occur- 
 rences, and on the breaking out of any fresh maritime wars 
 which might unluckily disturb the tranquillity of Europe. 
 Meanwhile, all that is hereby agreed upon, shall be deemed as 
 binding and permanent, in regard both to mercantile and naval 
 affairs ; and shall have the force of Xaw, in determining the 
 rights of Neutral Nations." 
 
 AeticleX. — " The chief aim and principal object of the pres- 
 ent convention being to secure the Freedom of Trade and Nav- 
 igation, the high contracting powers have antecedently agreed, 
 and do engage to give to all other neutral powers free leave to 
 accede to the present treaty, and, after a thorough knowledge 
 of the principles on which it rests, share equally in the obliga- 
 tions and advantages thereof." 
 
 Article XI. — " In order that the powers, now at war, may 
 not be ignorant of the strength and nature of the engagements 
 entered into by the two courts aforesaid, the high contracting 
 parties shall give notice, in the most friendly manner, to the 
 belligerent powers, of the measures by them taken ; by which, 
 far from meaning any manner of hostility, or causing any loss 
 or injury to other powers, their only intention is to protect the 
 trade and navigation of their respective subjects." 
 
 Article XII. — " This convention shall be ratified by the 
 contracting powers, and the ratifications interchanged between 
 the parties in due form, within the space of six weeks, from 
 
THE AEMED NEUTRALITY, 1780. 11 
 
 the day of its being signed, or even sooner, if possible. In 
 witness whereof, and by virtue of the full powers granted us 
 for the purpose, we have put our hands and seals to the pres- 
 ent treaty. 
 
 " Given at Copenhagen, July the 19th, 1780. 
 
 " CHARLES D'OSTEN, called SOKEN. 
 
 "J. SCHACK RATLAU. 
 
 « A. P. COMTE BERNSTORFF. 
 
 "O. THOFT. 
 
 "H. EIKSTEDT. 
 
 "Acceded to, and signed by the Plenipotentiaries of the 
 court of Sweden, at St. Petersburg, 21st of July, 1780 : and by 
 the States-General accepted, November 20th, 1780 ; and signed 
 at St. Petersburg, January 5th, 1781, with the addition only of 
 article " 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — " If the respective squadrons, or ships of 
 war, should meet or unite to act in conjunction, the command 
 in chief will be regulated according to what is only commonly 
 practised between the croWned heads and the republic." 
 
n. 
 
 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS WITH EURO- 
 PEAN STATES. 
 
 PLAN OF TREATIES. 
 
 (Secret Journals of Congress, Foreign Affairs, II., 6, September 17, 1776.) 
 
 " Congress took into consideration tlie plan of treaties to be 
 proposed to foreign nations, with the amendments agreed to by 
 the committee of the whole ; and thereupon, 
 
 " Resolved. That the following plan of a treaty be proposed 
 to his most christian majesty : 
 
 "PLAN OF A TREATY WITH FRANCE. 
 
 " There shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal peace, and a 
 true and sincere friendship, between the most serene and 
 mighty prince, Lewis the sixteenth, the most christian king, 
 his heirs and successors, and the United States of America; 
 and the subjects of the most' christian king, and of the said 
 states ; and between the countries, islands, cities and towns, 
 situate under the jurisdiction of the most christian king, and 
 of the said United States, and the' people and inhabitants 
 thereof of every degree ; .without exceiption of persons or places. 
 And the terms herein mentioned, shall be perpetual between 
 the most christian king, his heirs and successors, and the said 
 United States." 
 
 Article I. — ^([The subjects of France to pay no other duties 
 than natives pay, and to enjoy all the rights and privileges in 
 
 12 
 
FRANCE, 17T6. 13 
 
 navigation and commerce which natives enjoy.) " The subjects 
 of the most christian king shall pay no other duties or im- 
 posts, in the ports, havens, roads, countries, islands, cities or 
 towns of the said United States, or any of them, than the na- 
 tives thereof or any commercial companies established by them 
 or any of them shall pay, but shall enjoy all other the rights, 
 liberties, privileges, immunities and exemptions in trade, nav- 
 igation, and commerce, in passing from one part thereof to 
 another, and in going to and from the same, from and to any 
 part of the world, which the said natives or companies enjoy." 
 
 Article II. — (Reciprocal rights and privileges of American 
 citizens in France.) — " The subjects, people and inhabitants of 
 the said United States, and every of them, shall pay no other 
 duties, or imposts, in the ports, havens, roads, countries, islands, 
 cities or towns of the most christian king, than the natives of 
 such countries, islands, cities or towns of France, or any .com- 
 mercial companies established by the most christian king, shall 
 jiay, but shall enjoy all other the rights, liberties, privileges, 
 immunities and exemptions in trade, navigation and com- 
 merce, in passing from one port thereof to another, and in going 
 to and from the same, from and to any part of the world, which 
 the said natives or companies enjoy." 
 
 Akticle III. — (France to retain same rights of fishery in 
 Newfoundland banks and islands, as stipulated in the treaty of 
 Paris, 1763.) — "His most christian majesty shall retain the 
 same rights of fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, and all 
 other rights relating to any of the said islands, which he is 
 entitled to by virtue of the treaty of Paris." 
 
 Article IV. — (France to protect U. S. vessels in her ports 
 and on the high seas near her coasts ; and to recover and re- 
 store ships taken in her jurisdiction ; and her ships of war in 
 convoy shall take U. S. vessels under convoy and protect 
 them, etc.) — "The most christian king shall endeavour, by all the 
 means in his power, to protect and defend all vessels, and the 
 effects belonging to the subjects, people or inhabitants of the 
 said United States, or any of them, being in his ports, havens, or 
 roads, or on the seas near to his countries, lands, cities or 
 towns ; and to recover and to restore to the right owners, their 
 agents, or attorneys, all such vessels and effects, which shall be 
 taken within his jurisdiction; and his ships of war, or any 
 
14 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 convoys sailing under his authority, shall upon all occasions 
 take under their protection all vessels belonging to the sub- 
 jects, people, or inhabitants of the said United States, or any 
 of them, and holding the same course or going the same way ; 
 and shall defend such vessels as long as they hold the same 
 course, or go the same way, against all attacks, force, and vio- 
 lence, in the same manner as they ought to protect and defend 
 vessels belonging to the subjects of the most christian king." 
 
 Akticlb V- — (Reciprocal of IV.) — " In like manner the said 
 United States, and their ships of war, and convoys sailing under 
 their authority, shall protect and defend all vessels and effects 
 belonging to the subjects of the most christian king ; and en- 
 deavour to recover and restore them, if taken within the juris- 
 diction of the said United States, or any of them." 
 
 Aeticle YI. — (Neither shall receive pirates into ports ; but 
 shall seize them, and restore property taken by them.) — " The 
 most christian king and the said United States, shall not 
 receive nor suffer to be received, into any of their ports, 
 havens, roads, countries, islands, cities or towns, any pirates or 
 sea robbers, or afford or suffer any entertainment, assistance or 
 provision to be afforded to them ; but shall endeavour by all 
 means, that all pirates and sea robbers, and their partners, 
 sharers, and abettors, be found out, apprehended, and suffer 
 condign punishment ; and all the vessels and effects piratically 
 taken, and brought into the ports and havens of the most 
 christian king, or the said United States, which can be found, 
 although they be sold, shall be restored, or satisfaction given 
 therefor ; the right owners, their agents or attorneys demand- 
 ing the same, and making the right of property to appear by 
 due proof." 
 
 Article VII. — (France asked to protect U. S. vessels from 
 the depredations of the Barbary pirates.) — " The most christian 
 king shall protect, defend, and secure, as far as in his power, 
 the subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United States, 
 and every of them, and their vessels and effects of every king, 
 against all attacks, assaults, violences, injuries, depredations or 
 plunderings, by or from the king or emperor of Morocco, or 
 Fez, and the states of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, and any of 
 them, and every other prince, state and power on the coast of 
 Barbary in Africa, and the subjects of the said king, emperor, 
 
PRANCE, 1776. 15 
 
 states and powers, and of every of them, in the same manner, 
 and as effectually and fully, and as much to the benefit, advan- 
 tage, ease and safety of the said United States, and every of 
 them, and of the subjects, people and inhabitants thereof, to 
 all intents and purposes, as the king and kingdom of Great 
 Britain, before the commencement of the present war, protected, 
 defended and secured the people and inhabitants of the said 
 United States, then called British colonies In America, their 
 vessels and effects, against all such attacks, assaults, violences, 
 injuries, depredations and plunderings." 
 
 Article VIII. — (If Great Britain declare war upon France, the 
 United States not to assist Great Britain in any way.) — " If, in 
 consequence of this treaty, the king of Great Britain should 
 declare war against the most christian king, the said United 
 States shall not assist Great Britain in such war, with men, 
 money, ships, or any of the articles in this treaty denominated 
 contraband goods." 
 
 Article IX. — (France is never to possess any part of the 
 North American Continent, nor the islands about the Gulf of 
 St. Lawrence, the intention being that these shall belong to the 
 United States.) — " The most christian king shall never invade, 
 nor, under any pretence, attempt, to possess himself of Labra- 
 dor, New Britain, Nova Scotia, Acadia, Canada, Florida, nor 
 any of the countries, cities or towns on the continent of North 
 America, nor of the islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, 
 St. Johns, Anticosti, nor of any other island lying near to the 
 said continent in the seas, or in any gulph, bay or river ; it 
 being the true intent and meaning of this treaty, that the said 
 United States shall have the sole, exclusive, undivided and 
 perpetual possession of the countries, cities and towns on the 
 said continent, and of all islands near to it, which now are 
 or lately were under the jurisdiction of or subject to the king 
 or crown of Great Britain, whenever they shall be united or 
 confederated with the said United States." 
 
 Article X. — (The citizens or inhabitants of neither nation 
 shall fish in places possessed by the other.) — " The subjects, 
 inhabitants, merchants, commanders of ships, masters and 
 mariners, of the states, provinces and dominions of each party, 
 respectively, shall abstain and forbear to fish in all places, pos- 
 sessed, or which shall be possessed by the other party. The 
 
16 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 most christian king's subjects shall not fish in the havens, 
 hays, creek, roads, coasts, or places which the said United 
 States hold or shall hereafter hold. . . . And if any ship or 
 vessel shall be found fishing, contrary to the tenor of this 
 treaty, the said ship or vessel, with its lading, proof being made 
 thereof, shall be confiscated." 
 
 Aktiolb XI. — (If France gets possession of the British West 
 India Islands, the people of the United States shall have the 
 same rights there as are mentioned in Article II.) — " If in any 
 war the most christian king shall conquer, or get possession of, 
 the islands in the West Indies, now under the jurisdiction of 
 the king or crown of Great Britain, or any of them, or any 
 dominions of the said king or crown, in any other parts of the 
 world, the subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United 
 States, all and every of them, shall enjoy the same rights, liber- 
 ties, privileges, immunities and exemptions, in trade, commerce 
 and navigation, to and from the said islands and dominions, 
 that are mentioned in the second article of this treaty." 
 
 Article XII. — (No higher duties shall be imposed on exports 
 from French West Indies, etc. , to the United States than the 
 lowest imposed on export to France.) — " It is the true intent 
 and meaning of this treaty, that no higher or other duties shall 
 be imposed on the exportation of anything of the growth, 
 production pr manufacture of the islands in the West Indies, 
 now belonging, or which may hereafter belong to the most 
 christian king, to the said United States, or any of them, than 
 the lowest that are or shall be imposed on the exportation thereto 
 to France, or to any other part of the world. 
 
 Aeticlb XIII. — (No duties shall ever be imposed on the export 
 of molasses from the French West Indies to the United States.) 
 — " It is agreed by and between the said parties, that no duties 
 whatever shall ever hereafter be imposed on the exportation of 
 molasses from any of the islands and dominions of the most 
 christian king in the West Indies, to any of these United 
 States." 
 
 Aeticle XIV.— (Droit d'Aubaine.)— "The subject^, people 
 and inhabitants of the United States, or any of them, being 
 merchants and residing in France, and their property and 
 effects of every kind, shall be exempt from the Droit 
 d'Aubaine." 
 
PEANCE, 1776. 17 
 
 Aeticle XV. — (Merchant ships to exhibit passports and cer- 
 tificates.) — " The merchant ship of either of the parties which 
 shall be making into a port belonging to the enemy of the other 
 ally, and concerning whose voyage, and the species of goods on 
 board her, there shall be just grounds of suspicion, shall be 
 obliged to exhibit as well upon the high seas, as in the ports 
 and havens, not only her passports, but likewise certificates, 
 expressly showing, that her goods are not of the number of 
 those which have been prohibited as contraband." 
 
 Article XVI. — (Procedure in the case of contraband goods ; 
 free ships, free goods ; ships may deliver contraband, and pro- 
 ceed.) — ■" If, by exhibiting the above certificates, the other party 
 discover there are any of those sorts of goods, which are pro- 
 hibited and declared contraband, and consigned for a port under 
 the obedience of his enemies, it shall not be lawful to break up 
 the hatches of such ship, or to open any chest, coffers, packs, 
 casks, or any other vessels found therein, or to remove the 
 smallest parcels of her goods, whether such ship belong to the 
 subjects of France or the inhabitants of the said United States, 
 unless the lading be brought on shore, in the presence of the 
 officers of the court of admiralty, and an inventory thereof 
 made : but there shall be no allowance to sell, exchange, or 
 alienate the same in any manner, until after that due and law- 
 ful process shall have been had against such prohibited goods, 
 and the courts of admiralty shall, by a sentence pronounced, 
 have confiscated the same ; saving always as well the ship 
 itself as any other goods found therein, which by \his treaty 
 are to be esteemed free ; neither may they be detained on pre- 
 tence of .their being, as it were, infected by the prohibited 
 goods, much less shall they be confiscated as lawful prize. But, 
 if not the whole cargo, but only part thereof, shall consist of 
 prohibited or contraband goods, and the commander of the ship 
 shall be ready and willing to deliver them to the captor who 
 has discovered them ; in such case the captor, having received 
 those goods, shall forthwith discharge the ship, and not hinder 
 her by any means freely to prosecute the voyage on which she 
 was bound." 
 
 Article XVII. — (Neutral goods on board ships of the enemy 
 subject to confiscation.)— "On the contrary, it is agreed that 
 whatever shall be found laden by the subjects and inhabitants 
 2 
 
18 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 of either party, on any ship belonging to the enemy of the 
 other, or to his subjects, although it be not of the sort of pro- 
 hibited goods, may be confiscated in the same manner as if it 
 belonged to the enemy himself, except such goods and mer- 
 chandise as were put on board such ship before the declaration 
 of war, or even after such declaration, if so be it were done 
 without the knowledge of such declaration, so that the goods 
 of the subjects or people of either party, whether they be of 
 the nature of such as are prohibited, or otherwise, which, as is 
 aforesaid, were put on board any ship belonging to an enemy 
 before the war, or after the declaration of it, without the 
 knowledge of it, shall no wise be liable to confiscation, but shall 
 well and truly be restored without delay to the proprietors 
 demanding the same ; but so as that if the said merchandises 
 be contraband, it shall not be any ways lawful to carry them 
 afterwards to any ports belonging to the enemy." 
 
 Article XVIII.— (Ships of war and privateers of one not to 
 injure citizens of the other.)—" And that more effectual care 
 may be taken for the security of the subjects and inhabitants 
 of both parties, that they suffer no injury by the men-of-war 
 or privateers of the other party, all the commanders of the 
 ships of the most christian king, and of the said United States, 
 and all their subjects and inhabitants, shall be forbid doing 
 any injury or damage to the other side ; and if they act to the 
 contrary, they shall be punished ; and shall moreover, be bound 
 to make satisfaction for all matter of damage, and the interest 
 thereof, by reparation, under the penalty and obligation of their 
 persons and goods." 
 
 Article XIX. — (Property recaptured from pirates to be 
 restored.) — " All ships and merchandises of what nature soever, 
 which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates oi; rob- 
 bers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either 
 state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the oflftcers of 
 that port, in order to be restored entire, to the true proprietor, 
 as soon as due and sufftcient proof shall be made concerning 
 the property thereof." 
 
 Article XX. — (Prizes of either may be carried into the ports 
 of the other ; but no shelter shall be given by either to prizes 
 from the other.) — " It shall be lawful for the ships of war of 
 either party, and privateers, freely to carry, whithersoever they 
 
FRANCE, 1776. 19 
 
 please, the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without 
 being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty, 
 or any other judges ; nor shall such prizes be arrested or seized, 
 when they come to and enter the ports of either party ; nor 
 shall the searchers or other officers of those places search the 
 same, or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such 
 prizes ; but they may hoist sail at any time, and depart, and 
 carry their prizes to the place expressed in their commissions, 
 which the commanders of such ships of war shall be obhged to 
 show. On the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in 
 their ports to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, 
 people or property of either of the parties ; but if such should 
 come in, being forced by stress of weather, or the danger of 
 the sea, all proper means shall be vigorously used that they go 
 out, and retire from thence as soon as possible." 
 
 Article XXI. — (Wrecked vessels to be protected and as- 
 sisted.)—" If any ships belonging to either of the parties, their 
 subjects, or people, shall within the coasts or dominions of the 
 other, stick upon the sands, or be wrecked, or suffer any other 
 damage, all friendly assistance and relief shall be given to the 
 persons shipwrecked, or such as shall be in danger thereof ; 
 and letters of safe conduct shall likewise be given to them for 
 their free and quiet passage from thence, and the return of 
 every one to his own country." 
 
 Article XXII. — (Vessels of either forced by stress of 
 weather or by pursuit of pirates or enemies, into ports of the 
 other, to be protected.) — " In case the subjects and people of 
 either party, with their shipping, whether public and of war, 
 or private and of merchants, be forced through stress of 
 weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, or any other urgent 
 necessity, for seeking of shelter and harbor, to retreat and 
 enter into any of the rivers, creeks, bays, hayens, roads, ports, 
 or shores, belonging to the other party, they shall be received 
 and treated with all humanity and kindness, and enjoy all 
 friendly protection and help ; and they shall be permitted to 
 refresh and provide themselves, at reasonable rates, with vict- 
 uals and all things needful, for the sustenance of their 
 persons, or reparation of their ships, and conveniency of their 
 voyage ; and they shall no ways be detained or hindered from 
 returning out of the said ports, or roads, but may remove and 
 
20 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 depart, when and whither they please, without let or hin- 
 drance." 
 
 Article XXIII. — ^(In the event of war between the two nations, 
 six months to be allowed to merchants for removal.)—" For the 
 better promoting of commerce on both sides, it is agreed, that 
 if a war shall break out between the said two nations, six 
 months after the proclamation of war shall be allowed to the 
 merchants in the cities and towns were they live, for settling 
 and transporting their goods and merchandises; and if any-- 
 thing be taken from them, or any injury be done them, within 
 that time, by either party, or the people or subjects of either, 
 full satisfaction shall be made for the same." 
 
 Article XXIV. — (Citizens of one of the parties not to accept 
 commissions or letters of marque from the enemies of the 
 other.) — " No subjects of the most christian king shall apply 
 for or take any commission, or letters of marque for arming 
 any ship, or ships, to act as privateers against the said United 
 States, or any of them, or against the subjects, people or in- 
 habitants of the said United States, or any of them, or against 
 . the property of the inhabitants of any of them, from any prince 
 or state with which the said United States shall be at 
 war. Nor shall any citizen, subject or inhabitant of the 
 said United States, or any of them, apply for or take any com- 
 mission or letters of marque for arming any ship or ships to 
 act as privateers against the subjects of the most christian 
 king, or any of them, or the property of any of them, from any 
 prince or state with which the said king shall be at war ; and 
 if any person, of either nation, shall take such commissions or 
 letters of marque, he shall be punished as a pirate." 
 
 Article XXV. — (Privateers of a state at war with one of the 
 parties shall not fit out vessels in the ports of the other, or sell 
 what they have taken.) — " It shall not be lawful for any foreign 
 privateer, not belonging to the subjects of the most christian 
 king, or citizens of the said United States, who have com- 
 missions from any other prince, or state, in enmity with either 
 nation, to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the 
 other of the aforesaid parties, to sell what they have taken, or 
 in any other manner whatsoever to exchange either ships, 
 merchandises, or any other lading; neither shall they be 
 allowed even to purchase victuals, except such as shall be 
 
PRANCE, iTTe. 21 
 
 necessary for their going to the next port of that prince or state 
 from which they have commissions." 
 
 Article XXVI. — (Citizens of one may trade with the enemies 
 of the others : free ships, free goods, and also persons except 
 soldiers.) — " It shall be lawful for all and singular the subjects 
 of the most christian king, a;nd the citizens, people and inhab- 
 itants of the said states, to sail with their ships with all 
 manner of liberty and security, no distinction being made, who 
 are the proprietors of the merchandises laden thereon, from any 
 port to the places of those who now are, or hereafter shall be, 
 at enmity with the most christian king, or the United States. 
 It shall likewise be lawful for the subjects and inhabitants 
 aforesaid to sail with the ships and merchandises aforemen- 
 tioned, and to trade with the same liberty and security from 
 the places, ports and havens of those who are enemies of both, 
 or either party, without any opposition or disturbance what- 
 soever, not only directly from the places of the enemy afore- 
 mentioned to neutral places, but also from one place belonging 
 to an enemy to another place belonging to an enemy, whether 
 they be under the jurisdiction of the same prince, or under 
 several. And it is hereby stipulated, that free ships shall also 
 give a freedom to goods ; and that everything shall be deemed 
 to be free and exempt, which shall be found on board the ships 
 belonging to the subjects of either of the confederates, 
 although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should ap- 
 pertain to the enemies of either; contraband goods being 
 always excepted. It is also agreed, in like manner, that the 
 same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free 
 ship, with this effect, that although they be enemies to both, 
 or either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship, 
 unless they are soldiers and in actual service of the enemies." 
 
 Article XXVII. — (List of contraband goods ; and of free 
 goods). — "This liberty of navigation and commerce shall 
 extend to all kinds of merchandises, excepting those only 
 which are distinguished by the name of contraband ; and under 
 this name of contraband or prohibited goods, shall be com- 
 prehended arms, great guns, bombs with their fusees and other 
 things belonging to them, fire-balls, gunpowder, match, cannon- 
 ball, pikes, swords, lances, spears, halberds, mortars, petards, 
 granadoes, saltpetre, muskets, musket-balls, helmets, head- 
 
22 TKEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 pieces, breastplates, coats of mail, and the like kind of arms 
 proper for arming soldiers, musket rests, belts, horses with 
 their furniture, and all other warlike instruments whatsoever. 
 These merchandises which follow shall not be reckoned among 
 contraband or prohibited goods, that is to say, all sorts of 
 cloths, and all other manufactures woven of any wool, flax, 
 silk, cotton or any other material whatever, all kinds of wear- 
 ing apparel, together with the species whereof they are used to 
 be made, gold and silver, as well coined as uncoined, tin, iron, 
 lead, brass, coals, as also wheat and barley, and any other kind 
 of corn and pulse, tobacco, and likewise all manner of spices, salted 
 and smoked flesh, salted fish, cheese and butter, beer, oil, 
 wines, sugars, and all sorts of salt, and in general all provisions 
 which serve for the nourishment of mankind, and the suste- 
 nance of life. Furthermore, all kinds of cotton, hemp, flax, tai", 
 pitch, ropes, cables, sails, sail cloth, anchors and any part of 
 anchors, also ships' masts, planks, boards and beams, of what 
 tree soever, and all other things, proper either for building or 
 repairing ships, and all other goods whatsoever, which have not 
 been worked into the form of any instrument or thing pre- 
 pared for war by land or by sea, shall not be reputed contra- 
 band, much less such as have been already wrought and made 
 up for any other use; all which shall wholly be reckoned 
 among free goods ; as likewise all other merchandises and 
 things which are not comprehended, and particularly mentioned, 
 in the foregoing enumeration of contraband goods ; so that 
 they may be transported and carried in the freest manner, by 
 the subjects of both confederates, even to places belonging to 
 an enemy, such towns and places being only excepted as are 
 at that time besieged, blocked up, or invested." 
 
 Aeticle XXVIII. — (Vessels to carry sea letters and certifi- 
 cates in time of war.) — " To the end that all manner of dissen- 
 sions and quarrels may be avoided and prevented, on one side 
 and the other, it is agreed, that in case either of the parties 
 hereto should be engaged in a war, the ships and vessels belonging 
 to the subjects or people of the other ally must be furnished 
 with sea letters or passports, expressing the name, property, 
 and bulk of the ship, as also the name and place of habitation 
 of the master or coinmander of the said ship, that it may appear 
 thereby, that the ship really and truly belongs to the subjects 
 
FRANCE, 1776. 23 
 
 of one of the parties ; which passports shall be made out and 
 grante& according to the form annexed to this treaty. They 
 shall likewise be recalled every year; that is, if the ship 
 happens to return home in the space of a year. It is likewise 
 agreed that such ships, being laden, are to be provided not 
 only with passports, as abovementioned, but also with certifi- 
 cates containing the several particulars of the cargo, the place 
 whence the ship sailed, and whither she is bound, that so it 
 may be known whether any forbidden or contraband goods be 
 on board the same ; which certificates shall be made out by 
 the of&cers of the place whence the ship set sail, in the ac- 
 customed form ; and if any one shall think it fit or advisable to 
 express in the said certificates the persons to whom the goods 
 on board belong, he may freely do it. 
 
 Aeticle XXIX. — (The case of ships not wishing to unload 
 cargo.) " The ships of the subjects and inhabitants of either of 
 the parties, coming upon any coast belonging to either of the 
 said allies, but not willing to enter into port, or being entered 
 into port, and not willing to unload their cargoes or break 
 bulk, shall not be obliged to give an account of their lading, 
 unless they should be suspected, upon some manifest tokens, of 
 carrying to the enemy of the other ally any prohibited goods 
 called contraband ; and in case of such manifest suspicion, the 
 parties shall be obliged to exhibit, in the ports, their passports 
 and certificates in the manner before specified." 
 
 Article XXX. — (The ship of war of one state visiting mer- 
 chant vessels of the other are to remain out of cannon shot ; 
 goods to be examined before being put or board.) — " If the ships 
 of the said subjects, people or inhabitants of either of the parties, 
 shall be met with, either sailing along the coast, or on the high 
 seas, by any ship of war of the other, or by any privateers, the 
 said ships of war or privateers, for the avoiding of any disorder, 
 shall remain out of cannon shot, and may send their boats on 
 board the merchant ship which they shall so meet with, and 
 may enter her to the number of two or three men only, to whom 
 the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall exhibit 
 his passport concerning the property of the ship, made out ac- 
 cording to the form inserted in this present treaty ; and the 
 ship, when she shall have showed such passport, shall be free 
 and at liberty to pursue her voyage, so as it shall not be lawful 
 
24 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 to molest or search her in any manne,r, or to give her chace or 
 force her to quit her intended course. It is also agreed, that 
 all goods, when once put on board the ships or vessels of either 
 parties, shall be subject to no further visitation ; but all visita- 
 tion or search shall be made beforehand, and all prohibited 
 goods shall be stopped on the spot, before the same be put on 
 board the ships or vessels of the respective states ; nor shall 
 either the persons or goods of the subjects of his most christian 
 majesty or the United States, be put under any arrest, or mo- 
 lested by any other kind of embargo for that cause ; and only the 
 subject of that state to whom the said goods have been or shall 
 be prohibited, and shall presume to sell or alienate such sort of 
 goods, shall be duly punished for the oflEence." * 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 IlTSTKUCTIONS TO COMMISSIONEES. 
 {September, 1776.) 
 
 " There is delivered to you herewith a plan of a treaty with 
 his most christian majesty of France, approved of in Congress, 
 on the part of the United States ; and you are hereby instructed 
 to use every means in your power for concluding it, conformably 
 to the plan you have received. 
 
 " If you shall find that to be impracticable, you are hereby 
 authorized to relax the demands of the United States, and to 
 enlarge their offers agreeably to the following directions : 
 
 " If his most christian majesty shall not consent that the 
 inhabitants of the United States shall have the privileges pro- 
 posed in the second article, then the United States ought not 
 to give the subjects of his most christian majesty the privileges 
 proposed in the first article ; but that the United States shall 
 give to his most christian majesty the same privileges, liberties, 
 
 1 With the exception of the first and second articles, which place the 
 citizens of each party on the footing of natives in trading with the other, 
 there is hardly a new idea, or poUcy in respect to commerce in this plan of 
 treaties. Much of it is taken word for word from the treaty of commerce of 
 1713 between France and England (Utrecht), and many of the articles appear 
 in even earlier treaties. 
 
FRANCE, 1Y76. 25 
 
 and immunities at least, and the like favour in all things which 
 any foreign nation the most favoured shall have — provided, his 
 most christian majesty shall give to the United States the same 
 benefits, privileges and immunities which the most favoured 
 nation now has, uses, or enjoys. 
 
 " And, in case neither of these propositions of equal advan- 
 tages is agreed to, then the whole of the said articles are to be 
 rejected, rather than obstruct the further progress of the treaty. 
 
 " The fourth article must be insisted on. 
 
 " The seventh article ought to be obtained, if possible ; but 
 should be waived, rather than that the treaty should be inter- 
 rupted by insisting upon it. 
 
 " His most christian majesty agreeing, nevertheless, to use 
 his interest and influence to procure passes from the states 
 mentioned in this article for the vessels of the United States 
 upon the Mediterranean. 
 
 " The eighth article will probably be attended with some 
 difficulty. If you find his most christian majesty determined 
 not to agree to it, you are empowered to add to it, as follows : 
 — That the United States will never be subject, or acknowledge 
 allegiance, or obedience, to the king, or crown, or parliament of 
 Great Britain ; nor grant to that nation any exclusive trade, or 
 any advantages, or privileges in trade, more than to his most 
 christian majesty ; neither shall any treaty for terminating the 
 present war between the king of Great Britain and the United 
 States, or any war which may be declared by the king of Great 
 Britain against his most christian majesty, in consequence of 
 this treaty, take effect until the expiration of six calendar 
 months after the negotiation for that purpose shall have been 
 duly notified, in the former instance by the United States to 
 his most christian majesty, and in the other instance by his 
 most christian majesty to the United States ; to the end that 
 both these parties may be included in the peace, if they think 
 proper. 
 
 " The twelfth and thirteenth articles are to be waived, if you 
 find that the treaty will be interrupted by insisting on them. 
 
 " You will press the fourteenth article ; but let not the fate 
 of the treaty depend upon obtaining it. 
 
 " If his most christian majesty should be unwilling to agree 
 to the sixteenth and twenty-sixth articles, you are directed to 
 
26 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 consent that the goods and effects of enemies, on board the 
 ships and vessels of either party, shall be liable to seizure and 
 confiscation. 
 
 " The twenty-fifth article is not to be insisted on. 
 
 "You will solicit the court of France for an immediate 
 supply of twenty or thirty thousand muskets and bayonets, 
 and a large supply of ammunition and brass field-pieces, to be 
 sent under convoy by Prance. The United States engage for 
 the payment of the arms, artillery and ammunition, and to 
 indemnify France for the expense of the convoy. 
 
 " Engage a few good engineers in the service of the United 
 States. 
 
 " It is highly probable that France means not to let the 
 United States sink in the present contest. But as the diffi- 
 culty of obtaining true accounts of our condition may cause an 
 opinion to be entertained that we are able to support the war 
 on our own strength and resources longer than, in fact, we can 
 do, it will be proper for you to press for the immediate and 
 explicit declaration of France in our favour, upon a suggestion, 
 that a re-union with Great Britain may be the consequence of 
 a delay. 
 
 " Should Spain be disinclined to our cause, from an apprehen- 
 sion of danger to his dominions in South America, you are 
 empowered to give the strongest assurances, that that crown 
 ■will receive no molestation from the United States, in the pos- 
 session of these territories." 
 
 FRANCE, 1778. 
 
 Treaty op Amity and Commerce. 
 
 Concluded February 6, 1778 ; Ratified by the Continental Congress May 4, 
 1778 ; Ratifications exchanged at Paris, July 17, 1778. 
 
 "The Most Christian King, and the United States of North 
 America, to wit, New' Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina' 
 and Georgia, willing to fix in an equitable and permanent 
 
PRANCE, 1778. 27 
 
 manner the rules which ought to be followed relative to the 
 correspondence and commerce which the two parties desire to 
 establish between their respective countries, States, and sub- 
 jects. His Most Christian Majesty and the said United States 
 have judged that the said end could not be better obtained 
 than by taking for the basis of their agreement the most per- 
 fect equality and reciprocity, and by carefully avoiding all 
 those bnrthensome preferences which are usually sources of 
 debate, embarrassment, and discontent ; by leaving, also, each 
 party at liberty to make, respecting commerce and navigation, 
 those interior regulations which it shall find most convenient 
 to itself ; and by founding the advantage of commerce solely 
 upon reciprocal utility and the just rules of free intercourse; 
 reserving withal to each party the liberty of admitting at its 
 pleasure other nations to a participation of the same advantages. 
 It is in the spirit of this intention, and to fulfil these views, 
 that his said Majesty having named and appointed for his 
 Plenipotentiary, Conrad Alexander Gerard, Royal Syndic of 
 the city of Strasbourg, Secretary of His Majesty's Council of 
 State; and the United States, on their part, having fully 
 impowered Benjamin Franklin, Deputy from the State of Penn- 
 sylvania to the General Congress, and President of the Conven- 
 tion of said State, Silas Deane, late Deputy from the State of 
 Connecticut, to the said Congress, and Arthur Lee, Counsellor 
 at Law ; the said respective Plenipotentiaries, after exchanging 
 their powers, and after mature deliberation, have concluded 
 and agreed upon the following articles." 
 
 Article I. — (Declaration of Amity.) " There shall be a firm, 
 inviolable and universal peace, and a true and sincere friend- 
 ship between the Most Christian King, his heirs and successors, 
 and the United States of America ; and the subjects of the 
 Most Christian King and of the said United States ; and be- 
 tween the countries, islands, cities and towns situate under the 
 jurisdiction of the Most Christian King and of the said United 
 States, and the people and inhabitants of every degree, without 
 exception of persons or places ; and the terms hereinafter men- 
 tioned shall be perpetual between the Most Christian King, his 
 heirs and successors, and the said United States." 
 
 Akticxb II. — " The Most Christian King and the United States 
 engage mutually not to grant any particular favour to other 
 
28 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 nations, in respect of commerce and navigation, which shall not 
 immediately become common to the other party, who shall 
 enjoy the same favour, freely, if the concession was freely made, 
 or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was 
 conditional." 
 
 Articles III. and lY.— Mutual agreement not to levy dis- 
 criminating duties, but on the basis of the most favored 
 nation, instead of on the rights of nations. See Plan of 
 Treaties, II. 
 
 Aeticlb V. — Special exemption in respect of certain French 
 tonnage duties. 
 
 Aeticles VI and VII. — Mutual protection afforded to ves- 
 sels. See Plan of Treaties, IV. 
 
 Article VIII. — The King of France promises to employ his 
 good offices with the Barbary Powers, in favor of the United 
 States. See Plan of Treaties, VII. 
 
 Article IX. — (Fisheries.) — "The subjects, inhabitants, mer- 
 chants, commanders of ships, masters and mariners of the 
 states, provinces and dominions of each party respectively 
 shall abstain and forbear to lish in all places possessed or which 
 shall be possessed by the other party ; " (etc.) 
 
 Article X. — " The United States, their citizens and inhab- 
 itants, shall never disturb the subjects of the Most Christian 
 King in the enjoyment and exercise of the right of fishing on 
 the banks of Newfoundland, nor in the indefinite and exclusive 
 right which belongs to them on that part of the coast of that 
 island which is designated by the treaty of Utrecht ; nor in the 
 rights relative to all and each of the isles which belong to His 
 Most Christian Majesty ; the whole conformable to the true 
 sense of the treaties of Utrecht and Paris." 
 
 Article XI. — (Droit'd Aubaine.) — " The subjects and inhab- 
 itants of the said United States, or any one of them, shall not 
 be reputed aubains in France, and consequently shall be ex- 
 empted from the droit d'aubaine, or other similar duty, under 
 what name soever. They may by testament, donation or 
 otherwise, dispose of their goods, moveable and immoveable, in 
 favour of such persons as to them shall seem good, and their 
 heirs, subjects of the said United States, residing whether in 
 France or elsewhere, may succeed them ab intestat, without 
 being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization, and without 
 
FRANCE, 1778. 29 
 
 having the effect of this concession contested or impeded under 
 pretext of any rights or prerogative of provinces, cities or pri- 
 vate persons ; and tlie said heirs, whether such by particular 
 title, or ah intestate shall be exempt from all duty called droit 
 detraction, or other duty of the same kind, saving nevertheless 
 the local rights or duties as much and as long as similar ones 
 are not established by the United States, or any of them. The 
 subjects of the Most Christian King shall enjoy on their part, 
 in all the dominions of the said States, an entire and perfect 
 reciprocity relative to the stipulations contained in the present 
 article, but it is at the same time agreed that its contents shall 
 not effect the laws made, or that may be made hereafter in 
 France against emigrations which shall remain in all their 
 force and vigour, and the United States on their part, or any of 
 them, shall be at liberty to enact such laws relative to that 
 matter as to them shall seem proper." ' 
 
 Article XII. — Proof of the nationality of merchant vessels 
 passports and certificates. 
 
 Aeticle Xllli — Proceedings in the case of contraband goods. 
 If only a part of the cargo be contraband, the captor may take 
 that part on board his ship, and permit the captured ship to 
 proceed on her voyage. See Plan of Treaties, XVI. 
 
 Article XIV. — Enemy's flag will not protect neutral goods 
 put on board after the declaration of war is known to the 
 owner. See Plan of Treaties, XVII. 
 
 Article XV. — Indemnity guaranteed for injury to vessels. 
 See Plan of Treaties, XVIII. 
 
 ' " The two articles following were originally agreed to, but afterwards 
 rescinded, to wit : 
 
 Article XI. — " It is agreed and concluded that there shall never be 
 any duty imposed on the exportation of the melasses that may be taken 
 by the subjects of any of the United States from the islands of America 
 which belong or may hereafter appertain to His Most Christian 
 Majesty." 
 
 Article XII. — "In compensation of the exemption stipulated by the 
 preceding article, it is agreed and concluded that there shall never be 
 any duties imposed on the exportation of any kind of merchandise which 
 the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty may take from the countries 
 and possessions, present or future, of any of the thirteen United States, 
 for the use of the islands which shall furnish melasses." 
 
30 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article XVI. — Proceedings in the case of recapture from 
 pirates. See Plan of Treaties, XIX. 
 
 Aeticle XVII.— (Prizes.) See Plan of Treaties, XX.— "It 
 shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and pri- 
 vateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please the ships 
 and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to 
 pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty or any other 
 judges ; nor shall such prizes be arrested or seized when they 
 come to and enter the ports of either party; nor shall the 
 searchers or other officers of such places search the same, or 
 make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes, 
 but they may hoist sail at any time, and depart and carry their 
 prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, which the 
 commanders of such ships of war shall be obliged to show ; 
 on the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their, 
 ports to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, people 
 or property of either of the parties ; but if such shall come in, 
 being forced by stress of weather, or the danger of the sea, all 
 proper means shall be vigorously used that they go out and 
 retire from thence as soon as possible." 
 
 Article XVIII. — Friendly assistance to be given to ship- 
 wrecked persons. See Plan of Treaties, XXI. 
 
 Article XIX. — Asylum to be granted to vessels in distress, 
 whether through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates or ene- 
 mies, or any other urgent necessity. See Plan of Treaties, 
 XXII. 
 
 Article XX. — In the event of war between the two nations, 
 merchants to have six months in which to remove their goods, 
 etc. See Plan of Treaties, XXIII. 
 
 Article XXI. — Letters of marque not to be taken by the 
 citizens of either party from the enemies of the other. See 
 Plan of Treaties, XXIV. 
 
 Article XXII. — Foreign privateers not allowed to be fitted 
 out or to sell their prizes in the ports of either party. See 
 Plan of Treaties, XXV. 
 
 Article XXIII. — It shall be lawful for the citizens of either 
 nation, being neutral, to trade with the enemies of the other ; 
 and free ships shall give freedom to goods, contraband goods 
 always excepted. See Plan of Treaties, XXVI. 
 
 Article XXIV. — Enumeration of contraband goods, and 
 
FRANCE, 1778. 31 
 
 those that shall be considered free. See Plan of Treaties, 
 XXVI. 
 
 Aeticle XXV. — Proofs of the nationality of vessels. See 
 Plan of Treaties, XXVIII. 
 
 Aeticle XXVI.— See Plan of Treaties, XXIX. 
 
 Aeticlbs XXVII and XXVIII. — Vessels showing passports, 
 and proceedings in the case of visit and searcTi. See Plan of 
 Treaties, XXX. 
 
 Aeticle XXIX. — (Appointment of Consuls.) — "The two 
 contracting parties grant mutually the liberty of having cfich in 
 the ports of the other Consuls, Vice-Consuls, Agents, and 
 Commissaries, whose functions shall be regulated by a partic- 
 ular agreement." 
 
 Aeticle XXX. — (Free ports.) — " And the more to favour and 
 facilitate the commerce which the subjects of the United States 
 may have with France, the Most Christian King will grant 
 them in Europe one or more free ports, where they may bring 
 and dispose of all the produce and merchandise of the thirteen 
 United States ; and His Majesty will also continue to the sub- 
 jects of the said States the free ports which have been and are 
 open in the French Islands of America ; of all which free ports 
 the said subjects of the United States shall enjoy the use, 
 agreeable to the regulations which relate to them." 
 
 Article XXXI. — (Ratification.) — " The present treaty shall 
 be ratified on both sides, and the ratifications shall be exchanged 
 in the space of six months, or sooner if possible. 
 
 "In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed th§ above articles, both in the French and English 
 languages, declaring, nevertheless, that tke present treaty was 
 originally composed and concluded in the French language, and 
 they have thereto afiixed their seals. 
 
 " Done at Paris this sixth day of February, one thousand 
 seven hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 ( Seal.) " C. A. GERARD. 
 
 ( Seal.) " B. FRANKLIN. 
 
 ( Seal.) " SILAS DEANE. 
 
 ( Seal.) " ARTHUR LEE." 
 
32 TEEATIES AND CONTENTIONS. 
 
 FRANCE, 1778. 
 
 Treaty of Alliance. 
 
 Concluded February 6, 1778. : Eatified by the Continental Congress, May 
 4, 1778. Ratifications exchanged at Paris, July 17, 1778. 
 
 " The Most Christian King and the United States of North 
 America, to wit : New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 and Georgia, having this day concluded a treaty of amity and 
 commerce, for the reciprocal advantage of their subjects and 
 citizens, have thought it necessary to take into consideration 
 the means of strengthening those engagements, and of render- 
 ing them useful to the safety and tranquillity of the two 
 parties ; particularly in case Great Britain, in resentment of 
 that connection and of the good correspondence which is the 
 object of the said treaty, should break the peace with France, 
 either by direct hostilities, or by hindering her commerce and 
 navigation in a manner contrary to the rights of nations, and 
 the peace subsisting between the two Crowns. And His 
 Majesty and the said United States, having resolved in that 
 case to join their councils and efforts against the enterprises of 
 their common enemy, the respective Plenipotentiaries im- 
 powered to concert the clauses and conditions propter to fulfil 
 the said intentions, have, after the most mature deliberation, 
 concluded and determined on the following articles : " 
 
 Aeticle I. — (Alliance against Great Britain.) — " If war should 
 break out between Prance and Great Britain during, the con- 
 tinuance of the present war between the United States and 
 England, His Majesty and the said United States shall make it 
 a common cause and aid each other mutually with their good 
 oflELces, their counsels and their forces, according to the exigence 
 of conjunctures, as becomes good and faithful allies." 
 
 Article II. — (The independence of the United States to be 
 maintained.) — " The essential and direct end of the present 
 defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sover 
 
FRANCE, 1778. 33 
 
 eignty and independence absolute and unlimited, of the said 
 United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce." 
 
 Aeticle III. — " The two contracting parties shall each on its 
 own part, and in the manner it may judge most proper, make 
 all the efforts in its power agaiiist their common enemy, in order 
 to attain the end proposed." 
 
 Article IV. — (Agreement as to concurrent operations.) — 
 " The contracting parties agree that in case either of them 
 should form any particular enterprise in which the concurrence 
 of the other may be desired, the party whose concurrence is 
 desired, shall readily, and with good faith, join to act in concert 
 for that purpose, as far as circumstances and its own particular 
 situation will permit ; and in that case, they shall regulate, by 
 a particular convention, the quantity and kind of succour to be 
 furnished, and the time and manner of its being brought into 
 action, as well as the advantages which are to be its com- 
 pensation." 
 
 Article V. — (Conquests that shall belong to the United 
 States.) — " If the United States should think fit to attempt the 
 reduction of the British power, remaining in the northern parts 
 of America, or the islands of Bermudas, those countries or 
 islands, in case of success, shall be confederated with or de- 
 pendent upon the said United States." 
 
 Article VI. — (France renounces the possession of certain 
 territories.) — " The Most Christian King renounces forever the 
 possession of the islands of Bermudas, as well as of any part of 
 the continent of North America, which before the treaty of 
 Paris in 1763, or in virtue of that treaty, were acknowledged to 
 belong to the Crown of Great Britain, or to the United States, 
 heretofore called British Colonies, or which are at this time, 
 or have lately been under the power of the King and Crown of 
 Great Britain." 
 
 Article VII. — (Conquests that shall belong to France.) " If 
 His Most Christian Majesty shall think proper to attack any of 
 the islands situated in the Gulph of Mexico, or near that Gulph, 
 which are at present under the power of Great Britain, all the 
 said isles, ia case of success, shall appertain to the Crown of 
 France." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Common consent required to conclude a 
 treaty with Great Britain.) " Neither of the two parties shall 
 3 
 
34 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain without the 
 formal consent of the other first obtained ; and they mutually 
 engage not to lay down their arms until the independence of 
 the United States shall have been formally or tacitly assured 
 by the treaty or treaties that shall terminate the war." 
 
 Aeticle IX. — (Mutual renunciation of claims on account of 
 war.) — " The contracting parties declare, that being resolved 
 to fulfil each on its own part the clauses and conditions of the 
 present treaty of alliance, according to its own power and 
 circumstances, there shall be no after-claim of compensation on 
 one side or the other, whatever may be the event of the war." 
 
 Aeticle X. — (Other powers may accede to the alliance.) — 
 " The Most Christian King and the United States agree to 
 invite or admit other powers who may have received injuries 
 from England, to make common cause with them, and to accede 
 to the present alliance, under such conditions as shall be freely 
 agreed to and settled between all the parties." 
 
 Aeticle XI. — (Mutual guarantee of proprietary rights.) 
 " The two parties guarantee mutually from the present time 
 and forever against all other powers, to wit : The United States 
 to His Most Christian Majesty, the present possessions of the 
 Crown of France in America, as well as those which it may 
 acquire by the future treaty of peace : And His Most Christian 
 Majesty guarantees on his part to the United States their 
 liberty, sovereignty and independence, absolute and unlimited, 
 as well in matters of government as commerce, and also theii 
 possessions, and the additions or conquests tha^ their confeder- 
 ation may obtain during the war, from any of the dominions 
 now, or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, 
 conformable to the 5th and 6th articles above written, the 
 whole as their possessions shall be fixed and assured to the 
 said States, at the moment of the cessation of their present 
 war with England." 
 
 Aeticle XII. — (Duration of guarantee.) — " In order to fix 
 more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, 
 the contracting parties declare, that in case of a rupture be- 
 tween France and England the reciprocal guarantee declared in 
 the said article shall have its full force and effect the moment 
 such war shall break out ; and if such rupture shall not take 
 place, the mutual obligations of the said guarantee shall not 
 
FRANCE, 1788. 35 
 
 commence until the moment of the cessation of the present war 
 between the United States and England shall have ascertained 
 their possessions." 
 
 Abticlb XIII. — (Ratifications.) — " The present treaty shall 
 be ratified on both sides, and the ratifications shall be exchanged 
 in the space of six months, or sooner if possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries, to wit : 
 On the part of the Most Christian King, Conrad Alexander 
 Gerard, Royal Syndic of the city of Strasbourg, and Secretary 
 of His Majesty's Council of State ; and on the part of the 
 United States, Benjamin Franklin, Deputy to the General 
 Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and President of the 
 Convention of the same State, Silas Deane, heretofore Deputy 
 from the State of Connecticut, and Arthur Lee, Counsellor at 
 Law, have signed the above articles both in the French and 
 English languages, declaring, nevertheless, that the present 
 treaty was originally composed and concluded in the French 
 language, and they have hereunto affixed their seals. 
 
 " Done at Paris, this sixth day of P^ebruary, one thousand 
 seven hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 " C. A. GERARD. 
 
 "B. FRANKLIN. 
 
 " SILAS DEANE. 
 
 "ARTHUR LEE." 
 
 FRANCE, 1788. 
 
 Contention Defining and Establishing the Functions 
 AND Peivileges of Consuls and Vice-Consuls. 
 
 Concluded November 14, 1788. Eatifications exchanged at Paris January 
 6, 1790, although the certificate of exchange was dated January 
 1, 1790. 
 
 Article I. — As to commissions and exequaturs. 
 Article II.— (Privileges of Consuls.) "The Consuls and 
 Vice-Consuls, and persons attached to their functions; that 
 
36 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 is to say, their Chancellors and Secretaries, shall enjoy a full 
 and entire immunity for their chancery, and the papers 
 which shall be therein contained. They shall be exempt from 
 all personal service, from soldiers' billets,, militia, watch, guard, 
 guardianship, trusteeship, as well as from all duties, taxes, 
 impositions, and charges whatsoever, except on the estate, real 
 and personal, of which they may be the proprietors or possessors, 
 which shall be subject to the taxes imposed on the estates of 
 all other individuals : And in all other instances they shall be 
 subject to the laws of the land as the natives are. Those of 
 the said Consuls and Vice-Consuls who shall exercise com- 
 merce, shall be respectively subject to all taxes, charges and 
 impositions established on other merchants. They shall place 
 over the outward door of their house the arms of their sov- 
 ereign ; but this mark of indication shall not give to the said 
 house any privilege of asylum for any person or property 
 whatsoever." 
 
 Aeticle III. — Consuls may appoint agents. 
 
 Article IV. — (Establishment of a chancery.) — " The Consuls 
 and Vice-Consuls respectively may establish a chancery, where 
 shall be deposited the consular determinations, acts and 
 proceedings, as also testaments, obligations, contracts and 
 other acts done by or between persons of their nation, and 
 effects left by deceased persons, or saved from shipwreck. 
 They may consequently appoint fit persons to act ill the said 
 chancery, receive and swear them in, commit to them the 
 custody of the seal, and authority to seal commissions, sen- 
 tences and other consular acts, and also to discharge the func- 
 tions of notary and register of the consulate." 
 
 Article V— (Powers and duties of Consuls.)— "The Consuls 
 and Vice-Consuls respectively, shall have the exclusive right of 
 receiving in their chancery, or on board of vessels, the 
 declarations and all the other acts which the captains, masters, 
 crews, passengers, and merchants of their nation may choose to 
 make there, even their testaments and other disposals by last 
 will : And the copies of the said acts, duly authenticated by 
 the said Consuls or Vice-Consuls, under the seal of their con- 
 sulate, shall receive faith in law, equally as their originals 
 would in all the tribunals of the dominions of the Most Christian 
 King and of the United States. They shall also have, and ex- 
 
FRANCE, 1788. 37 
 
 clusively, in case of the absence of the testamentary executor, 
 admmistrator, or legal heir, the right to inventory, liquidate, and 
 proceed to the sale of the personal estate left by subjects or 
 citizens of their nation who shaU die within the extent of their 
 consulate ; they shall proceed therein with the assistance of two 
 merchants of their said nation, or, for want of them, of any 
 other at their choice, and shall cause to be deposited in their 
 chancery the effects and papers of the said estates ; and no 
 officer, military, judiciary, or of the police of the country, shall 
 disturb them or interfere therein, in any manner whatsoever : 
 But the said Consuls and Vice-Consuls shall not deliver up the 
 said effects, nor the proceeds thereof, to the lawful heirs, or to 
 their order, till they shall have caused to be paid all debts which 
 the deceased shall have contracted in the country ; for which 
 purpose the creditors shall have a right to attach the said 
 effects in their hands, as they might in those of any other in- 
 dividual whatever, and proceed to obtain sale of them till pay- 
 ment of what shall be lawfully due to them." (Etc.) 
 
 Article VI. — Consuls to receive declarations from captains 
 of losses at sea, etc. 
 
 Aeticlb VII. — Power of consuls in the case of shipwreck of 
 vessels of their nation. 
 
 Article VIII. — Consuls shall exercise police over vessels of 
 their respective nations, and jurisdiction in civil matters on 
 board such vessels ; but shall not interfere with the police of 
 the port. 
 
 Article IX. — Consuls shall have power to arrest deserters, 
 etc. 
 
 Article X. — In the case of crimes, the courts of the country 
 in which they are committed shall take jurisdiction. 
 
 Article XI. — In the case of criminals who take refuge on 
 vessels of their nation, they may be there arrested. 
 
 Article XII. — (Consuls authorized to settle disputes between 
 citizens of their nation.) — " All differences and suits between the 
 subjects of the Most Christian King in the United States, or be- 
 tween the citizens of the United States within the dominions of 
 the Most Christian King, and particularly all disputes relative to 
 the wages and terms of engagement of the crews of the respect- 
 ive vessels, and all differences, of whatever nature they be 
 which may arise between the privates of the said crews, or be- 
 
38 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 tween any of them and their captains, or between the captains of 
 different vessels of their nation, shall be determined by the re- 
 spective Consuls and Vice-Consuls, either by a reference to arbi- 
 trators or by a summary judgment, and without costs. No 
 ofBeer of the country, civil or military, shall interfere therein, 
 or take any part whatever in the matter ; and the appeals from 
 the said consular sentences shall be carried before the tribunals 
 of France or of the United States, to whom it may appertain 
 to take cognizance theteof." 
 
 Article XIII. — Tribunals for expediting decisions in com- 
 mercial affairs. 
 
 Aeticle XIV. — Citizens of both nations to be exempt from 
 personal service. 
 
 Aeticle XV. — Consuls to enjoy the most favoured nation 
 privileges. 
 
 Aeticle XVI. — (Duration of the convention.) — " The present 
 convention shall be in full force during the term of twelve 
 years, to be counted from the day of the exchange of ratifica- 
 tions, which shall be given in proper form, and exchanged on 
 both sides within the space of one year, or sooner if possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof, we, Ministers Plenipotentiary, have signed 
 the present convention, and have thereto set the seal of our 
 arms. 
 
 " Done at Versailles the fourteenth of November, one thou- 
 sand seven hundred and eighty-eight." ^ 
 
 "L. C. DE MONTMORIN. 
 "TH. JEFFERSON." 
 
 ' See the Eeport upon this convention by John Jay, Secretary of Foreign 
 Affairs, July 4, 1785. (Secret Journals of Congress, IV., 159.) 
 
PRANCE, 1782. 39 
 
 FRANCE, 1782. 
 
 Contract foe the Payment of Loans to His Most Chris- 
 tian Majesty. 
 
 Concluded July 16, 1782. Ratified by the Continental Congress, January 22, 
 
 1783. 
 
 " The King having been pleased to attend to the requests 
 made to him in the name and on behalf of the United Provinces 
 of North America, for assistance in the war and invasion under 
 which they had for several years groaned ; and His Majesty, 
 after entering into a treaty of amity and commerce with the 
 said Confederated Provinces, on the 6th of February, 1778, 
 having had the goodness to support them, not only with his 
 forces by land and sea, but also with advances of money, as 
 abundant as they were effectual, in the critical situation to 
 which their affairs were reduced ; it has been judged proper 
 and necessary to state exactly the amount of those advances, 
 the conditions on which the King made them, the periods at 
 which the Congress of the United States have engaged to repay 
 them to his Majesty's royal treasury, and, in fine, to state this 
 matter in such a way as for the future to prevent all difft- 
 culties capable of interrupting the good harmony which His 
 Majesty is resolved to maintain and preserve between him and 
 the said United States. For executing so laudable a purpose, 
 and with a view to strengthen the bands of amity and com- 
 merce which subsist between His Majesty and the said United 
 States ; we, Charles Gravier de Vergennes, etc., Counsellor of 
 the King, in all his councils, Commander of his Orders, Minis- 
 ter and Secretary of State, and of his commands and finances, 
 vested with full powers of His Majesty to us given for this 
 purpose : and we, Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary 
 of the United States of North America, in like manner vested 
 with full powers of the Congress of the said States for like 
 present purpose; after duly communicating our respective 
 powers have agreed to the following articles : 
 
40 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 " Article I. — It is agreed and certified tliat the sUms ad- 
 vanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States, 
 under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 
 and the present, 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen millions 
 of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty- 
 one receipts of the above mentioned underwritten Minister of 
 Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit : 
 
 " 1, 28 February, 1778 750,000 
 
 "2, 19 May, " 750,000 
 
 " 3, 3 August, " 750,000 
 
 " 4, 1 November, « 750,000 
 
 3,000,000 
 
 " 5, 10 June, " 250,000 
 
 " 6, 16 September, " 250,000 
 
 " 7, 4 October, " 250,000 
 
 " 8, 21 December, " 250,000 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 " 9, 29 February, 1780 750,000 
 
 " 10, 23 May, " 750,000 
 
 « 11, 21 June, « 750,000 
 
 " 12, 5 October, " 750,000 
 
 « 13, 27 November, " 1,000,000 
 
 4,000,000 
 
 « 14, 15 February, 1781, 750,000 
 
 " 15, 15 May, " 750,000 
 
 " 16, 15 August, " 750,000 
 
 " 17, 1 August, " 1,000,000 
 
 " 18, 15 November, « 750,000 
 
 4,000,000 
 
 " 19, 10 April, 1782 1,500,000 
 
 " 20, 1 July, " 1,500,000 
 
 " 21, 5 of the same month 3,000,000 
 
 6,000,000 
 "Amounting in the whole to 18 millions, viz. 18,000,000 
 
 « By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the 
 name of Congress, and in behalf of the thirteen United States, 
 to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of 
 
FRANCE, 1800. 41 
 
 His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his 
 grand banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, 
 money of France, with interest at 5 per cent, per annum." ^ 
 
 FRANCE, 1800. 
 
 Convention of Peace, Commekce, and Navigation. 
 
 Concluded September 30, 1800. Ratifications exchanged at Paris, July 31, 
 1801. Proclaimed December 21, 1801. 
 
 Article I. — ^Declaration of amity. 
 
 Article II.— (Treaties of 1778 and 1788 abrogated.)— "The 
 Ministers Plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to 
 agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of 6th 
 February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same 
 date, and the convention of 14th of November, 1788, nor upon 
 the indemnitiqs mutually due or claimed, the parties will nego- 
 ciate further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until 
 they may have agreed upon these points the said treaties and 
 convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the 
 two countries shall be regulated as follows : " 
 
 Article III. — (Restoration of public .ships.) — "The public 
 ships which have been taken on one part and the other, or 
 which may be taken before the exchange of ratifications, shall 
 be restored." 
 
 Article IV. — (Captured property, not definitively con- 
 demned, to be restored.) — "Property captured, and not yet 
 definitively condemned, or which may be captured before the 
 exchange of ratifications (contraband goods destined to an 
 enemy's port excepted), shall "be mutually restored on the fol- 
 
 ' By subsequent articles of this convention the United States acknowl- 
 edge the loan of ten million livres, made by Holland to France for their 
 account, in 1781 ; and stipulate to pay the same in ten annual install- 
 nients, begiiming in 1787. The eighteen miUion livres mentioned in 
 article I. were to be paid in twelve annual installments, beginning the 
 third year after a peace. 
 
 A new loan of six million livres was negotiated with France on Feb- 
 uary 25, 1783, to be paid in six annual installments, beguming in 1797. 
 
4:2 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 lowing proofs of ownership, viz. : The proof on both sides with 
 respect to merchant ships, whether armed, or unarmed, shall 
 be a passport in the form following : 
 
 "And this passport will be sufficient without any other 
 paper, any ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding ; which 
 passport shall not be deemed requisite to have been renewed 
 or recalled, whatever number of voyages the said ship may 
 have made, unless she shall have returned home within the 
 space of a year. Proof with respect to the cargo shall be certif- 
 icates, containing the several particulars of the cargo, the place 
 whence the ship sailed and whither she is bound, so that the 
 forbidden and contraband goods may be distinguished by the 
 certificates : which certificates shall have been made out by the 
 oflicers of the place whence the ship set sail, in the accustomed 
 form of the country. And if such passport or certificates, or 
 both, shall have been destroyed by accident or taken away by 
 force, their deficiency may be supplied by such other proofs 
 of ownership as are admissible by the general usage of nations. 
 Proof with respect to other than merchant ships shall be the 
 commission they bear. 
 
 " This article shall take efi:'ect from the date of the signature 
 of the present convention. And if, from the date of the said 
 signature, any property shall be condemned contrary to the in- 
 tent of the said convention, before the knowledge of this stip- 
 ulation shall be obtained, the property so condemned shall, 
 without delay, be restored or paid for." 
 
 Article V. — (Prosecution of debts authorized). "The debts 
 contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the 
 other, or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the 
 other, shall be paid, or the payment may be prosecuted, in the 
 same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between 
 the two States. But this clause shall not extend to indem- 
 nities claimed on account of captures or confiscations." 
 
 Aeticle VI. — (Freedom of commerce and navigation.) 
 " Commerce between the parties shall be free. The vessels of 
 the two nations and their privateers, as well as their prizes, 
 shaU be treated in their respective ports as those of the nation 
 the most favoured ; and, in general, the two parties shall enjoy 
 in the ports of each other, in regard to commerce and naviga- 
 tion, the privileges of the most favoured nation." 
 
FRANCE, 1800. 43 
 
 Article VII. — Property of citizens of one nation in the ter- 
 ritory of the other. See Article XL of the treaty of amity and 
 commerce of 1778. 
 
 Aeticlb VIII.— See Plan of Treatise, XXIII. 
 
 Article IX. — (Debts not to be confiscated.) " Neither the 
 debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of 
 the other, nor shares, nor monies, which they may have in pub- 
 lic funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever, in any 
 event of war or of national difference, be sequestered or con- 
 fiscated." 
 
 Article X. permits the appointment of commercial agents 
 (consuls) ; and 
 
 Article XI. forbids discrimination in duties, as in the for- 
 mer treaty. 
 
 Article XII. — Neutrals are allowed to trade with the enemy 
 in goods not contraband ; and further in respect to Blockades, 
 it is stipulated that vessels sailing for a blockaded port in 
 ignorance of the blockade shall not be detained till after a 
 notice is given. 
 
 Article XIII. — Gives a list of contraband goods, agreeing 
 in the main with that in the treaty of 1778, with the exception 
 that horses are not included. 
 
 Articles XIV. and XV. declare for " free ships, free goods," 
 and enemy ships, enemy goods, as in the plan of treaties. 
 
 Articles XVI., XVII., and XVIII. provide for proofs of the 
 nationality of vessels, protection of neutral ships, in time of 
 war, and regulations for the right of search. 
 
 Article XIX. — Neutral vessels under convoy are not subject 
 to visitation and search. 
 
 Articles XX. and XXI. provide certain rules for the protec- 
 tion of persons and property in the case of the capture of neu- 
 tral vessels. 
 
 Article XXII. — Prize courts are only competent to have 
 cognizance of prize causes. 
 
 Article XXIII. — Provides for indemnification for damages 
 by men of war and privateers. 
 
 Commanders of privateers shall hereafter be obliged to give 
 security in the sum of seven thousand doUars, or if the ship be 
 provided with above one hundred and fifty seamen, in the sum 
 of fourteen thousand dollars, to satisfy all damages. 
 
4i TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article XXIV. — The ships of war of one nation to be ad- 
 mitted with their prizes into ports of the other. 
 
 Article XXV.— See Plan of Treaty, XXV. 
 
 Article XXXVI. — With reference to pirates as in the former 
 treaty. 
 
 Article XXVII. — (Fisheries — Ratification.) — " Neither party 
 will intermeddle in the fisheries of the other on its coasts, nor 
 disturb the other in the exercise of the rights which it now 
 holds or may acquire on the coast of Newfoundland, in the 
 Gulph of St. Lawrence, or elsewhere on the American coast 
 northward of the United States. But the whale and seal fish- 
 eries shall be free to both in every quarter of the world. 
 
 " This convention shall be ratified on both sides in due form, 
 and the ratifications exchanged in the space of six months, or 
 sooner, if possible. 
 
 "In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the above articles both in the French and English lan- 
 guages, and they have thereto affixed their seals : declaring, 
 nevertheless, that the signing in the two languages shall not 
 be brought into precedent, nor in any way operate to the prej- 
 udice of either party. 
 
 " Done at "Paris the eighth day of Vendemiaire of the ninth 
 year of the French Republic, the thirtieth day of September, 
 anno Domini eighteen hundred. 
 
 "J. BONAPARTE. 
 " C. P. FLEURIEU. 
 "ROEDERER. 
 "O.ELLSWORTH. 
 « W. R. DAVIE. 
 "W.V.MURRAY." 
 
 " The Senate of the United States did, by their resolution of 
 the 3d day of February, 1801, consent to and advise the ratifica- 
 tion of the convention : Provided, The second article be 
 expunged, and that the following article be added or inserted : 
 ' It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force for 
 the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of the 
 ratifications.' 
 
 " Bonaparte, First Consul, in the name of the French people, 
 consented on the 31st July, 1801, ' to accept, ratify, and con- 
 
PRANCE, 1800. 45 
 
 firm the above convention, with the addition importing that 
 the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years, 
 and with the retrenchment of the second article: Provided, 
 That by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respec- 
 tive pretensions, which are the object of the said article.' 
 
 " These ratifications, having been exchanged at Paris on the 
 31st of July, 1801, were again submitted to the Senate of the 
 United States, which on the 19th of December, 1801, declared 
 the convention fully ratified, and returned it to the President 
 for promulgation." ^ 
 
 ' This treaty ended the controversy between France and the United 
 States, begun in 1793, which had resulted in actual hostilities in 1798. 
 The origin of this controversy was the refusal of the United States to 
 carry out the stipulations of the 11th and 13th articles of the treaty of 
 Alliance of 1778, and a difference of interpretation as between the two 
 governments of the rights of consuls under the treaty of 1788. The United 
 States adopted a policy of neutrality in the war between France and 
 England ; and refused to permit privateers to be fitted out in American 
 ports, in the interest of France, or to aUow French consuls to erect prize 
 courts in the United States. The treaty of 1794 with England (" Jay's 
 treaty ") gave further umbrage to France. The 25th article of this treaty 
 gave the same right to English vessels to bring their prizes into American 
 ports that was granted to French vessels by the 17th article of the treaty 
 of commerce of 1778. By Jay's treaty, moreover, England was permitted 
 to include as contraband ce^ain articles that were plainly not of that 
 nature (Article XVIII) ; and in general the United States, it was asserted, 
 had sacrificed the French alliance in favor of England. From this state 
 of affairs the two nations drifted rapidly into a qaasi war ; and by act of 
 July 7, 1798, Congress declared the previous treaties with France null and 
 void. AU attempts to negotiate had failed, until the year 1800, when 
 Napoleon having changed his policy, consented to the negotiation of the 
 treaty of that year. 
 
 By striking out the 3d article and accepting Napoleon's proviso, the 
 United States renounced aU claims of their citizens for indemnity from 
 France for property illegally captured and condemned before the sign- 
 ing of the treaty ; and thereupon virtually assumed the responsibility for 
 the payment of those claims. On the part of France, Napoleon's proviso 
 had the effect of assenting to the abrogation of the previous treaties. 
 The renunciation of claims was therefore an equivalent for the nulliflcar 
 tion of those treaties. (See Opinion of the Court of Claims delivered by 
 Judge Sobs Davis, May 17, 1886.) 
 
46 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 FRANCE, 1803. 
 
 Teeatt foe the Cession of Louisiana to the United States. 
 
 Concluded April 30, 1803. Eatifications exchanged at Washington, October 
 21, 1803. Proclaimed October 21, 1808. 
 
 " The President of the United States of America, and the 
 First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the French 
 people, desiring to remove all source of misunderstanding rela- 
 tive to objects of discussion mentioned in the second and fifth 
 articles of the convention of the 8th Yend6miaire, an 9 (30th 
 September, 1800) relative to the rights claimed by the United 
 States, in virtue of the treaty concluded at Madrid, the 27th of 
 October, 1795, between his Catholic Majesty and the said United 
 States, and willing to strengthen the union and friendship 
 which at the time of the said convention was happily re-estab- 
 lished between the two nations, have respectively named their 
 Plenipotentiaries, to wit : . . . . 
 
 Aeticlb I. — " Whereas by article the third of the treaty 
 concluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vend6miaire, an 9 (1st 
 October, 1800), between the First Consul of the French Repub- 
 lic and His Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows : ' His 
 Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part, to cede to 
 the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execu- 
 tion of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to His 
 Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of 
 Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands 
 of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as 
 it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into be- 
 tween Spain and other States.' And whereas, in pursuance of 
 the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French 
 Republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the 
 possession of the said territory : The First Consul of the French 
 Republic desiring to give to the United States a strong proof 
 of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, 
 in the name of the French Republic, forever and in full sover- 
 eignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, 
 
FRANCE, 1803. 47 
 
 « 
 
 as fully and in the same matiner as they have been acquired by 
 the French Republic, in virtue of the above-mentioned treaty, 
 concluded with His Catholic Majesty." 
 
 Aeticle II. — " In the cession made by the preceding article 
 are included the adjacent islands belonging to Louisiana, all 
 public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, 
 fortifications, barracks and other edifices which are not private 
 property. The archives, papers and documents, relative to the 
 domain and sovereignty of Louisiana and its dependences, will 
 be left in the possession of the commissaries of the United 
 States, and copies will be afterwards given in due form to the 
 magistrates and municipal officers of such of the said papers 
 and documents as may be necessary to them." 
 
 Article III. — " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall 
 be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted 
 as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal 
 constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and 
 immunities of citizens of the United States ; and in the mean- 
 time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy- 
 ment of their liberty, property and the religion which they 
 profess." 
 
 FRANCE, 1803. 
 
 Convention eoe Payment op Sixty Millions op Francs 
 BY the United States. 
 
 Article I. — " The Government of the United States engages 
 to pay to the French* Government in the manner specified in 
 the following article, the sum of sixty millions of francs, inde- 
 pendent of the sum which shall be fixed by another convention 
 for the payment of the debts due by France to citizens of the 
 United States. 
 
 Article II. — •" For the payment of the sum of sixty millions 
 of francs, mentioned in the preceding article, the United States 
 shall create a stock of eleven millions two hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars, bearing an interest of six per cent, per annum 
 payable half yearly in London, Amsterdam, or Paris, amount- 
 ing by the half year, to three hundred and thirty-seven thousand 
 
4:8 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 • 
 five hundred dollars, according to the proportions which shall 
 be determined by the F'rench Government to be paid at either 
 place ; the principal of the said stock to be re-imbursed at the 
 Treasury of the United States, in annual payments of not less 
 than three millions of dollars each, of which the flrst payment 
 shall commence fifteen years after the date of the exchange of 
 ratifications : this stock shall be transferred to the Government 
 of France, or to such person or persons as shall be authorized 
 to receive it, in three months at most after the exchange of the 
 ratifications of this treaty, and after Louisiana shall be taken 
 possession of in the name of the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 " It is further agreed, that if the French Government should, 
 be desirous of disposing of the said stock to receive the capital 
 in Europe, at shorter terms, that its measures for that purpose 
 shall be taken so as to favor, in the' greatest degree possible, 
 the credit of the United States, and to raise to the highest 
 price the said stock." 
 
 FRANCE, 1803. 
 
 Convention foe Payment of Sums Due by France to 
 Citizens of the United States. 
 
 Aeticle I. — " The debts due by Prance to citizens of the 
 United States, contracted before the 8th of Vendemiaire, ninth 
 year of the French Republic (30th September, 1800), shall be 
 paid according to the following regulations, with interest at six 
 per cent., to commence from the period when the accounts and 
 vouchers were presented to the French Government." 
 
 Aeticle II. — "The debts provided for by the preceding art- 
 icle are those whose result is comprised in the conjectural note 
 annexed to the present Convention, and which, with the in- 
 terest, cannot exceed the sum of twenty millions of francs. The 
 claims comprised in the said note which fall within the excep- 
 tions of the following articles, shall not be admitted to the 
 benefit of this provision." 
 
 Aeticle III. " The principal and interests of the said debts 
 shall be discharged by the United States, by orders drawn by 
 
FRANCE, 1803. 49 
 
 their Minister Plenipotentiary on their treasury ; these orders 
 shall be payable sixty days after the exchange of ratifications 
 of the treaty and the conventions signed this day, and after 
 possession shall be given of Louisiana by the commissaries of 
 France to those of the United States." 
 
 Article IV. " It is expressly agreed that the preceding arti- 
 cles shall comprehend no debts but such as are due to citizens 
 of the United States, who have been and are yet creditors of 
 France, for supplies, for embargoes, and prizes made at sea, in 
 which the appeal has been properly lodged within the time 
 mentioned in the said convention, 8th Vendemiaire, ninth year 
 (30th September, 1800). " 
 
 Article V. — " The preceding articles shall apply only, 1st, 
 to captures of which the council of prizes shall have ordered 
 restitution, it being well understood that the claimant cannot 
 have recourse to the United States, otherwise than he might 
 have had to the Government of the French Republic, and only 
 in case of insufficiency of the captors ; 2d, the debts mentioned 
 in the said fifth article of the convention contracted before the 
 8th Vendemiaire, an 9th, (30th September, 1800), the payment 
 of which has been heretofore claimed of the actual Government 
 of France, and for which the creditors have a right to the pro- 
 tection of the United States ; the said fifth article does not 
 comprehend prizes whose condemnation has been or shall be 
 confirmed : it is the express intention of the contracting parties 
 not to extend the benefit of the present convention to reclama- 
 tions of American citizens, who shall have established houses 
 of commerce in France, England or other countries than the 
 United States, in partnership with foreigners, and who by that 
 reason and the nature of their commerce ought to be regarded 
 as domiciliated in the places where such houses exist. All 
 agreements and bargains concerning merchandise, which shall 
 not be the property of American citizens, are equally excepted 
 from the benefit of the said Convention, saving, however, to 
 such persons their claims in like manner as if this Treaty had 
 not been made." 
 
50 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 FRANCE, 1822. 
 
 CONVEH^TION OF NAVIGATION AND CoMMBECE. 
 
 Concluded June 34, 1832. Eatiflcation exchanged at Washington, 
 February 13, 1833. Proclaimed February 12, 1823. 
 
 Article I. — " Articles of the growth, produce or manufac- 
 ture, of the United States, imported into France in vessels of 
 the United States, shall pay an additional duty, not exceeding 
 twenty francs per ton of merchandise, over and above the 
 duties paid on the like articles, also of the growth, produce or 
 manufacture, of the United States, when imported in French 
 vessels." 
 
 Article II. — " Articles of the growth, produce or manufacture, 
 of France, imported into the United States in French vessels, 
 shall pay an additional duty, not exceeding three dollars and 
 seventy-five cents per ton of merchandise, over and above the 
 duties collected upon the like articles, also of the growth, pro- 
 duce or manufacture of France, when imported in vessels of 
 the United States." 
 
 Article III. — " No discriminating duty shall be levied upon 
 the productions of the soil or industry of France, imported in 
 French bottoins into the ports of the United States for transit 
 or re-exportation : nor shall any such duties be levied upon 
 the productions of the soil or industry of the United States 
 imported in vessels of the United States into the ports of France 
 for transit or re-exportation. " 
 
 Article V; — " The duties of tonnage, light-money, pilotage, 
 port charges, brokerage and all other duties upon foreign sliip- 
 ping, over and above those paid by the national shipping in 
 the two countries respectively, other than those specified in 
 articles I and II of the present convention, shall not exceed in 
 France, for vessels of the United States, five francs per ton of 
 the vessels American register : nor for vessels of France in the 
 United States, ninety-four cents per ton of the vessels' French 
 passport." 
 
 By Article VII. the treaty was to be in force for two years, 
 
FRANCE, 1831. 51 
 
 and thereafter until a six-montbs notice of discontinuance by 
 either party. 
 
 And if not discontinued, the extra duties were to be dim- 
 inished by one-fourth each year, "so long as neither party 
 shall have declared the intention of renouncing it as above 
 stated." 
 
 FRANCE, 1831. 
 
 Convention Conceening Claims and Duties on Wines and 
 
 Cottons. 
 
 Concluded July 4, 1831. Ratifications exchanged at Washington 
 February .3, 1833. Proclaimed July 13, 1833. 
 
 Aeticle I.—" The French Government, in order to liberate 
 itself completely from all the reclamations preferred against it 
 by citizens of the United States, for unlawful seizures, captures, 
 sequestrations, confiscations or destructions of their vessels, 
 cargoes or other property, engages to pay a sum of twenty-flve 
 millions of francs to the Government of the United States, who 
 shall distribute it among those entitled, in the manner and ac- 
 cording to the rules which it shall determine." 
 
 Article II. — " This sum is to be paid in six annual instal- 
 ments." 
 
 Aeticle III and IV. — " The United States agree to pay to 
 France on account of the claims for unlawful seizures, etc., the 
 sum of one million five hundred thousand francs, in six annual 
 instalments." 
 
 Aeticle V. — " Claims not provided for by the present con- 
 vention may be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of the 
 respective countries." 
 
 Aeticle YII. — " French wines imported into the United 
 States for consumption shall be subject to a duty not exceeding 
 six cents per gallon for red wine in cask; ten cents for 
 white wine in casks ; and twenty-two cents for wines of all 
 sorts in bottles. 
 
 " In consideration of this stipulation, which shall be binding 
 on the United States for ten years, the French Government 
 abandons the reclamations which it had formed in relation to 
 
52 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 the 8th article of the treaty of session of Louisiana. France 
 agrees, moreover, to levy the same duty on long staple cottons 
 of the United States as on short staple cottons." 
 
 GREAT BRITAIlSr. 
 
 Instettctions foe the Teeatt or Peace, August 14, 1783. 
 
 {Secret Journals of Congress, II., 225.) 
 
 " SiE : 
 " You will herewith receive a commission, giving you full 
 power to negotiate a treaty of peace with Great Britain, in 
 
 ' The first installment of the Fi-ench indemnity under this treaty fell due 
 February 2, 1833, but no provision was made for its payment ; and on 
 April 18, 1834, the French Chamber of Deputies refused to make the ap- 
 propriations necessary to carry the treaty into effect. This action of the 
 Chamber of Deputies was followed by a complete rupture of diplomatic 
 relations between the two states ; iu February, 1835, President Jackson 
 instructed Livingston, the United States minister, to leave Paris, and in 
 consequence the French minister was withdrawn from Washington. A 
 year later, however, the French government announced that it was ready 
 to execute the treaty, and diplomatic relations were accordingly re- 
 sumed. 
 
 In respect of the 8th article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, 
 France had accused the United States of a breach of faith in granting 
 privileges to English vessels not accorded to those of France. The 
 United States replied that English vessels enjoyed these additional 
 favors by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. The dispute was settled by 
 the 7th article of the present treaty (Bancroft Davis' Notes on France.) 
 
 The subsequent treaties with Prance are as follows : 
 
 1. A convention for the extradition of criminals, concluded November 
 9, 1843, being the first separate extradition convention entered into by 
 the United States. Additional articles were added in 1845, and 1858. 
 (See Extradition Treaties.) 
 
 2. A consular convention concluded February 33, 1853. (See Consular 
 Conventions). 
 
 3. A convention concemiug trade-marks, concluded AprU 16, 1869. 
 (See Trade-marks). 
 
 4. A convention for the settlement of claims concluded January 15, 
 1880. The claims against France were those arising during the French 
 occupation of Mexico, and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. The 
 claims against the United States were those arising during the civil war, 
 1861-1866. 
 
 (On the subject of treaties with France generally, see Davis' Notes). 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1783. 53 
 
 doing which you will conform to the following information and 
 instructions. 
 
 1. " The United States are sincerely desirous of peace, and 
 wish by every means, eonsist^it with their dignity and safety 
 to spare the further effusion of blood. They have, therefore, 
 by your commission and these instructions, laboured to remove 
 the obstacles to that event, before the enemy have evidenced 
 their disposition for it. But as the great object of the present 
 defensive war on the part of the allies, is to establish the inde- 
 pendence of the United States, and as any treaty whereby this 
 end cannot be obtained must be only ostensible and illusory, 
 you are, therefore, to make it a preliminary article to any 
 negotiation, that Great Britain shall agree to treat with the 
 United States as sovereign, free, and independent. 
 
 2. " You shall take especial care also, that the independence 
 of the said states be effectually assured and confirmed by the 
 treaty or treaties of peace, according to the form and effect of 
 the treaty of alliance with his most christian majesty. And 
 you shall not agree to such treaty or treaties, unless the same 
 be thereby so assured and confirmed. 
 
 3. "The boundaries of these states are as follows, viz. 
 These states are bounded north by a line to be drawn from the 
 northwest angle of Nova Scotia along the highlands which 
 divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. 
 Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the 
 north westernmost head of Connecticut River; thence down 
 along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north 
 latitude; thence due west in the latitude forty-five degrees 
 north from the equator to the northwesternmost side of the 
 river St. Lawrence or Cadaraqui ; thence straight to the south 
 end of Nepissing; and thence straight to the source of the 
 river Mississippi ; west, by a line to be drawn along the middle 
 of the river Mississippi from its source to where the said line 
 shall intersect the thirty-first degree of north latitude ; south, 
 by a line to be drawn due east from the termination of the line 
 last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees north from 
 the equator to the middle of the river Appalachicola, or Cata- 
 houchi ; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with 
 the Flint river ; thence straight to the head of St. Mary's river ; 
 and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's river to the 
 
54 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Atlantick ocean : and east, by a line to be drawn along the 
 middle of St. John's river from its source to its mouth in the 
 bay of Fundy, comprehending all islands within twenty leagues 
 of any part of the shores of the ^United States, and lying be- 
 tween lines to be drawn due east from the points where the 
 aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and 
 East Florida on the other part, shall respectively touch the 
 bay of Fundy and Atlantick ocean. You are, therefore, strongly 
 to contend that the whole of the said countries and islands 
 lying within the boundaries aforesaid, and every citadel, fort, 
 post, place, harbour and road to them belonging, be absolutely 
 evacuated by the land and sea forces of his Britannick majesty, 
 and yielded to the powers of the states to which they respec- 
 tively belong, in such situation as they may be at the termina- 
 tion of the war. But, notwithstanding the clear right of these 
 states, and the importance of the object, yet they are so much 
 influenced by the dictates of religion and humanity, and so de- 
 sirous of complying with the earnest request of their allies, 
 that if the line to be drawn from the mouth of the lake Nepis- 
 sing to the head of the Mississippi cannot be obtained without 
 continuing the war for that purpose, you are hereby empowered 
 to agree to some other line between that point and the river 
 Mississippi ; provided that the same shall in no part thereof be 
 to the southward of latitude forty-five degrees, north. And in 
 like manner, if the eastern boundary above described cannot 
 be obtained, you are hereby empowered to agree, that the same 
 shall be afterwards adjusted, by commissioners to be duly ap- 
 pointed for that purpose, according to such line- as shall be by 
 them settled and agreed on, as the boundary between, that part 
 of the state of Massachusetts Bay, formerly called the prov- 
 ince of Maine, and the colony of Nova Scotia, agreeably to their 
 respective rights. And you may also consent, that the enemy 
 shall destroy such fortifications as they may have erected. 
 
 " 4. Although it is of the utmost importance to the peace and 
 commerce of the United States that Canada and Nova Scotia 
 should be ceded, and more particularly that their equal common 
 right to the fisheries should be guaranteed to them, yet a desire 
 of terminating the war has induced us not to make the acquisi- 
 tion of these objects an ultimatum on the present occasion. 
 
 " 5. You are empowered to agree to a cessation of hostilities 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1779. 55 
 
 during the negotiation ; provided our ally shall consent to the 
 same ; and provided it shall be stipulated that all the forces of 
 the enemy shall be immediately withdrawn from the United 
 States. 
 
 " 6. In all other matters not above mentioned, you are to 
 govern yourself by the alliance between his most christian 
 majesty and these states ; by the advice of our allies ; by your 
 knowledge of our interests ; and by your own discretion, in 
 which we repose the fullest confidence." 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEGOTIATING A 'TREATY OF 
 COMMERCE WITH GREAT BRITAIN, AUGUST 14, 
 
 1779. 
 
 (Secret Journals of Congress, II., 329.) 
 
 " SlE, 
 
 " You will herewith receive a commission, giving you full 
 power to negotiate a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, in 
 doing which you will consider ydurself bound by the following 
 information and instructions : 
 
 "1. You will govern yourself principally by the treaty of 
 commerce with his most christian majesty ; and as, on one 
 hand, you shall grant no privilege to Great Britain not granted 
 by that treaty to France, so, on the other, you shall not consent 
 to any peculiar restrictions or limitations whatever in favour of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 " 2. In order that you may be the better able to act with 
 propriety on this occasion, it is necessary for you to know, that 
 we have determined, 1st, that the common right of fishing shall 
 in no case be given up ; 2d, that it is essential to the welfare 
 of all these United States, that the inhabitants thereof, at the 
 expiration of the war, should continue to enjoy the free and 
 undisturbed exercise of their common right to fish on the banks 
 of Newfoundland and the other fishing banks and seas of North 
 America, preserving inviolate the treaties between France and 
 the said States ; 3d, that application shall be made to his most 
 christian majesty to agree to some article or articles for the 
 better securing to these states a share in the said fisheries ; 4th, 
 that if, after a treaty of peace with Great Britain, she shall 
 
56 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 molest the citizens or inhabitants of any of the United States, 
 in taking fish on the banks and places hereinafter described, 
 such molestation being in our opinion a direct violation and 
 breach of the peace, shall be a common cause of the said states, 
 and the force of the union be exerted to obtain redress for the 
 parties injured ; and 5th, that our faith be pledged to the 
 several states, that, without their unanimous consent, no treaty 
 of commerce shall be entered into, nor any trade or commerce 
 carried on with Great Britain, without the explicit stipulation 
 hereinafter mentioned. Yoa are therefore not to consent to 
 any treaty of commerce with Great Britain without an explicit 
 stipulation on her part, not to molest or disturb the inhabitants 
 of the United States of America in taking fish on the banks of 
 Newfoundland and other fisheries in the American seas any- 
 where, excepting within the distance of three leagues of the 
 shores of the territories remaining to Great Britain at the close 
 of the war, if a nearer distance cannot be obtained by negotia- 
 tion. And in the negotiation, you are to exert your most 
 strenuous endeavours to obtain a nearer distance to the gulf of 
 St. Lawrence, and particularly along the shores of Nova Scotia, 
 as to which latter we are desirous that even the shores may be 
 occasionally used for the purpose of carrying on the fisheries 
 by the inhabitants of these states. 
 
 "3. In all other matters you are to govern yourself by your 
 own discretion, as shall be most for the interest of these states, 
 taking care that the said treaty be founded on principles of 
 equality and reciprocity, so as to conduce to the mutual advan- 
 tage of both nations, but not to the exclusion of others." ^ 
 
 1 A motion was made and carried on July 13, 1781, with only three 
 dissenting votes (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut), 
 " that the commission and instructions for negotiating a treaty of com- 
 merce between these United States and Great Britain, given to the 
 honorable John Adams on the 39th day of September, 1779, be and they 
 are hereby revoked." 
 
FISHERY RIGHTS, 1782. 57 
 
 ACT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, 
 OCTOBER 17, 1781. 
 
 (Secret Journals of Congress, III., 150.) 
 
 " Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Oct. 27, 1781. 
 
 " It appearing to this court of the highest importance in 
 general, and to this state in particular, that the Eights to the 
 fisheries heretofore enjoyed by the subjects of the United 
 States, should in a future settlement of peace be acknowledged 
 and secured to them : Therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That the delegate in Congress for this common- 
 wealth be and they are hereby instructed, to represent to Con- 
 gress the importance of the fisheries to this state, and to use 
 their utmost influence that instructions be given to the minis- 
 ters appointed by Congress for negotiating a peace, in the most 
 pressing manner to insist, that the free and unmolested exer- 
 cise of this right be continued and secured to the subjects of 
 the United States of America, in a future settlement of peace. 
 
 " And it is further resolved. That the secretary be and he 
 is hereby directed, to forward the aforegoing resolve without 
 delay to the delegates in Congress for this commonwealth." 
 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE, AUGUST 16, 1782. 
 
 {Secret Journals of Congress, III., 161.) 
 
 A committee of Congress composed of Mr. Lovell, Mr. Car- 
 roll, and Mr. Madison, to whom was referred this act of the 
 Massachusetts legislature, together with other papers, sub- 
 mitted a report thereon, January 8, 1782. This report was re- 
 ferred on January 22, 1782, to another committee consisting of 
 Mr. Carroll, Mr. Randolph, and Mr. Montgomery, who reported 
 August 16, 1782, as follows: (Extract). 
 
 " 1. Our common right to take fish in the North America 
 seas, and particularly in that part of them which goes under 
 the name of the banks of Newfoundland, has its origin in the 
 natural incapacity of the sea to be appropriated. 
 
58 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 " The practice of nations hath, for the sake of safety and 
 tranquillity, abridged this freedom of the ocean, by annexing 
 to the coast a reasonable tract of the water ; and Great Britain, 
 by availing herself of this usage, may possibly arrogate the 
 exclusive enjoyment of the banks, as appurtenant to the island 
 of Newfoundland. 
 
 " These banks, the nearest point of which is thirty-five 
 leagues distant from Cape Race, are too far advanced in the 
 Atlantick to be a dependance of the shores. There has been 
 great division among writers in determining to what extent 
 the sea is to be considered as incidental to the territory which 
 it washes. Some have apportioned one hundred miles, others 
 sixty, and others as much as could be seen from land in a fair 
 day. (See Anderson's Hist, of Commerce, Vol. II. Appendix,17.) 
 
 " If we pass from theory to the stipulations of treaties, we 
 shall find better aid, but by no means uniformity. By better 
 aid, we mean British precedents; for against these, a British 
 king surely will not struggle. 
 
 " In the second year of James the First, commissioners were 
 appointed on the part of England and Scotland, to treat of and 
 conclude a union of the two kingdoms. By the articles for the 
 regulation of trade, the sea, for the space of fourteen miles from 
 the coast of Scotland, was reserved to Scotchmen only ; and it 
 was reciprocally provided in favour of Englishmen. (See Spots- 
 wood's Hist, of Scotland, 483, and II. Anderson, Appendix, 17.) 
 
 "Should this example be thought to lose the force of its 
 application, from having been the agreement of the subjects of 
 one and the same prince, a letter may be quoted from Secretary 
 Stanton to Lord Carlton, the English ambassador at the Hague, 
 bearing date the 21st of January, 1618. In it the ambassador is 
 commanded to urge the states-general, in the name of King 
 James, to publish a placard prohibiting their subjects to fish 
 within fourteen miles of his coasts until the main business 
 should be finally accommodated by commissioners. 
 
 " The treaty of Paris, 1763, to which his most christian maj- 
 esty as well as his Britannick majesty was a party, excludes 
 the French from the exercise of the fishery in the gulf of St. 
 Lawrence only within three leagues from the shore, extending 
 the distance round Cape Breton to fifteen leagues. 
 
 "By inspecting the ancient treaties between England and 
 
FISHERY EIGHTS, 1782. 59 
 
 the dukes of Britanny and Burgundy, we shall find that the 
 portion of the sea which is supposed to belong to the coast is so 
 far from, being increased beyond fourteen miles, or even three 
 leagues, that the liberty of fishing in every part thereof is 
 asserted. See treaties between Henry Sixth, and the duchess 
 of Burgundy , Edward Fourth, and Francis, duke of Britanny ; 
 Henry Seventh, and Philip fourth, arch-duke of Austria; and 
 duke of Burgundy and Henry Eighth and Charles Fifth, emperor 
 and duke of Burgundy. 
 
 " Had the kings of England esteemed the fisheries the prop- 
 erty of the crown, they would not have admitted aliens to a 
 promiscuous fishing with their own subjects without some 
 valuable consideration, or an acknowledgment by way of salvo 
 jure. But, instead of a proceeding like this, they have in a 
 succession of ages deliberately omitted to challenge to them- 
 selves the sole right of the fisheries. 
 
 " Queen Elizabeth too, being involved in a dispute with the 
 king of Denmark concerning the fishery at Wardhuys, near the 
 North Cape, instructs her plenipotentiaries to deny that the 
 property of the ' sea at any distance whatsoever is consequent 
 to the banks.' The king of Denmark in his reply does not at- 
 tempt to establish what she had thus denied, but rests his ex- 
 clusive claims upon the authority of old treaties between the 
 two crowns. See Kymer's Foedera, torn. 16th, p. 425. 
 
 " Thus it appears, upon strict principles of natural law, the 
 sea is unsusceptible of appropriation ; that a species of conven- 
 tional law has annexed a reasonable district of it to the coast 
 which borders on it ; and that in many of the treaties to which 
 Great Britain has acceded, no distance has been assumed for 
 this purpose beyond fourteen miles. 
 
 " Were these rules then allowed to infiuence the pretensions 
 of Great Britain with respect to the banks of Newfoundland, 
 they would be readily condemned. Nor could they be sup- 
 ported, were the sea appendant to the shore as far as thirty 
 leagues, the greatest distance, perhaps, which has at any time 
 been ceded to the king of England by treaty. 
 
 " Nations may indeed, either by positive contract, or by long 
 and silent acquiescence under exclusion, renounce their privi- 
 leges in the sea. But the United States have not only never 
 disclaimed their right of fishing therein, but' have been in the 
 
60 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 constant enjoyment of it during the existence of British govern- 
 ment, and occasionally so ever since the Revolution. 
 
 " It deserves attention, that the fisheries furnish the inhabit- 
 ants of a considerable part of the United States with an im- 
 portant proportion of their subsistence, and the means of their 
 commerce. Should they lose this resource by the accomplish- 
 ment of independence, an event from which very different ex- 
 pectations have been cherished, and which ought to bestow 
 equal advantages on all who have laboured equally in giving 
 birth to it, such a loss cannot fail to be attended with disap- 
 pointment and mortifying comparisons. 
 
 " 2. With respect to the boundaries of the states. The 
 patent to the council of Plymouth, bearing date the 18th of 
 N"ovember, 1620, is the patent from which the eastern states 
 proceed. 
 
 " New Hampshire claims under the royal commission ap- 
 pointing Benning Wentworth, Esquire, governor of that prov- 
 ince, on the 13th July, in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
 George the Second. 
 
 "Massachusetts claims under the charter granted by William 
 and Mary, on the 17th October, 1691. The treaty of Paris fixes 
 the Mississippi as the western limit of the old colony of Mas- 
 sachusetts Bay, which is one of the colonies incorporated by 
 that charter. See old charter of 4th March, 1628-9. 
 
 "The charter of AprU 23, 1662, granted by Charles the 
 Second to Winthrop and others, is the ground of the terri- 
 torial claims of Connecticut. The treaty of Paris is allowed to 
 restrict that state also to the Mississippi. 
 
 " On the 8th July, 1662, the same prince granted the charter 
 under which Rhode Island claims. 
 
 " New York assigns, as sources of her title, the grant from 
 Charles Second to the duke of York, in 1663, the capitulation 
 of the Dutch in the same year, the treaty of Westminster, 
 1674, and the renewal or confirmation of the duke's grant im- 
 mediately after the treaty. This state adds, that the lands on 
 the west side of Connecticut river belong to it under the farther 
 (right) accruing by the subjection of the Five Nations, the na- 
 tive proprietors ; and that the country, as far northward as 
 the river St. Lawrence, and westward without known limits, is 
 
REPORT ON COMMITTEE, AUGUST 16, 1783. 61 
 
 • 
 
 the property of New York, as having heen formerly possessed 
 hy those tribes of Indians and their tributaries. The treaties 
 with those nations in 1684, 1701, 1726, 1744, and 1754, are par- 
 ticularly referred to. 
 
 " On the 23d June, 1664, the duke of York conveyed, out of 
 his aforesaid grant to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, 
 the limits which New Jersey claims. Upon this ground, and 
 the resignation of the government into the hands of the crown 
 on the 14th August, 1703, is the title of this state built. 
 
 " Pennsylvania claims under the charter granted by Charles 
 the Second, on the 4th of March, 1681-2, to William Penn. 
 
 " Delaware claims under two grants from the duke of York 
 to WiUiam Penn, on the 24th August, 1683. 
 
 " On the 20th June, 1632, Charles the First granted to Lord 
 Baltimore the limits which Maryland claims. 
 
 " Virginia claims under the charter granted by James First, 
 on the 23d May, 1609, to_ the treasurer and compariy, the re- 
 sumption of the country into the hands of the king, and the 
 charter of Charles Second to the colony of Virginia, on the 
 10th October, 1676. The treaty of Paris marks its western 
 boundary. 
 
 "North Carolina and South Carolina claim jointly in the 
 first instance under the charter of 1662, to Clarendon and 
 others, and its confirmation in 1664, with an extension of 
 limits. The British statute of 1729, enabling the king to pay 
 the consideration of the surrender of the proprietors, makes a 
 material point in their case. The separate claims of these two 
 states depend upon the act which divided them. The treaty 
 of Paris defines the western boundary of each. 
 
 " The first grant on which Georgia relies, is that made to the 
 trustees on the 8th June, 1782, and limited to the west by the 
 treaty of Paris. The second grant is the proclamation of 1763. 
 
 " Were the lands included within these limits merely such as 
 were granted to individuals and settled, or granted and not 
 settled, at the time of the Revolution, they could not be brought 
 into controversy. For no question can arise concerning boun- 
 daries until the recognition of independence ; and this event, 
 by deposing the king of Great Britain from the rank of lord 
 paramount and chief magistrate of America, destroys ,the only 
 principles by which lands fallmg within the two preceding de- 
 
62 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 scriptions could return into his power. But the views, in- 
 terests and conduct of his Britannick majesty forbid us to 
 expect that he will acknowledge the territory remaining un- 
 granted at the era of independence to be, in like manner, the 
 property of the United States, or of the particular states within 
 the limits of which it is comprised. 
 
 " It is therefore incumbent on us to show — 
 
 " First, That the territorial rights of the thirteen United 
 States, while in the character of British colonies, were the same 
 with those defined, in the instructions given to Mr. J. Adams 
 on the day of August, 1779; and, 
 
 " Secondly, That the United States, considered as indepen- 
 dent sovereignties, have succeeded to those rights ; or, 
 
 " Thirdly, That if the vacant lands cannot be demanded upon 
 the preceding grounds, that is, upon the titles of individual 
 states, they are to be deemed to have been the property of his 
 Britannick majesty immediately before the Revolution, and to 
 be now devolved upon the United States collectively taken." 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1783. 
 
 Definitive Treaty of Peace. 
 
 Concluded September 3, 1783. Ratified by the Continental Congress 
 January 14, 1784. Proclaimed January 14, 1784. 
 
 " In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. 
 
 "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the 
 hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the 
 Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and 
 Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lune- 
 burg. Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman 
 Empire, &c., and of the United States of America, to forget 
 all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhap- 
 pily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which 
 they mutually wish to restore ; and to establish such a ben- 
 eficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries, 
 upon the ground of reciprocal advantage and mutual conve- 
 nience, as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace 
 
GREAT BEITAIN, 1T83. 63 
 
 and harmony : And having for this desirable end already 
 laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation, by the pro- 
 visional articles, signed at Paris, on the 30th of Nov'r, 1782, 
 by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles 
 were agreed to be inserted in and to constitute the treaty of 
 peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great 
 Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not 
 to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon be- 
 tween Great Britain and France, and His Britannic Majesty 
 should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly ; and the 
 treaty between Great Britain and France having since been 
 concluded. His Britannic Majesty and the United States of 
 America, in order to carry into full effect the provisional ar- 
 ticles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have 
 constituted and appointed, that is to say, His Britannic Maj- 
 esty on his part, David Hartley, esqr., member of the Parlia- 
 ment of Great Britain; and the said United States on their 
 part, John Adams, esqr., late a commissioner of the United 
 States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in 
 Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and chief justice of 
 .the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United 
 States to their High Mightinesses the States-General of the 
 United Netherlands ; Benjamin Franklin, esq're, late Delegate 
 in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, president of the 
 convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from 
 the United States of America at the Court of Versailles ; John 
 Jay, esq're, late president of Congress, and chief justice of the 
 State of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said 
 United States at the Court of Madrid, to be the Plenipoten- 
 tiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive 
 treaty ; who, after having reciprocally communicated their re- 
 spective full powers, have agreed upon and confirmed the fol- 
 lowing articles : 
 
 Article I. — " His Britannic Majesty ^acknowledges the said 
 United- States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, 
 Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New 
 York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sover- 
 eign and independent States ; that he treats with them as such, 
 and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims 
 
tj4 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 to the Government, proprietary and. territorial rights of the 
 same, and every part thereof." 
 
 Akticlb II.—" And that all disputes which might arise in 
 future, on the subject of the boundaries of the said United 
 States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that 
 the following are, and shall be their boundaries, viz. : From 
 the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz. : that angle which is 
 formed by a line drawn due north from the source of Saint 
 Croix River to the Highlands ; along the said Highlands which 
 divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. 
 Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the 
 northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down 
 along the middle of that river, to the forty-fifth degree' of north 
 latitude; from thence, by a line due west on said latitude, 
 until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy ; thence along 
 the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the middle 
 of said lake until it strikes the communication by water be- 
 tween that lake and Lake Erie ; thence along the middle of said 
 communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake 
 until it arrives at the water communication between that lake 
 and Lake Huron ; thence along the middle of said water com-, 
 munication into the Lake Huron ; thence through the middle 
 of said lake to the water communication between that lake and 
 Lake Superior ; thence through Lake Superior northward of the 
 Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake ; thence through 
 the middle of said Long Lake, and the water communication 
 between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the 
 "Woods ; thence through the said lake to the most northwest- 
 ern point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the 
 river Mississippi ; thence by a line to be drawn along the mid- 
 dle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the 
 northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude. 
 South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination 
 of the line last mentioned, in the latitude of thirty-one degrees 
 north of the Equator, to the middle of the river Appalachicola or 
 Catahouche ; thence along the middle thereof to its junction 
 with the Flint River ; thence straight to the head of St. Mary's 
 River ; and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's River 
 to the Atlantic Ocean. East, by a line to be drawn along the 
 middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1783. 65 
 
 Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to tlie 
 aforesaid Higiilands, which divide the rivers that fall into the 
 Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Law- 
 rence ; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any 
 part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines 
 to be dravni due east from the points where the aforesaid boun- 
 daries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida 
 on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and 
 the Atlantic Ocean ; excepting such islands as now are, or here- 
 tofore have been, within the limits of the said province of Nova 
 Scotia." 
 
 Aeticlb III. — " It is agree(^ that the people of the United 
 States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take flsh 
 of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks 
 of Newfoundland ; also in the Gulph of Saint Lawrence, and 
 at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both 
 countries used at any time heretofore to flsh. And also that 
 the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take 
 flsh of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland 
 as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same 
 on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all 
 other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America ; and 
 that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and 
 cure' flsh in any of the unsettled bays, harbours and creeks of 
 Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the 
 same shall remain unsettled ; but so soon as the same or either 
 of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fish- 
 ermen to dry or cure flsh at such settlements, without a previous 
 agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors 
 or possessors of the groxind." 
 
 Article IV. — " It is agreed that creditors on either side shall 
 meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full 
 value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore con- 
 tracted." 
 
 Article V. — " It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly 
 recommend it to the legislatures of the respective States, to 
 provide for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties 
 which have been conflscated, belonging to real British subjects, 
 and also of the estates, rights and properties of persons resi- 
 dent in districts in the possession of His Majesty's arms, and 
 5 
 
66 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 who have not borne arms against the said United States. And 
 that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to 
 go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, 
 and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their 
 endeavours to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, 
 rights and properties as may have been confiscated ; and that 
 Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States 
 a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the 
 premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly con- 
 sistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit 
 of conciliation which, on the return of the blessings , of peace, 
 should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also 
 earnestly recommend to the several States, that the estates, 
 rights and properties of such last mentioned persons, shall be 
 restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be 
 now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been 
 given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of 
 the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation. 
 And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in 
 confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements or 
 otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the 
 prosecution of their just rights." 
 
 Article VI. — " That there shall be no future confiscations 
 made, nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or 
 persons for, or by reason of the part which he or they may 
 have taken in the present war ; and that no person shall, on 
 that account, suffer any future loss or damage, either in his 
 person, libertj' or property ; and that those who may be in 
 confinement on such charges, at the time of the ratification of 
 the treaty in America, shall be immediately set at liberty, and 
 the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued." 
 
 Article VII. — " There shall be a firm and perpetual peace be- 
 tween His Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between 
 the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore 
 all hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth 
 cease ; All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and 
 His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and 
 without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes 
 or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all 
 his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, 
 
GREAT BRITAESr, 1Y83. 67 
 
 and from every post, place and harbour within the same ; 
 leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be 
 therein ; And shall also order and cause all archives, records, 
 deeds and papers, belonging to any of the said States, or their 
 citizens, which, in the course of the war, may have fallen into 
 the hands of his oflacers, to be forthwith restored and deliver'd 
 to the proper States and persons to whom they belong." 
 
 Article VIII. — "The navigation of the river Mississippi, 
 from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and 
 open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the citizens of the 
 United States." 
 
 Article IX. — "In case it should so happen that any place or 
 territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States, 
 should have been conquer'd by the arms of either from the 
 other, before the arrival of the said provisional articles in 
 America, it is agreed, that the same shall be restored without 
 difficulty, and without requiring any compensation." 
 
 Article X. — " The solemn ratifications of the present treaty, 
 expedited in good and due form, shall be exchanged between 
 the contracting parties, in the space of six months, or sooner if 
 possible, to be computed from the day of the signature of the 
 present treaty. In witness whereof, we the undersigned, 
 their Ministers Plenipotentiary, have in their name and. in 
 virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present 
 definitive treaty, and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed 
 thereto. 
 
 "Done at Paris, this third day of September, in the year of 
 our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 "D. HARTLEY. 
 "JOHN ADAMS. 
 « B. FRANKLIN. 
 "JOHN J A r." 1 
 
 ' Immediately after the conclusion of peace disputes began to arise 
 between the two countries. The United States complained of infractions 
 of the treaty on the part of Great Britain, inasmuch as 3000 negroes 
 had been carried away by the British fleet, in violation of the 7th article 
 of the treaty; and that British troops were not withdrawn from the 
 western posts. These complaints were met by the assertion that the 
 negroes carried away had been freed by the British commanders during 
 'the war, and did not, therefore, come under the stipulations of the 
 
68 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1794. 
 
 Aeticle I. — Declaration of amity. 
 
 Article II. — Withdrawal of British forces. 
 
 Article III. — (Commerce and navigation.) — It is Stipulated 
 by this article that commerce by land, and inland navigation 
 between the two countries in America, shall be free. But this 
 agreement does not extend to the admission of vessels into the 
 seaports, harbors, bays or creeks of the two nations ; nor to 
 rivers below the highest port of entry. " The river Mississippi 
 shall, however, according to the 'treaty of peace, be entirely 
 open to both parties." 
 
 Further, there are to be no discriminating duties on account 
 of nationality. 
 
 Article IV. — (Survey of the Mississippi.) — " Whereas it 
 is uncertain whether the river Mississippi extends so far to the 
 northward as to be intersected by a line to be drawn due west 
 from the Lake of the Woods, in the manner mentioned in the 
 
 treaty ; and in respect to the withdrawal of troops, that it had been 
 delayed on account of the failure of the United States to carry out the 
 provisions of the treaty in respect of British debts (Article IV). and the 
 confiscation of the property of Tories (Articles V. and VI.) Some of the . 
 States had passed laws impeding the collection of these debts, and con- 
 firming the confiscation which had been made. Under the Confederation, 
 treaties were not the "law of the land," and were not binding upon 
 the States. But under the Constitution this defect was remedied, and 
 the British creditor could go into the federal courts and collect his debt 
 in spite of any adverse law of a State. (The case of Ware v. Hylton.) 
 
 Other causes of complaint on the part of the United States were the 
 impressment of American seamen, and the alleged inciting of Indians to 
 hostilities against the United States. When the war broke out between 
 England and France, in 1793, a new cause of dispute arose from the 
 action of the first-named State in detaining American produce bound 
 for France. In this critical state of affairs, Washington decided to 
 make a final attempt at a peaceable solution of the difficulties. To this 
 end Chief Justice Jay was commissioned as envoy extraordinary for the 
 purpose of negotiating a treaty with England (April 19, 1794). Besides 
 the subjects of dispute mentioned above, there were others growing out 
 of a difference of interpretation of the 2d article of the treaty of peace 
 respecting boundaries. 
 
GEEAT BRITAIN, 1794. 69 
 
 treaty of peace between His Majesty and the United States ; it 
 is agreed that measures shall be taken in concert between His 
 Majesty's Government in America and the Government of the 
 United States, for making a joint survey of the said river from 
 one degree of latitude below the falls of St. Anthony, to the 
 principal source or sources of the said river, and also of the 
 parts adjacent thereto ; and that if, on the result of such sur- 
 vey, it should appear that the said river would not be intersected 
 by such a line as is above mentioned, the two parties will there- 
 upon proceed, by amicable negotiation, to regulate the boundary 
 line in that quarter, as well as all other points to be adjusted 
 between the said parties, according to justice and mutual con- 
 venience, and in conformity to the intent of the said treaty." 
 
 Article V. — Provides for the appointment of three coiumis- 
 sioners to determine the St. Croix river. 
 
 Article VI. — (British creditors.) — " Whereas it is alleged by 
 divers British merchants and others. His Majesty's subjects, 
 that debts, to a considerable amount, which were bona fide con- 
 tracted before the peace, still remain owing to them by citizens 
 or inhabitants of the United States, and that by the operation 
 of various lawful impediments since the peace, not only the full 
 recovery of the said debts has been delayed, but also the value 
 and security thereof have been, in several instances impaired 
 and lessened," etc. 
 
 For the purpose of ascertaining the amount of any such losses 
 and damages, five commissioners were to be appointed to ad- 
 judicate upon these debts. Two of these commissioners to be 
 appointed by Great Britian, two by the United States, and the 
 fifth by the unanimous voice of the other four. 
 
 Article VII. — (American claims.) — Provides for a board of 
 five commissioners to ascertain and adjudicate upon the claims 
 of American citizens for losses by illegal captures by British 
 cruisers during the war then going on. 
 
 "Article VIII. — Stipulation in respect of the expenses of 
 commissioners mentioned in the preceding articles. 
 
 Article IX.— No discrimination in land tenures. 
 
 Article X. — (Debts and moneys not to be confiscated in time 
 
 of war.) " Neither the debts due from individuals of the one 
 
 nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor monies, which 
 they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private 
 
70 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 banks shall ever in any event of war or national differences be 
 sequestrated or confiscated, it being unjust and impolitic that 
 debts and engagements contracted and made by individuals, 
 having confidence in each other and in their respective Govern- 
 ments, should ever be destroyed or impaired by national author- 
 ity on account of national differences and discontents." 
 
 Aeticlb XII. — (Trade with the British West Indies.) — 
 United States citizens are permitted to carry to the British 
 West Indies, in their own vessels, not being above the burthen 
 of seventy tons, goods, being of the growth, manufacture or 
 produce of the United States, which it is lawful to carry to 
 those islands from the said States in British vessels. 
 
 And in the same manner the citizens of the United 
 States may carry away in their said vessels to the United 
 State such articles, being of the growth, manufacture or pro- 
 duce of said islands, as may be carried thence in British vessels. 
 
 " Provided always, that the said American vessels do carry 
 and land their cargoes in the United States only, it being 
 expressly agreed and declared that, during the continuance of 
 this article, the United States will prohibit and restrain the carry- 
 ing any molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa or cotton in American ves- 
 sels, either from His Majesty's islands or from the United States 
 to any part of the world except the United States, reasonable 
 sea-stores excepted. Provided, also, that it shall and may be 
 lawful, during the same period, for British vessels to import 
 from the said islands into the United States, and to export 
 from the United States to the said islands, all articles what- 
 ever, being of the growth, produce or manufacture of the said ' 
 islands, or of the United States respectively, which now may, 
 by the laws of the said States, be so imported and exported. 
 And that the cargoes of the said British vessels shall be sub- 
 ject to no other or higher duties or charges, than shall be 
 payable on the same articles if so imported or exported in 
 American vessels. 
 
 "It is agreed that this article, and every matter and thing 
 therein contained, shall continue to be in force during the con- 
 tinuance of the war in which His Majesty is now engaged ; and 
 also for two years from and after the date of the signature of 
 the preliminary or other articles of peace, by which the same 
 may be terminated." 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1Y94. Yl 
 
 Aeticlb XIII. — (East India Trade.) — Vessels of the United 
 States are permitted by this article to trade with the British 
 East Indies, without any discriminating tonnage duties, or other 
 duties, provided that they shall not carry any article exported 
 from the said territories " to any port or place except to some 
 port or place in America. " . . . . 
 
 Aeticle XIV. — (Trade with the British dominions in Europe.) 
 — With the British dominions in Europe, there is to be entire 
 freedom of commerce and navigation, with no discriminating 
 duties of any kind. 
 
 Article XVI. — (Consuls.) — Consuls may be appointed for the 
 protection of trade ; but they shall be amenable to the laws of 
 their place of residence. 
 
 Aeticle XVII. — Relates to captures or detentions of neutral 
 vessels. 
 
 Aeticle XVIII. — (Contraband.) — " In order to regulate what 
 is in future to be esteemed contraband of war, it is agreed that 
 under the said denomination shall be comprised all arms and 
 implements serving for the purposes of war, by land or sea, 
 such as cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, car- 
 casses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket-rests, bandoliers, 
 gunpowder, match, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head-pieces, 
 cuirasses, halberts, lances, javelins, horse -furniture, holsters, 
 belts, and generally all other implements of war, as also timber 
 for ship-building, tar or rozin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and 
 cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the 
 equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only 
 excepted ; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be 
 just objects of confiscation whenever they are attempted to be 
 carried to an enemy. 
 
 " And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases 
 in which alone provisions and other articles not generally con- 
 traband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to 
 provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings 
 which might thence arise : It is further agreed that whenever 
 any such" articles so becoming contraband, according to the 
 existing laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the 
 same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be 
 speedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or, in 
 their default, the Government under whose authority they act, 
 
72 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels the full value 
 of all such articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, 
 together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to 
 such detention." .... 
 
 Article XIX. — Kegulations for the protection of citizens 
 from men-of-war, or privateers. Privateers to give security, etc. 
 See Plan of Treaties, XVIII. 
 
 Article XX. — See Plan of Treaties, XIX. 
 
 Aeticle XXI. — Subjects or citizens of the one party shall 
 not accept commissions from a foreign State at war with the 
 other. See Plan of Treaties, XXIV. 
 
 Akticlb XXII. — Reprisals shall not be authorized, until a 
 statement of grievances has been made. 
 
 Aeticle XXIII. — Regulation of rights of ships of war in for- 
 eign ports. 
 
 Article XXIV. — Foreign privateers. See Plan of Treaties,' 
 XXV. 
 
 Aeticle XXV. — Ships of war may enter with their prizes 
 the ports of either country. See Plan of Treaties, XX. 
 
 Aeticle XXVI. — In case of war between the two nations 
 the citizens or subjects of one residing in the other shall be 
 allowed to remain unmolested so long as they remain peace- 
 able ; or they shall have twelve months in which to remove. 
 
 Article XXVII. — (Extradition.) — Persons charged with the 
 crimes of murder or forgery in one State and fleeing to the 
 other shall be delivered up on demand. 
 
 Aeticle XXVIII. — (Limitation of the treaty.) — The first 
 ten articles shall be permanent, and the subsequent articles, 
 except the twelfth, shall be limited in duration to twelve years, 
 to be computed from the day of the exchange of ratifications. 
 
 GRENVILLE. 
 JOHN JAY. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1794. 73 
 
 ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. 
 
 " It is further agreed, between the said contracting parties, 
 that the operation of so much of the twelfth article of the said 
 treaty as respects the trade which his said Majesty thereby 
 consents may be carried on between the United States and his 
 islands in the West Indies, in the manner and on the terms and 
 conditions therein specified, shall be suspended." ^ 
 
 • In accordance with tha provisions of the 5th article, the commis- 
 sioners met at Halifax, in March, 1798, and determined the river St. 
 Croix, but left unsettled the place of its source ; this was left in dispute 
 till 1843. 
 
 The commission provided for by the 6th article in respect to British 
 debts, met in Philadelphia, and disposed of a number of claims, but on 
 account of a disagreement the sessions of the commission were discon- 
 tinued in 1798. On the 19th of March, 1798, Congress appropriated three 
 millions of dollars for the payment of the awards up to that time. The 
 remaining claims were settled by a convention signed in London by Ruf us 
 King, January 8, 1803, the United States agreeing to pay 600,000 pounds 
 sterling. 
 
 The commission provided by the 7th article met in London, ial796, and 
 after many disputes and interruptions, finished its work the 34th of 
 February, 1804. The awards against Great Britain amounted to about 
 1,284,177 pounds sterhng, those against the United States to nearly 300,000 
 pounds (See Davis's notes, on Great Britain.) 
 
 When the commercial articles of the Jay treaty were about to expire 
 in 1806, a new treaty was negotiated with England by Monroe and Pinck- 
 ney ; but because it contained no clause abandoning the claim to the 
 right of " impressment," Jefferson decUned to submit it to the Senate for 
 its approval. 
 
Ti TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1814. 
 
 Teeatt of Peace and Amity. 
 
 Concluded December 24, 1814. Eatifications exchanged at Washington 
 February 17, 1815. Proclaimed February 18, 1815. 
 
 Article I. — (Declaration of amity — restoration of terri- 
 tory.) — All territory and places, except certain islands in 
 Passamaquoddy Bay, to be restored, " and without causing any 
 destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other 
 public property originally captured in the said ports or places, 
 and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of ratifica- 
 tions of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property." 
 
 All archives, records, deeds, etc., taken by either party to be 
 restored. 
 
 The islands mentioned to remain in the possession of the 
 occupier at the date of ratification until a decision thereon in 
 accordance with the fourth article of this treaty. 
 
 Article II. — Hostilities to cease upon the ratification of 
 the treaty, and prizes taken after that date to be restored, but 
 with a time allowance for the intelligence of the peace to reach 
 various parts of the seas of the world. 
 
 Article III. — Prisoners to be restored. 
 
 Article IV. — (Boundaries — islands.) — Provides for the ap- 
 pointment of two commissioners to settle the disputed ques- 
 tion of the Passamaquoddy islands " in conformity with the 
 true intent of the said treaty of peace of one thousand seven 
 hundred and eighty three." If the commissioners cannot agree, 
 the matter to be referred to a friendly sovereign or State for 
 decision. 
 
 Article V. — (Northeastern Boundary.) — Whereas neither 
 that point of the highlands lying due north from the source of 
 the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of peace 
 between the Powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor 
 the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, has yet been 
 ascertained ; and whereas that part of the boundary line be- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1814. 75 
 
 tween the two dominions of the two Powers which extends from 
 the source of the river. St. Croix directly north to the above- 
 mentioned northwestern angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the 
 said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves 
 into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the 
 Atlantic Ocean to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
 River, thence down along the middle of that river to the forty- 
 fifth degree of north latitude ; thence by a line due west on 
 said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, 
 has not yet been surveyed : it is agreed that for these several 
 purposes two Commissioners shall be appointed, sworn and 
 authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect 
 to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless other- 
 wise specified in the present article 
 
 The said Commissioners shall make a map of the said boun- 
 dary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals, 
 certifying it to be the true map of the said boundary, and 
 particularizing the latitude and longitude of the northwest 
 angle of Nova Scotia, of the northwesternmost head of Con- 
 necticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary 
 
 as they may deem proper In 
 
 the event of the said two Commissioners differing 
 
 reference to a friendly sovereign or State shall be made in all 
 respects as in the latter part of the fourth article. 
 
 Aeticlb VI. — (Boundary from river Iroquois or Cataraquy 
 — St. Lawrence— to Lake Superior.)^-To be referred to two 
 commissioners, as in the preceding article. 
 
 Article VII. — (Boundary between Lake Superior and the 
 Lake of the Woods.) — To be referred to the two commissioners 
 named in the preceding article, with like conditions. 
 
 Aeticlb VIII. — Refers to details and proceedings of the 
 various commissions mentioned in the four preceding articles. 
 
 Article IX. — Hostilities with Indians to cease. 
 
 Article X. — (Abolition of the Slave trade.) — " Whereas the 
 traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of human- 
 ity and justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United 
 States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its 
 entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting 
 parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable 
 an object." 
 
76 TREATIES AKD CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Aeticlb XI. — (Ratification.) Ratifications to be exchanged 
 in four montlis. 
 
 " In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have 
 signed this treaty, and have thereunto aflSxed our seals. 
 
 "Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of 
 December, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.^ 
 
 " GAMBIER. 
 " HENRY GOULBURN. 
 "WILLIAM ADAMS. 
 « JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 "J. A. BAYARD. 
 "H. 
 
 "JONA. RUSSELL. 
 "ALBERT GALLATIN." 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1815. 
 
 Convention to Regulate Commerce and Navigation. 
 
 Concluded July 3, 1815. Ratifications exchanged at Washington Decem- 
 ber 23, 1815. 
 
 Article I. and II. — (Commerce between tjie United States 
 and British possessions in Europe.) — Commerce and navigation 
 between the United States and British possessions in Europe 
 to be free, with no discriminating duties of any kind. Com- 
 pare with Articles XIV. and XV. of the treaty of 1794. 
 
 Article III. — (East India trade.) — Similar to Article XIII. of 
 the treaty of 1794, except that certain East India ports are 
 designated. 
 
 American vessels may touch for refreshments, but not for 
 commerce, " at the Cape of Good Hope, the island of St. Helena, 
 or such other places as may be in the possession of Great 
 Britain, in the African or Indian seas." 
 
 ' The commissioners provided for by the fourth article met in New 
 York, and completed their work in November, 1817. 
 
 Those under the 6th article completed their work, and so reported in 
 Jime,' 1833. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1815. T7 
 
 Article IV. — Consuls may be appointed. See Article XVI 
 of the treaty of 1794. 
 
 Aeticlb V. — (Duration of the convention — ratification.) — To 
 be binding for four years from the date of signature ; and to be 
 ratified within six months. 
 
 Signed by 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 H. CLAY. 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN". 
 
 FREDERICK JOHN ROBINSON. 
 
 HENRY GOULBURN. 
 
 WILLIAM ADAMS. 
 
 DECLARATION RELATING TO ST. HELENA. 
 
 " The undersigned, His Britannick Majesty's Charge d' Affaires 
 in the United States of America, is commanded by His Royal 
 Highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the 
 behalf of His Majesty, to explain and declare, upon the ex- 
 change of the ratifications of the convention concluded at Lon- 
 don on the third of July of the present year, for regulating the 
 commerce and navigation between the two countries, that, in 
 consequence of events which have happened in Europe sub- 
 sequent to the signature of the convention aforesaid, it has 
 been deemed expedient, and determined, in conjunction with 
 the allied sovereigns, that St. Helena shall be the place allotted 
 for the future residence of General Napoleon Bonaparte, under 
 such regulations as may be necessary for the perfect security 
 of his person ; and it has been resolved, for that purpose, that 
 all ships and vessels whatever, as well British ship and vessels 
 as others, excepting only ships belonging to the East India 
 Company, shall be excluded from all communication with, or 
 approach to, that island. 
 
 " It has therefore become impossible to comply with so much 
 of the third article of the treaty as relates to the liberty of 
 touching for refreshment at the island of St. Helena, and the 
 ratifications of the said treaty will be exchanged under the 
 explicit declaration and understanding that the vessels of the 
 
78 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 United States cannot be allowed to touch at, or hold any com- 
 munication whatever with, the said island, so long as the said 
 island shall continue to be the place of residence of the said 
 Napoleon Bonaparte. 
 
 " ANTHONY ST. JNO. BAKER. 
 
 "Washington, November 24, 1815." ^ 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1817. 
 
 Aeeangement as to the Naval Foecb to be Respectively 
 Maintained on the Ambeican Lakes. 
 
 In communication of Mr. Bagot, British minister in Wash- 
 ington, to Mr. Rush, Secretary of State, April 28, 1817, and in 
 the reply of Mr. Rush, April 29, 1817, an agreement was made 
 between the two governments to limit the naval force to be 
 maintained on the Great Lakes respectively to the following 
 vessels : — 
 
 " On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding one hundred 
 tons burden and armed with an eighteen-pound cannon. 
 
 " On the Upper Lakes to two vessels not exceeding the like 
 burden each, and armed with like force. 
 
 " And on the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not 
 exceeding like burden and armed with like force. 
 
 " All other armed vessels on these Lakes, shall be forthwith 
 dismantled, and no other vessels of war shall be there built or 
 armed. 
 
 " If either party should hereafter be desirous of annulling 
 this stipulation and should give notice to that effect to the 
 other party, it shall cease to be binding after the expiration df 
 six months from the date of such notice." 
 
 ' This treaty was renewed, in 1827, for ten years, and thereafter until 
 a twelve months' notice by either party, subsequent to the 30th of October, 
 1828, for its abrogation. 
 
GREAT BRITAIIif, 1818. 79 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1818. 
 
 CoiTVENTiON' Respecting Fisheeies, Boundaey, and Restora- 
 tion OF Slaves. 
 
 Concluded October 30, 1818. Ratifications exchanged at Washington 
 January 30, 1819. Proclaimed January 30, 1819. 
 
 Article I. — (Extent of right of fishing defined.) — " Wliereas 
 differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the 
 United States for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure- 
 fish on certain coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of His Britan- 
 nic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the 
 high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the said United 
 States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His 
 Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that 
 part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from 
 Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern 
 coasts of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon 
 Islands on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the 
 coasts, bays, harbours, ' and creeks from Mount Joly on the 
 southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of 
 Belleisle and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, 
 without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of 
 the Hudson Bay Company : And that the American fishermen 
 shall also have liberty forever, to dry and cure fish in any of 
 the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part 
 of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the 
 coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion 
 thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said 
 fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without 
 previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, pro- 
 prietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States 
 hereby renounce forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or 
 claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on, 
 or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, 
 or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America 
 
80 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 not included within the above-mentioned limits ; Provided how- 
 ever, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter 
 such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of repair- 
 ing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, 
 and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under 
 such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, 
 drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever 
 abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." 
 
 Akticlb II. — (Boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the 
 Stony Mountains.) " It is agreed that a line drawn from the 
 most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, along the 
 forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, or, if the said point shall 
 not be in the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, then that a 
 line drawn from the said point due north or south as the case 
 may be, until the said line shall intersect the said parallel of 
 north latitude, and from the point of such intersection due west 
 along and with the said parallel shall be the line of demarcation 
 between the territories of the United States, and those of His 
 Britannic Majesty, and that the said line shall form the northern 
 boundary of the said territories of the United States, and the 
 southern boundary of the territories of His Britannic Majesty, 
 from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains." 
 
 Aeticlb III. — (Boundary west of Stony Mountains ia dis- 
 pute.) It is agreed, that any country that may be claimed by 
 either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the 
 Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays, and 
 creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free 
 and open, for the term of ten years from the date of the signa- 
 ture of the present . convention, to the vessels,, citizens, and 
 subjects of the two Powers : it being well understood, that this 
 agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim, 
 which either of the two high contracting parties may have to 
 any part of the said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the 
 claims of any other Power or State to any part of the said coun- 
 try ; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that ' 
 respect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst 
 themselves." 
 
 Article IV. — Convention of 1815 continued for ten years. 
 
 Article V. — (Slaves carried away by British forces.) The 
 question of indemnity for slaves carried away by British forces, 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1818. 81 
 
 contrary to the stipulation of Article I. of the treaty of Ghent, 
 to be referred to some friendly sovereign or State for decision. 
 Article VI. — Ratification. 
 
 Signed by, 
 
 ALBERT GALLATIN. 
 RICHARD RUSH. 
 FREDERICK JOHN" ROBINSOlSr. 
 HENRY GOULBURN.i 
 
 ' In accordance with the 5th article of this convention, an agree- 
 ment was entered into by the two governments and Russia, July 12, 
 1833, by which the question of indemnity for slaves carried away in vio- 
 lation of the first article of the treaty of Ghent, 1814, was to be referred 
 to the Emperor of Russia as arbitrator. This agreement or convention 
 was signed at St. Petersburg by Nesselrode, Capodistrias, Henry Middle- 
 ton, and Charles Bagot. 
 
 The award of the Emperor of Russia, based upon the construction of 
 the text of the first article of the treaty of Ghent was : 
 
 " That the United States of America are entitled to a just indemnifi- 
 cation, from Great Britain, for all private property carried away by the 
 British forces ; and as the question regards slaves more especially, for all 
 such slaves as were carried away by the British forces, from the places 
 and territories of which the restitution was stipulated by the treaty, in 
 quitting the said places and territories ; 
 
 "That the United States are entitled to consider, as having been so 
 carried away, all such slaves as may have been transported from the 
 above-mentioned territories on board of the British vessels within the 
 waters of the said territories, and who, for this reason, have not been 
 restored ; 
 
 " But that, if there should be any American slaves who were carried 
 away from territories of which the first article of the treaty of Ghent 
 has not stipulated the restitution to the United States, the United States 
 are not to claim an indemnification for the said slaves." 
 
 DiflSculties having arisen in the execution of this award, by a subse- 
 quent convention, concluded at London, November 13, 1836, by Albert 
 Gallatin, William Huskisson, and Henry Addington, Great Britain 
 agreed to pay to the United States the sum of 1,304,960 dollars, in lieu of, 
 and in fuU satisfaction for all claims, etc., under the decision of the con- 
 vention of 1833. 
 
 1837. 
 By a convention concluded at London, August 6, 1837, by Albert Gal- 
 latin, Chas. Grant, and Henry Addington, the two governments agreed 
 to extend indefinitely the stipulations of the 3d article of the convention 
 6 
 
82 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN", 1842. 
 
 Teeatt to Settle and Define Bound abie s ; foe the Pinal 
 Suppression of the African Slave-Teade ; and foe the 
 Giving up of Ceiminals Fugitive feom Justice. 
 
 Concluded August 9, 1842. Katiflcations exchanged at London, October 13, 
 1842. Proclaimed November 10, 1842. 
 
 Article I.— (Northeastern Boundary settled.) — " It is hereby 
 agreed and declared that the line of boundary shall be as fol- 
 lows : Beginning at the monument at the source of the river 
 St. Croix as designated and agreed to by the Commissioners 
 under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, between the Gov- 
 ernments of the United States and Great Britain ; thence, north, 
 following the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors 
 of the two Governments in the years 1817 and 1818, under the 
 fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, to its intersection with the 
 river St. John, and to the middle of the channel thereof ; thence, 
 up the middle of the main channel of the said river St. John, 
 to the mouth of the river St. Francis ; thence, up the middle 
 of the channel of the said river St. Francis, and of the lakes 
 through which it flows, to the outlet of the Lake Pohena- 
 gamook : thence, southwesterly, in a straight line, to a point 
 on the northwest branch of the river St. John, which point 
 shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of the St. 
 
 of 1818 ; but the convention was subject to abrogation after October 30, 
 1838, by either party giving twelve months' notice. Claims to territory 
 west of the Eocky Mountains were not to be affected by this convention. 
 On April 37, 1846, Congress authorized the President, at his discretion, to 
 give the notice required by this convention for its abrogation. 
 
 In this same year, September 39, 1837, a convention was concluded 
 between the two governments, as provided for by the 5th article of the 
 treaty of Ghent, to refer the difEerences regarding the northeastern 
 boundary to the arbiti'ation of a friendly State. The question was ac- 
 cordingly referred to the King of the Netherlands. His award, however, 
 was satisfactory to neither party, and was rejected by both. The dis- 
 pute was finally settled by the treaty of 1843. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1842. 83 
 
 John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but if 
 the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles from 
 the nearest point of the summit or crest of the highlands that 
 divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. 
 Lawrence from those which fall into the river St. John, then, 
 the said point shall be made to recede down the said northwest 
 branch of the river St. John, to a point seven miles in a straight 
 line from the said summit or crest ; thence, in a straight line, 
 in a course about south, eight degrees west, to the point where 
 the parallel of latitude of 46i° 25' north intersects the southwest 
 branch of the St. John's ; thence, southerly, by the said branch, 
 to the source thereof in the highlands at the Metjarmette port- 
 age ; thence, down along the said highlands which divide the 
 waters which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence 
 from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of 
 Hall's Stream ; thence, down the middle of said stream, till the 
 line thus run intersects the old line of boundary surveyed and 
 marked by Valentine and Collins, previously to the year 1774, 
 as the 45th degree of north latitude, and which has been known 
 and understood to be the line of actual division between the 
 States of New York and Vermont on one side, and the British 
 province of Canada on the other ; and from said point of intersec- 
 tion, west, along the said dividing line, as heretofore known 
 and understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River." 
 
 Akticle II. — ^Description of boundary line. 
 
 Aeticle III. — Navigation of the St. John to be free to those 
 of either party dwelling on the upper waters of the river, for 
 all produce not manufactured, etc. 
 
 Article IV. — Prior grants of land in the disputed territory 
 to be Held valid. 
 
 Aeticle V. — Distribution of the " disputed territory fund." 
 
 Aeticle VI. — Two commissioners to be appointed to mark 
 the boundary line between the St. Croix and St. Lawrence 
 rivers. 
 
 Aeticle VII. — Certain waters in the St. Lawrence, Detroit, 
 and St. Clair rivers to be free to both parties. 
 
 Aeticle VIII. — (Suppression of the Slave-Trade.)— " The 
 parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and 
 maintain in service on the coast of Africa a sufficient and ad- 
 equate squadron or naval force of vessels of suitable numbers 
 
84 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to 
 enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obli- 
 gations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the 
 slave-trade, the said squadrons to be independent of each other, 
 but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such 
 orders to the oflcers commanding their respective forces as 
 shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and co-oper- 
 ation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for 
 the attainment of the true object of this article, copies of all 
 such orders to be communicated by each Government to the 
 other, respectively." 
 
 Article IX. — Remonstrances to be made with other powers 
 within whose dominions a market for slaves is found. 
 
 Article X. — (Extradition of Criminals). — See Treaties of 
 Extradition. 
 
 Article XI. — (Duration of the treaty.) — The eighth article of 
 this treaty shall be in force for five years from the date of the 
 exchange of the ratifications, and afterwards until one or the 
 other party shall signify a wish to terminate it. The tenth 
 article shall continue in force until one or the other of the 
 parties shall signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer. 
 
 Article XII. — (Ratifications.) 
 
 Signed by 
 
 DANL. WEBSTER. 
 ASHBURTON. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1846. 
 
 Treaty in Regard to Limits Westward of the Rocky 
 
 m0u2s tains. 
 
 Concluded June 15, 1846. Eatifications excharged at London, Jrly 17, 1846. 
 Proclaimed August 5, 1846. 
 
 Article I.— (Boundary line west of the Rocky Mountains.)— 
 " From the pomt on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, 
 where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and conven- 
 tions between the United States and Great Britain terminates, 
 the line of boundary between the territories of the United 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1846. 85 
 
 States and those of her Britannic Majesty shall be continued 
 westward along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude 
 to the middle of the channel which separates the continent 
 from Vancouver's Island ; and thence southerl;;,- through the 
 middle of the said channel, and of Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific 
 Ocean : Provided, however, that the navigr.tion of the whole of 
 the said channel and straits, south of the forty-ninth parallel 
 of north latitude, remain free and open to both parties." 
 
 Article II. — (Navigation of the Columbia.) — The great north- 
 ern branch of the Columbia, from the point where it intersects 
 the forty -ninth parallel of north latitude to the point where said 
 branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, shall be free 
 and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British 
 subjects trading with the same, as also the Columbia from that 
 point to its mouth, subject to regulations not inconsistent with 
 the present treaty. 
 
 Article III. — The possessory rights of British subjects in 
 the territory south of the 49th parallel to be respected. 
 
 Article IV. — (Farms and lands belonging to the Puget's 
 Sound, Agricultural Company.) — " The farms, lands, and other 
 property of every description belonging to the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia 
 Kiver, shall be confirmed to the said company. In case, how- 
 ever, the situation of those farms and lands should be consid- 
 ered by the United States to be of public and political impor- 
 tance, and the United States Government should signify a de- 
 sire to obtain possession of the whole, or of any part thereof, 
 the property so required shall be transferred to the said 
 Government, at a proper valuation, to be agreed upon between 
 the parties." 
 
 Article V. — Ratifications to be exchanged at London, within 
 six months. Signed at Washington, June 15, 1846, by 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 RICHARD PACKENHAM.i 
 
 ' A dispute subsequently arose between the two governments as to the 
 true meaning of Article I. of this treaty in respect to the channel between 
 Vancouver's Island and the main land. The British government insisted 
 that the Rosario Straits formed the cannel intended by the treaty, whereas 
 the United States insisted that the Chanal de Haro was the proper 
 
86 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIlSr, 1850. 
 
 CoNVENTiosr Relative to a Ship-canal by Wat oe Nicaeagtta, 
 Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, oe any Part op Central 
 America. 
 
 Concluded April 19 1850. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, July 4, 
 1850. Proclaimed July 5, 1850. 
 
 Article I. — " The Governments of the United States and 
 Great Britain hereby declare that neither the one nor the other 
 will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control 
 over the said ship-canal; agreeing that neither will ever erect 
 or maintain any fortifications commanding the same, or in the 
 vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume 
 or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the 
 Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America; nor will 
 either make use of any protection which either affords or may 
 afford, or any alliance which either has or may have, to or with 
 any State or people for the purpose of erecting or maintaining 
 any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or coloniz- 
 ing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of 
 Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over 
 the same ; nor will the United States or Great Britain take ad- 
 vantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or in- 
 fluence that either may possess, with any State or Government 
 through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the pur- 
 pose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the 
 citizens or subjects of the one any rights or advantages in re- 
 gard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which 
 shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or sub- 
 jects of the other." 
 
 Article II. — " Vessels of the United States or Great Britain 
 traversing the said canal shall, ui case of war between the con- 
 channel. The question was referred, by the 34th article of the treaty of 
 1871, to the Emperor of Germany as arbitrator, who subsequently de- 
 cided the question in favor of the American claim. (October 31, 1873.) 
 
GEEAT BRITAIN, 1850. 87 
 
 tracting parties, be exempted from blockade, detention, or cap- 
 ture by either of the belligerents; and this provision shall 
 extend to such a distance from the two ends of the said canal 
 as may hereafter be found expedient to establish." 
 
 Article III. — " In order to secure the construction of the 
 said canal, the contracting parties engage that, if any such 
 canal shall be undertaken upon fair and equitable terms by 
 any parties having the authority of the local government or 
 governments through whose territory the same may pass, then 
 the persons employed in making the said canal, and their prop- 
 erty used or to be used for that object, shall be protected, 
 from the commencement of the said canal to its completion, by 
 the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, from 
 unjust detention, confiscation, seizure, or any violence what- 
 soever." 
 
 Aeticlb IY. — "The contracting parties will use whatever 
 influence they respectively exercise with any State, States or 
 Governments possessing, or claiming to possess, any jurisdic- 
 tion or right over the territory which the said canal shall tra- 
 verse, or which shall be near the waters applicable thereto, in 
 order to induce such States or Governments to facilitate the 
 construction of the said canal by every means in their power ; 
 and furthermore, the United States and Great Britain agree to 
 use their good offices, wherever or however it may be most ex- 
 pedient, in order to procure the establishment of two free ports, 
 one at each end of the said canal." 
 
 Article V. — " The contracting parties further engage that 
 when the said canal shall have been completed they will pro- 
 tect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and 
 that they will guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the 
 said canal may forever be open and free, and the capital in- 
 vested therein secure. Nevertheless, the Governments of the 
 United States and Great Britain, in according their protection 
 to the construction of the said canal, and guaranteeing its neu- 
 trality and security when completed, always understand that 
 this protection and guarantee are granted conditionally, and 
 may be withdrawn by both Governments, or either Govern- 
 ment, if both Governments or either Government should deem 
 that the persons or company undertaking or managing the 
 same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the 
 
88 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 traffic thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of 
 this convention, either by making unfair discriminations in 
 favor of the commerce of one of the contracting parties over 
 the commerce of the other, or by imposing oppressive exactions 
 or unreasonable tolls upon passengers, vessels, goods, wares, 
 merchandise, or other articles, ireither party, however, shall 
 withdraw the aforesaid protection and guarantee without first 
 giving six months' notice to the other." 
 
 Article VI. — " The contracting parties in this convention 
 engage to invite every State with which both or either have 
 friendly intercourse to enter into stipulations with them similar 
 to those which they have entered into with each other, to the end 
 that all other States may share in the honor and advantage of 
 having contributed to a work of such general interest and im- 
 portance as the canal herein contemplated. And the contract- 
 ing parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stip- 
 ulations with such of the Central American States as they may 
 deem advisable for the purpose of more effectually carrying out 
 the great design of this convention, namely, that of construct- 
 ing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication 
 between the two oceans, for the benefit of mankind, on equal 
 terms to all, and of protecting the same ; and they also agree 
 that the good offices of either shall be employed, when requested 
 by the other, in aiding and assisting the negotiation of such 
 treaty stipulations ; and should any differences arise as to right 
 or property over the territory through which the said canal 
 shall pass, between the States or Governments of Central 
 America, and such dift'erences should in any way impede or ob- 
 struct the execution of the said canal, the Governments of the 
 United States and Great Britain will use their good offices to 
 settle such dift'erences in the manner best suited to promote the 
 interests of the said canal, and to strengthen the bonds of 
 friendship and alliance which exist between the contracting 
 parties." 
 
 Article YII. — " It being desirable that no time should be 
 unnecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the said 
 canal, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain 
 determine to give their support and encouragement to such 
 persons or company as may first offer to commence the same, 
 with the necessary capital, the consent of the local authorities, 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1850. 89 
 
 and on such principles as accord with the spirit and intention 
 of this convention ; and if any persons or company should already 
 have, with any State through which the proposed ship -canal 
 may pass, a contract for the construction of such a canal as that 
 specified in this convention, to the stipulations of which con- 
 tract neither of the contracting parties in this- convention have 
 any just cause to object, and the said persons or company shall 
 moreover, have made preparations and expended time, money, 
 and trouble on the faith of such contract, it is hereby agreed 
 that such persons or company shall have a priority of claim 
 over every other person, persons, or company to the protection 
 of the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, and 
 be allowed a year from the date of the exchange of the ratifica- 
 tions of this convention for concluding their arrangements and 
 producing evidence of sufficient capital subscribed to accomplish 
 the contemplated undertaking ; it being understood that if, at 
 the expiration of the aforesaid period, such persons or company 
 be not able to commence and carry out the proposed enterprize 
 then the Governments of the United States and Great Britain 
 shall be free to afford their protection to any other persons 
 or company that shall be prepared to commence and proceed 
 with the construction of the canal in question." 
 
 Aeticlb Vm. — " The Governments of the United States and 
 Great Britain having not only desired, in entering into this con- 
 vention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish 
 a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protec- 
 tion, by treaty stipulations, to any other praticable communica- 
 tions, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which 
 connects North and South America, and especially to the inter- 
 oceanic communications, should the same prove to be practi- 
 cable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to 
 be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama. In 
 granting, however, their joint protection to any such canals or 
 railways as are by this article specified, it is always understood 
 by the United States and Great Britain that the parties con- 
 structing or owning the same shall impose no other charges 
 or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Govern- 
 ments shall approve of as just and equitable ; and that the 
 same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and sub- 
 jects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, 
 
90 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of 
 every other State which is willing to grant thereto such pro- 
 tection as the United States and Great Britain engage to 
 afford." 
 
 Aeticlb IX. — " The ratifications of this convention shall be 
 exchanged at Washington within six months from this day, or 
 sooner if possible. 
 
 "In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have 
 signed this convention, and have hereunto affixed our seals. 
 
 " Done at Washington the nineteenth day of April, anno 
 Domini one thousand eight hundred and fifty. 
 
 (Seal.) "JOHN M. CLAYTON." 
 
 (Seal.) " HENRY LYTTON BULWER." 
 
 1853. 
 
 Convention foe the Settlement of Claims, Febeuaet 8, 
 
 1853. 
 
 By this convention, the contracting parties agre6 that all 
 claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private indi- 
 viduals of each State, upon the government of the other, which 
 may have been presented since the signature of the treaty of 
 Ghent, and which remain unsettled, etc, shall be referred to 
 two commissioners, one to be appointed by each government. 
 In the event of a disagreement, the commissioners are to refer 
 the matter in dispute to an umpire chosen by them. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1854. 
 
 Treaty Extending the Right of Fishing and Regulating 
 Commeece and Navigation between the United States 
 
 AND THE BeITISH POSSESSIONS IN NOETH AmEI}ICA. 
 
 Concluded June 5, 1854. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, Sept- 
 ember 9, 1854. Proclaimed September 11, 1854. 
 
 Aeticle I. — (British American fisheries opened to citizens of 
 the United States.) " It is agreed by the high contracting par- 
 ties that in addition to the liberty secured to the United States 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1854. 91 
 
 Fishermen by the above-mentioned convention of Octobef 20, 
 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of tlie 
 British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants 
 of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects 
 of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, 
 except shell-flsh, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, 
 harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, 
 Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto 
 adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the 
 shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and shores of 
 those colonies and the islands thereof, and also upon the Mag- 
 dalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing 
 their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere 
 with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in 
 the peaceable use of any part of the said coast in their occu- 
 pancy for the same purpose. 
 
 It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies 
 solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, 
 and all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby 
 reserved exclusively for British fishermen. " 
 
 The remainder of this article provides for the appointment 
 of commissioners to settle disputes, and for an umpire m case 
 of the disagreement of the commissioners. 
 
 Article II. — (Rights of British subjects in American fish- 
 eries.) — British subjects to have similar rights in fisheries on 
 the eastern coast of the United States, north of the 36th de- 
 gree of north latitude. 
 
 Article III. — (Reciprocal free-trade in certain articles.) — " It 
 is agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto 
 annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British 
 colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each 
 country respectively free of duty : Grain, flour, and breadstufEs, 
 of all kinds ; animals of all kinds ; fresh, smoked, and salted 
 meats ; cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables ; undried fruits 
 dried fruits, fish of all kinds ; products of fish, and of all other 
 creatures living in the water ; poultry, eggs ; hides, furs, skins, 
 or tails, undressed ; stone or marble, in its crude or unwrought 
 state ; slate ; butter, cheese, tallow ; lard, horns, manures ; 
 ores of metals, of all kinds ; coal ; pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes ; 
 timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, un- 
 
92 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 manufactured in whole or in part; firewood; plants, shrubs, 
 and trees; pelts, wool; fish-oil; rice, broom-corn, and bark; 
 gypsum, ground or unground ; hewn, or wrought, or unwrought 
 burr or grindstones ; dyestuffs ; flax, hemp, and tow, unmanu- 
 factured ; unmanufactured tobacco, rags." 
 
 Article IV. — The citizens of the United States are to have 
 the right to navigate the Kiver St. Lawrence and the Canadian 
 canals communicating with the Great Lakes ; and British sub- 
 jects are to have the right to navigate Lake Michigan., 
 
 Maine lumber going down the St. John Kiver is not to be 
 subject to export duty, if shipped to the United States. 
 
 Article. V. — (Conditions on which the treaty shall take 
 effect — Duration.) — The treaty is to go into effect when the 
 British and Canadian parliaments and the Congress of the 
 United States shall have passed the necessary laws. 
 
 The treaty is to remain in force for ten years, and further 
 until the expiration of twelve months after either party shall 
 give notice of a wish to terminate the same. 
 
 Akticlb VI. — The provisions of this treaty may be extended 
 to the island of Newfoundland. 
 
 Article VII. — (Ratifications.) — Ratifications to be ex- 
 changed within six months. 
 
 Signed by 
 
 W. L. MARCY. 
 
 ELGIN & KINCARDINE. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1862. 
 
 Treaty for the Suppression of the African Slave-trade. 
 
 Concluded at Washington April 7, 1862. Eatifications exchanged at 
 London, May 20, 1862. Proclaimed June 7, 1862. 
 
 " The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen 
 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being 
 desirous to render more effectual the means hitherto adopted 
 for the suppression of the slave trade carried on upon the 
 coast of Africa, have deemed it expedient to conclude a treaty 
 for that purpose." 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1862. 93 
 
 Article I. — (Search of vessels engaged in the slave-trade.) — 
 "The two high contracting parties mutually consent that 
 those ships of their respective navies which shall be provided 
 with special instruction for that purpose, as hereinafter men- 
 tioned, may visit such merchant vessels of the two nations 
 as may, upon reasonable grounds, be suspected of being engaged 
 in the African slave-trade, or of having been fitted out for that 
 purpose ; or of having, during the voyage on which they are 
 met by the said cruisers, been engaged in the African slave- 
 trade, contrary to the provisions of this treaty ; and that such 
 cruisers may detain, or send or carry away, such vessels, in 
 order that they may be brought to trial in the manner herein- 
 after agreed upon. 
 
 " In order to fix the reciprocal right of search in such a man- 
 ner as shall be adapted to the attainment of the object of this 
 treaty, and at the same time avoid doubts, disputes, and com- 
 plaints, the said right of search shall be understood in the 
 manner and according to the rules following : 
 
 " First. It shall never be exercised except by vessels of war, 
 authorized expressly for that object, according to the stipula- 
 tions of this treaty. 
 
 " Secondly. The right of search shall in no case be exercised 
 mth respect to a vessel of the navy of either of the two Powers, 
 but shall be exercised only as regards merchant vessels ; and 
 it shall not be exercised by a vessel of war of either contract- 
 ing party within the limits of a settlement or port, nor within 
 the territorial waters of the other party. 
 
 " Thirdly. Whenever a merchant vessel is searched by a ship 
 of war, the commander of the said ship shall, in the act of 
 so doing, exhibit to the commander of the merchant vessel 
 the special instructions by which he is duly authorized to 
 search; .... 
 
 " Fourthly. The reciprocal right of search and detention shall 
 be exercised only within the distance of two hundred miles 
 from the coast of Africa, and . to the southward of the thirty- 
 second parallel of north latitude, and within thirty leagues 
 from the coast of the island of Cuba." 
 
 Articles II. and III. provide for modes of procedure, and in- 
 demnity for losses by wrongful detention of vessels. 
 
 Aeticle VI. — (Establishment of mixed courts.) — " In order to 
 
94 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 bring to adjudication with as little delay and inconvenience as 
 possible the vessels which may be 'detained according to the 
 tenor of the first article of this treaty, there shall be estab- 
 lished, as soon as may be practicable, three mixed courts of 
 justice, formed of an equal number of individuals of the two 
 nations, named for this purpose by their respective Govern- 
 ments. These courts shall reside, one at Sierre Leone, one at 
 the Cape of Good Hope, and one at 'New York. 
 
 " But each of the two high contracting parties reserves to 
 itself the right of changing, at its pleasure, the place of resi- 
 dence of the court or courts held within its own territories. 
 
 " These courts shall judge the causes submitted to them ac- 
 cording to the provisions of the present treaty, and according 
 to the regulations and instructions which are annexed to the 
 present treaty, and which are considered an integral part there- 
 of ; and there shall be no appeal from their decision." 
 
 Article V. — Reparation for wrongful acts of officers. 
 
 Article VI. — Merchant vessels may be detained if they have 
 on board certain things specified in this article. 
 
 Articles VII. to XI. deal with minor matters of detail. 
 
 Article XII. — (Ratification and duration.) — Ratifications to 
 be exchanged within six months. The treaty is to continue in 
 force for ten years, and thereafter until one year after notice to 
 terminate it. 
 
 Signed by, 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 LYONS.i 
 
 1 There are two annexes to this convention of same date. The first (A) 
 furnish instructions to the United States and British navies engaged in 
 preventing the slave-trade. The second (B) fixes the regulations for the 
 mixed courts of justice. As to the composition of the courts, eaoli of the 
 contracting parties is to name one judge and one arbitrator who-shaU 
 be authorized to hear and to decide, without appeal, all oases of capture, 
 etc. 
 
 By an additional article, the right of search is extended to the follow- 
 ing places : within thirty leagues of the islands of Madagascar, Porto 
 Eioo, and San Domingo. 
 
 By an additional convention, concluded June 3, 1870, the mixed courts 
 were discontinued, and the 'jurisdiction exercised by them was trans- 
 ferred to the respective courts of the two countries, with right of appeal 
 as in other maritime cases. 
 
1871. 95 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1863. 
 
 Treaty tor the Final Settlement op the Claims of the 
 Hudson's Bat and Pugbt's Sound Agricultural Companies, 
 July 1, 1863. 
 
 It was provided by the 3d and 4th articles of the treaty of 
 1846, that compensation should be made to these companies for 
 any lands or property belonging to them if for any reason they 
 should be appropriated to the use of the United States. This 
 having taken place to some extent, the question was adjusted 
 by this convention. 
 
 Under this agreement, the sum of four hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars was awarded to the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 and two hundred thousand dollars to the Puget's Sound Com- 
 pany. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1871. 
 
 Treaty Relative to Claims, Fisheries, Navigation op the 
 St. Lawrence, etc., American Lumber on the River St. 
 John ; Boundary. 
 
 Concluded May 8, 1871. Batifloations exchanged at London, June 17, 
 1871. Proclaimed July 4, 1871. 
 
 Article I. — (Alabama claims to be referred to arbitration — 
 Arbitrators.) — " Whereas differences have arisen between the 
 Government of the United States and the Government of Her 
 Britannic Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts com- 
 mitted by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims 
 generically known as the ' Alabama Claims : ' 
 
 " And whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorized her High 
 Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to express, in a friendly 
 spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the 
 
96 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 escape, under whateTer circumstances, of the Alabama and 
 other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations com- 
 mitted .by those vessels : 
 
 " ISTow, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and 
 claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for the 
 speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by 
 Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the high contracting 
 parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts com- 
 mitted by the aforesaid vessels and generically known as the 
 ' Alabama Claims,' shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration 
 to be composed of five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the fol- 
 lowing manner, that is to say : One shall be named by the 
 President of the United States ; one shall be named by Her 
 Britannic Majesty ; His Majesty the King of Italy shall be re- 
 quested to name one ; the President of the Swiss Confederation 
 shall be requested to name one"; and His Majesty the Emperor 
 of Brazil shall be requested to name one." * * * 
 
 Article II. — (Meeting of Arbitrators^Their powers — 
 agents.) " The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, 
 at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been named, 
 and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and 
 decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part 
 of the Governments of the United States and Her Britannic 
 Majesty respectively. All questions considered by the tribunal, 
 including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all 
 the Arbitrators. 
 
 " Each of the high contracting parties shall also name one 
 person to attend the tribunal as its Agent to represent it gen- 
 erally in all matters connected with the arbitration." 
 
 Articles III., IV., and V. provide for the presentation of 
 cases, counter-cases, and arguments. 
 
 Article VI. — (Rules to govern the arbitrators in their decis- ' 
 ions — British interpretation of these rules.) " In deciding the 
 matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed 
 by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the high 
 contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the 
 case, and by such prinpiples of international law not inconsist- 
 ent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been 
 applicable to the case. 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1871. 97 
 
 RULES. 
 
 " A neutral Government is bound — 
 
 " First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arm- 
 ing, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which 
 it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to 
 carry on war against any Power with which it is at peace ; and 
 also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its 
 jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as 
 above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or 
 in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. 
 
 " Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to 
 make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations 
 against the other, or for the purpose of renewal or augment 
 tation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of 
 men. 
 
 "Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and 
 waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent 
 any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. 
 
 " Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commis- 
 sioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's 
 Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement 
 of principles of international law which were in force at the 
 time when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but that 
 Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of 
 strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries, 
 and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that 
 in deciding the questions between the two countries arising 
 out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her 
 Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the princi- 
 ples set forth in these rules. 
 
 " And the high contracting parties agree to observe these 
 rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to 
 the knowledge of other maritime Powers, and to invite them 
 to accede to them." 
 
 Articles VII. to XI. provide for the various details of the 
 arbitration and decision. 
 
 Articles XII. to XVII. provide for the appointment of three 
 commissioners to adjudicate upon private claims (other than 
 
98 TREATIES AND COITVENTIONS. 
 
 the Alabama claims) against either government, arising during 
 the period from the 13th of April, 1861, to the 9th of April, 
 1865. 
 
 Aeticle XVIII. — (Inhabitants of the United States to have 
 the right to fish in Canadian waters.) " It is agreed by the high 
 contracting parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to 
 the United States fishermen by the convention' between the 
 United States and Great Britain, signed at London on the 20th 
 day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain 
 coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, 
 the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common 
 with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty for the 
 term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII. of this treaty, 
 to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts 
 and shores, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks, of the prov- 
 inces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Xew Brunswick, and the 
 colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands 
 thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance 
 from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and 
 shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for 
 the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; provided 
 that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private 
 property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of 
 any part of said coasts in their occupancy for the same 
 purpose. 
 
 " It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies 
 solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, 
 and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are 
 hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." 
 
 Article XIX. — Similar rights granted to British fishermen 
 on the eastern coast of the United States, north of the 39th 
 parallel of north latitude. 
 
 Article XX. — Certain places reserved by Article I. of the 
 treaty of 1854 and designated by commissioners appointed 
 under that treaty, to be reserved by the present treaty. 
 
 Article XXI. — Fish and fish-oil to be free of duty. 
 
 Article XXIT. — (Commissioners to determine the compen- 
 aation, if any, to be paid by the United States, for the privileges 
 granted by Article XVIII. of this treaty.) " Inasmuch as it is 
 asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1871. 99 
 
 privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under 
 Article XVIII. of this treaty are of greater value than those 
 accorded by Articles XIX. and XXI. of this treaty to the subjects 
 of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted 
 by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed 
 that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine, having 
 regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the 
 subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX. 
 and XXI. of this treaty, the amount of any compensation which, 
 in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the 
 United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in 
 return for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United 
 States under Article XVIII. of this treaty ; and that any sum of 
 money which the said Commissioners may so award shall be 
 paid by the United States Government, in a gross sum, 
 withm twelve months after such award shall have been 
 given." 
 
 Article XXIII. — Three commissioners are to be appointed, 
 one by each government, and one by the two governments con- 
 jointly. And in case the third commissioner shall not be ap- 
 pointed within three months from the date when this article 
 shall take effect, then such commissioner shall be appointed by 
 the Austrian ambassador at London 
 
 The commissioners are to meet at Halifax, and each govern- 
 ment is to have an agent. 
 
 Aeticlbs XXIV. and XXV. provide for the conduct of the 
 proceedings. 
 
 Article XXVI. — (Navigation of the St. Lawrence, and 
 other rivers.) " The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, 
 ascending and descending, from the forty-fifth parallel 
 of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary 
 between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall 
 forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to 
 the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and 
 regulations of Great Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, 
 not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation." 
 
 The same stipulation is applied to the rivers Yukon, Porcu- 
 pine, and Stikine. 
 
 Article XXVII. — (As to the navigation of certain canals.) 
 " The Government of Her Britannic Majesty engages to urge 
 
100 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 upon the Government of the Dominion of Canada to secure to 
 the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. 
 Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion on terms of 
 equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion : and the Govern- 
 ment of the United States engages that the subjects of Her 
 Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. Clair Flats 
 canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United 
 States, and further engages to urge upon the State Govern- 
 ments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty the 
 use of the several State canals connected with the navigation 
 of the lakes or rivers traversed bj' or contiguous to the boundary 
 line between the possessions of the high contracting parties, 
 on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United 
 States." 
 
 Aeticlb XXVIII. — The navigation of Lake Michigan to be 
 free to British subjects for the term of years mentioned in 
 Article XXXIII. 
 
 Article XXIX. — (Transit of merchandise through the terri- 
 tory of the United States). " It is agreed that, for the term of 
 years mentioned in Article XXXIII. of this treaty, goods, wares, 
 or merchandise arriving at the ports of ISTew York, Boston, and 
 Portland, and any other ports in the United States which may 
 have been or mciy, from time to time, be especially designated 
 by the President of the United States, and destined for Her 
 Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America, may be en- 
 tered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, with- 
 out the payment of duties, through the territory of the United 
 States, under such rules, regulations, and conditions for the 
 protection of the revenue as the Government of the United 
 States may from time to time prescribe ; and under like rules, 
 regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may 
 be conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, from 
 such possessions through the territory of the United States for 
 export from the said ports of the United States." 
 
 Reciprocal privileges are granted by Great Britain for the 
 transit of goods over the British North American possessions. 
 
 Article XXX. — British subjects may carry in British vessels 
 goods free of duty from certain ports of the United States to 
 other such ports, provided that a portion of the transportation 
 is made through the Dominion of Canada by land carriage 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1871. 101 
 
 and in bond. And reciprocal privileges are granted to citizens 
 of the United States. 
 
 And in these cases, neither government shall impose export 
 duties. 
 
 The government of the United States may suspend the right 
 " granted under this article in case the Dominion of Canada 
 should at any time deprive the citizens of the United States of 
 the use of the canals of the said Dominion on terms of equality 
 with the inhabitants of the Dominion, as provided in Article 
 XXVII." 
 
 Article XXXI. — Provision as to duty on lumber from 
 Maine floated down the St. John, and shipped to the United 
 States. 
 
 Article XXXII. —Provisions of Articles XVIII. to XXV., 
 inclusive, to extend to Newfoundland. 
 
 Article XXXIII.— (Time for Articles XVIII. to XXV. and 
 Article XXX. to take effect — Duration.) — " The foregoing Ar- 
 ticles XVIII. to XXV., inclusive, and Article XXX. of this treaty 
 shall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry them into 
 operation shall have been passed by the Imperial Parliament 
 of Great Britain, by the Parliament of Canada, and by the 
 Legislature of Prince Edward's Island on the one hand, and by 
 the Congress of the United States on the other. Such assent 
 having been given, the said articles shall remain in force for the 
 period of ten years from the date at which they may come into 
 operation ; and further until the expiration of two years after 
 either of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to 
 the other of its wish to terminate Vhe same ; each of the high 
 contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice to the 
 other at the end of the said period of ten years or at any time 
 afterward." 
 
 Article XXXIV. — (Arbitration on a portion of the Oregon 
 boundary.) The determination of the boundary fixed by the 
 treaty of 1846, described as running " to the middle of the chan- 
 nel which separates the continent from, Vancouver's Island, 
 and thence southerly, through the middle of said channel and 
 of Fuca Straits, to the Pacific Ocean," is by this article referred 
 to the Emperor of Germany as arbitrator. 
 
 Articles XXXV. to XLII., inclusive, provide for the details 
 of this arbitration. 
 
102 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Aeticle XLIII. — ^Ratiflcations. Signed by, 
 HAMILTON FISH. 
 ROBT. C. SCHENCK. 
 SAMUEL NELSON. 
 EBENEZER ROCKWOOD HOAR 
 GEO. H. WILLIAMS. 
 DE GREY & RIPON. 
 STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE. 
 EDWD. H. THORNTON. 
 JOHN A. MACDONALD, 
 MONTAGUE BERNARD. 
 
 [Under the provisions of this treaty, the dispute in respect of 
 Alabama claims was settled by the award of the Geneva Tri- 
 bunal, in 1872. Other claims provided for by the 12th article 
 of the treaty were adjudicated upon and disposed of by a mixed 
 commission, which awarded the sum of $1,929,819, in gold to 
 be paid by the United States to Great Britain (See Report of 
 Robert S. Hale, November 30, 1873). 
 
 The commission provided for by Article XXII. met at Halifax 
 in 1877, and by its decision of the 23rd of November, awarded 
 the sum of five million five hundred thousand dollars to be paid 
 by the United States to Great Britain. Congress appropriated 
 the money for the payment of the award, but instructed the 
 executive to give the required notice of the termination of the 
 fisheries articles of the treaty at the earliest possible moment. 
 Accordingly such notice was given the first of July, 1883, and 
 these articles came to an end two years later.] 
 
GKBAT BRITAIN, 1893. 103' 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN, 1892. 
 
 A CONYEXTIOH' rOE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DlSPTTTED RiGHT 
 
 OF THE United States to Protect the Seals in Bbhbing 
 Sea. , 
 
 Concluded at Washington, February 29, 1893. 
 
 " The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen 
 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being 
 desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of the questions 
 which have arisen between their respective governments con- 
 cerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the 
 waters of Bearing's Sea, and concerning also the preservation 
 of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the said Sea, and 
 the rights of the citizens and subjects of either country as re- 
 gards tlie taking of fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the 
 said waters, have resolved to submit to arbitration the ques- 
 tions involved." 
 
 Aeticle I. — (Reference to Arbitration — appointment of ar- 
 bitrators.) — "The questions which have arisen between the 
 Government of the United States and the Government of Her 
 Britannic Majesty concerning the jurisdictional rights of the 
 United States in the waters of Behring's Sea, and concerning 
 also the preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting 
 to, the said Sea, and the rights of the citizens and subjects of 
 .either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in, or habitually 
 resorting to, the said waters, shall be submitted to a tribunal 
 of Arbitration, to be composed of seven Arbitrators, who shall 
 be appointed in the following manner, that is to say : Two shall 
 be named by the President of the United States ; two shall be 
 named by Her Britannic Majesty ; His Excellency the Presi- 
 dent of the French Republic shall be jointly requested by the 
 High Contracting Parties to name one ; His Majesty the King 
 of Italy shall be so requested to name one ; and His Majesty 
 the King of Sweden and Norway shall be so requested to name 
 one. The seven arbitrators to be so named shall be jurists of 
 distinguished reputation in their respective countries." . . . 
 
104 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article II. — (Place of meeting — Agents.) — " The arbitrators 
 shall meet at Paris within twenty days after the delivery of 
 the counter-case mentioned in Article IV. and shall proceed 
 impartially and carefully to examine and decide the questions 
 that have been or shall be laid before them as herein provided 
 on the part, of the Governments of the United States and Her 
 Britannic Majesty respectively. AU questions considered by 
 the tribunal including the flual decision, shall be determined 
 by a majority of all the Arbitrators. 
 
 " Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one 
 person to attend the tribunal as its Agent to represent it gen- 
 erally in all matters connected with the arbitration." 
 
 Articles III. to V. provide for the presentation of cases, 
 counter-cases, and arguments. 
 
 Article VI. — (Points submitted, for arbitration.) — " In de- 
 ciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrator^, it is agreed 
 that the following five points shall be submitted to them, in 
 order that their award shall embrace a distinct decision upon 
 each of said five points, to wit : 
 
 " 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the 
 Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries 
 therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time 
 of the cession of Alaska to the United States ? 
 
 " 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal 
 fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain ? 
 
 " 3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea 
 included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean,' as used in the Treaty 
 of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia ; and what rights, if 
 any, in the Behring's Sea were held and exclusively exercised 
 by Russia after said Treaty ? 
 
 " 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as 
 to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, 
 in the Treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th 
 March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that 
 treaty ? 
 
 " 5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right of 
 protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands 
 of the United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found 
 outside the ordinary three-mile limit ? " 
 
 Article VII. — (Question of Regulations.) — "If the deter- 
 
GREAT BRITAIN, 1892. 105 
 
 mination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive juris- 
 diction of the United States shall leave the subject in such 
 position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to 
 the establishment of Regulations for the proper protection and 
 preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the 
 Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what con- 
 current Regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the re- 
 spective Governments are necessary, and over what waters such 
 Regulations should extend, and to aid them in that determi- 
 nation the report of a Joint Commission to be appointed by the 
 respective Governments shall be laid before them, with such 
 other evidence as either Government may submit. 
 ' " The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to co- 
 operate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to such Reg- 
 ulations." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Question of liability for injuries.) — "The 
 High Contracting Parties having found themselves unable to 
 agree upon a reference which shall include the question of the 
 liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sus- 
 tained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the 
 claims presented and urged by it ; and, being solicitous that this 
 subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the 
 submission and determination of the main questions, do agree 
 that either may submit to the Arbitrators any question of fact 
 involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the ques- 
 tion of the liability of either Government upon the facts found 
 to be the subject of further negotiation." 
 
 Article IX. — Two commissioners are to be appointed by 
 each government to investigate the facts halving relation to seal- 
 life, and to report to the arbitrators. 
 
 Articles X. to XIV. — Minor details of the arbitration. 
 
 Article XV. — Ratification, etc. Signed by, 
 
 JAMES G. BLAINE. 
 JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
 
106 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 SPAIlsr, 1795. 
 
 Teeatt or Friendship, Limits, and Navigation. 
 
 Concluded October 27, 1795. Eatifictaions exchanged at Aranjuez, April 
 25, 1796. Proclaimed August 2, 1796. 
 
 Article I. — (Declaration of amity.) — " There shall be a firm 
 and inviolable peace and sincere friendship between His 
 Catholic Majesty, his successors and subjects, and the United 
 States and their citizens, without exception of persons or places. 
 
 Aeticle II. — (Florida boundary.) — " To prevent all disputes 
 on the subject of the boundaries which separate the territories 
 of the two high contracting parties, it is hereby declared and 
 agreed as follows, to wit : The southern boundary of the 
 United States, which divides their territory from the Spanish 
 colonies of East and West Florida, shall be designated by a line 
 beginning on the Eiver Mississippi, at the northernmost part of 
 the thirty -first degree of latitude north of the equator, which 
 from thence shall be drawn due east to the middle of the River 
 Appalachicola, or Catahouche, thence along the middle thereof 
 to its junction with the Flint ; thence straight to the head of 
 St. Mary's River, and thence down the middle thereof to the 
 Atlantic Ocean. And it is agreed that if there should be any 
 troops, garrisons, or settlements of either party in the territory 
 of the other, according to the above' mentioned boundaries, they 
 shall be withdrawn from the said territory within the term of 
 six months after the ratification of this treaty, or sooner if it 
 be possible ; and that they shall be permitted to take with 
 them all the goods and effects which they possess." 
 
 Aeticle III. — Commissioners to be appointed to survey the 
 line designated in the preceding article. 
 
 Aeticle IY. — (Western boundary of the United States.) — 
 "It is likewise agreed that the western boundary of the United 
 States Avhich separates them from the Spanish colony of Louis- 
 iana, is in the middle of the channel or bed of the River Mis- 
 sissippi, from the northern boundary of the' said States to the 
 completion of the thirty-first degree of latitude north of the 
 
SPAIN, 1795. 107 
 
 equator. And His Catholic Majesty has Mkewise agreed that 
 the navigation of the said river, in its whole breadth from its 
 source to the ocean, shall be free only to his subjects and the 
 citizens of the United States, unless he should extend this priv- 
 ilege to the subjects of other Powers by special convention." 
 
 Akticlb V. — Both States shall endeavor to restrain the In- 
 dians, etc. 
 
 Aeticles VI. to X. deal with questions of protection of ves- 
 sels ; embargo and seizure of persons for debts or crimes ; ves- 
 sels forced into port by stress of weather ; property taken from 
 pirates to be restored ; and vessels wrecked or foundered. 
 
 Article XI. — Personal estates of the one party within the 
 jurisdiction of the other may be disposed of by will or other- 
 wise. 
 
 And where a citizen of one nation inheriting real estate 
 within the jurisdiction of the other, would not by law be al- 
 lowed to hold it by reason of being an alien, he shall be allowed 
 a reasonable time to sell the same and to withdraw the pro- 
 ceeds, exempt from all rights of detraction. 
 
 Article XII. — Vessels suspected shall exhibit passports 
 and certificates. 
 
 Article XIII. — In the event of war between the two na- 
 tions, merchants of the one residing in the territory of the 
 other shall have one year for collecting and transporting their 
 goods and merchandise. 
 
 Article XIV. — No citizen of either nation shall take a com- 
 mission or letters of marque from the enemy of the other. 
 
 Article XV. — (Liberty of trade — free ships, free goods.) " It 
 shall be lawful for all and singular the subjects of His Catholic 
 Majesty, and the citizens, people, and inhabitants of the said 
 United States, to sail with their ships with all manner of liberty 
 and security, no distinction being made who are the proprietors 
 of the merchandises laden thereon, from any port to the places 
 of those who now are, or hereafter shall be, at enmity with His 
 Catholic Majesty or the United States. It shall be like-n ise 
 lawful for the subjects and inhabitants aforesaid, to sail with 
 the ships and merchandises aforementioned, and to trade with 
 the same liberty and security from the places, ports, and ha- 
 vens of those who are enemies of both or either party, without 
 any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, not only directly 
 
108 TEEATIBS AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 from the places of the enemy aforementioned; to neutral places, 
 but also from one place belonging to an enemy to another place 
 belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction 
 of the same Prince or under several ; and it is hereby stipu- 
 lated that free ships shall also give freedom to goods, and that 
 everything shall be deemed free and exempt which shall be 
 found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of 
 the contracting parties, although the whole lading, or any part 
 thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either ; contraband 
 goods being always excepted. It is also agreed that the same 
 liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship, 
 so that, although they be enemies to either party, they shall not 
 be made prisoners or taken out of that free ship, unless they 
 are soldiers and in actual service of the enemies." 
 
 Aeticlb XVI. — Contraband enumerated. Similar to Article 
 XXVII. of the Plan of Treaties, and Article XXIV. of the treaty 
 of commerce with France in 1778. 
 
 Articles XVII. and XVIII. — Provide for the carrying of 
 passports and certificates by merchant vessels, and for the right 
 of search. See Plan of Treaties, XXVIII. to XXX. 
 
 Aeticlb XIX. — Consuls may be appointed, with the privi- 
 leges and powers of those of the most fatored nation. 
 
 Article XX. — The inhabitants of either State shall have free 
 access to the courts of justice of the other. 
 
 Article XXI. — (Claims for illegal capture of American ves- 
 sels by Spanish subjects.) — These claims are to be referred to 
 two commissioners for adjudication. 
 
 Article XXII. — (Deposit of goods at New Orleans.) — " In 
 consequence of the stipulations contained in the IV. article, His 
 Catholic Majesty will permit the citizens of the United States, 
 for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their mer- 
 chandise and effects in the port of New-Orleans, and to export 
 them from thence without paying any other duty than a fair 
 price for the hire of the stores; and His Majesty promises 
 either to continue this permission, if he finds during that time 
 that it is iot prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he 
 should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them on 
 another part of the banks of the Mississippi an equivalent 
 establishment." 
 
 Article XXIII.— (Ratifications.) — "Done at San Lorenzo el 
 
SPAIN, 1T95. 109 
 
 Real, this seven and twenty day of October, one thousand seven 
 hundred and ninety -five.^ 
 
 THOMAS PINCKNEY. 
 
 EL PRINCIPE DE LA PAZ. 
 
 ' During the American revolutionary war Spain refused to recognize the 
 independence of the United States, but she declared war against England, 
 in 1779, and occupied West Florida, which she retained by the treaty of 
 1783. ! After the peace, Spain closed the lower Mississippi to the naviga. 
 tion of the citizens of the United States, and occupied territory on that 
 river to the north of the Slat degree of north latitude, and fortified 
 Natchez. England, it was asserted, had ceded territory and rights to the 
 United States which she had no authority to cede. The United States, 
 on the other hand, insisted on the 31st degree of north latitude as their 
 southern boundary ; and in respect of the navigation of the Mississippi, 
 they claimed it by right under the treaties of 1763 and 1783, as well as 
 by the law of nature and of nations. By the treaty of 1795, Spain 
 yielded both points — boundary and the navigation of the Mississippi. 
 
 In November, 1803, the right of deposit under the 32d article, was with- 
 drawn ; but the purchase of Louisiana by the United States soon after, 
 removed the possible controversy that might have grown out of it. 
 
 Spain was, however, extremely dissatisfied with the cession of Louis- 
 iana to the United States, and threw many obstacles in the way of their 
 peaceable possession of it. Moreover the United States claimed West 
 Florida as being included in the Louisiana cession, while Spain insisted 
 on the boundary of the Iberville, and lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain. 
 This difference resulted in the breaking off of diplomatic relations, in 
 1808, which were not resumed tUl 1815. In the meantime the United 
 States took forcible possession of West Florida in 1810, and annexed the 
 larger part to the territories of Orleans and Mississippi. 
 
 On the side of Mexico there was also a boundary dispute, the United 
 States insisting on the Rio Grande as the boundary, while the Spanish 
 claim extended to the Mermentan. The Sabine had been considered as 
 a provisional boundary ; but Spanish troops had crossed that river, and 
 General Wilkinson was ordered to drive them back. 
 
 The treaty of 1819 settled ail these controversies with Spain. 
 
110 TREATIES AJSD CONTENTIONS. 
 
 SPAIN, 1819. 
 
 Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits. 
 
 Concluded February 23, 1819. Eatifioations exchanged at Washington 
 February 23, 1831. Proclaimed February 33, 1831. 
 
 Aeticle I. — Declaration of amity. 
 
 Aei^iclb II. — (Cession of the Floridas to the United States.) — 
 " His Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States, in full prop- 
 erty and sovereignty, all the territories which belonged to him, 
 situated to the eastward of the Mississippi, known by the name 
 of East and West Florida. The adjacent islands dependent on 
 said provinces, all public lots and squares, vacant lands, public 
 edifices, fortifications, barracks, and other buildings, which are 
 not private property, archives and documents, which relate 
 directly to the property and sovereignty of sa-id provinces, are 
 included in this article. The said archives and documents shall 
 be left in possession of the commissaries or officers of the 
 United States, duly authorized to receive them." 
 
 Article III. — (Boundary west of the Mississippi.) — " The 
 boundary line between the two countries, west of the Missis- 
 sippi, shall begin on the Gulph of Mexico, at the mouth of the 
 river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north, along the western 
 bank of that river, to the 32d degree of latitude ; thence, by a 
 line due north, to the degree of latitude where it strikes the 
 Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River ; thence following the 
 course to the Rio Roxo westward, to the degree of longitude 
 100 west from London and 23 from Washington ; then, cross- 
 ing the said Red River, and running thence, by a line due north, 
 to the river Arkansas, thence, following the course of the southern 
 bank of the Arkansas, to its source, in latitude 42 north ; and 
 thence, by that parallel of latitude, to thp South Sea. The 
 whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
 published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. 
 But if the. source of the Arkansas River shall be found to fall 
 north or south of latitude 42, then the line shall run from the 
 said source due north or south, as the case may be, till it meets 
 the said parallel of latitude 42, and thence, along the said 
 
SPAIN, 1819. Ill 
 
 parallel, to the South Sea : All the islands in the Sabine, and 
 the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, throughout the course thus 
 described, to belong to the United States ; but the use of the 
 waters, and the navigation of the Sabine to the sea, and of the 
 said rivers Roxo and Arkansas, throughout the extent of the 
 said boundary, on their respective banks, shall be common to 
 the respective inhabitants of both nations. 
 
 "The two high contracting parties agree to cede and re- 
 nounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the terri- 
 tories described by the said line, that is to say : The United 
 States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce for- 
 ever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories 
 lying west and south of the above-described line ; and in like 
 manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all 
 his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and 
 north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, 
 renounces all claim to the said territories forever." 
 
 Article IV. — Two commissioners shall be appointed to 
 survey and fix the boundary designated in Article III. 
 
 Aeticlb V. — Stipulates for the religious freedom of the 
 inhabitants of the ceded territories, and for the free removal of 
 persons and property from the same. 
 
 Article VI. — (Inhabitants of the ceded territories.) — " The 
 inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes 
 to the United States, by this treaty, shall be incorporated in 
 the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent 
 with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted 
 to the enjoyment of all the privileges, rights, and immunities 
 of the citizens of the United States." 
 
 Article VII. — Spanish troops to be withdrawn. 
 
 Article VIII. — (Grants of land before and after January 24, 
 1818.) — « All the grants of land made before the 24th of January, 
 1818, by His Catholic Majesty, or by hip lawful authorities, in 
 the said territories ceded by His Majesty to the United States, 
 shall be ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession of 
 the lands, to the same extent that the same grants would be 
 valid if the territories had remained under the dominion of His 
 Catholic Majesty. But the owners in possession of such lands, 
 who, by reason of the recent circumstances of the Spanish 
 nation, and the revolutions in Europe, have been prevented 
 
112 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 from fulfilling all the conditions of their grants, shall complete 
 them within the terms limited in the same, respectively, from 
 the date of this treaty ; in default of which the said grants 
 shall be null and void. All grants made since the said 24th 
 of January, 1818, when the first proposal, on the part of His 
 Catholic Majesty, for the cession of the Floridas was made, are 
 hereby declared and agreed to be null and void." 
 
 Article IX. — Reciprocal renunciation of claims. 
 
 The United States will cause satisfaction to be made for 
 injuries to individuals, if any, by the late operations of the 
 American army in Florida. 
 
 Aeticlb X. — (Convention of 1802 annulled.) "The conven- 
 tion entered into between the two Governments, on the 11th of 
 August, 1802, the ratifications of which were exchanged the 
 21st December, 1818, is annulled." 
 
 Article XL— (The United States to satisfy the claims of 
 their citizens.) — " The United States, exonerating Spain from 
 all demands in future, on account of the claims of their citizens 
 to which the renunciations herein contained extend, and con- 
 sidering them entirely cancelled, undertake to make satisfaction 
 for the same, to an amount not exceeding five millions of 
 dollars. To ascertain the full amount and validity of those 
 claims, a commission, to consist of three Commissioners, citizens 
 of the United States, shall be appointed by the President, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the Senate." 
 
 Article XII. — (Treaty of 1795 confirmed, with exceptions.) 
 " The treaty of limits and na"vigation, of 1795, remains con- 
 firmed in all and each one of its articles, excepting the 2, 3, 4, 
 21, and the second clause of the 22 article, which, having been 
 altered by this treaty, or having received their entire execution, 
 are no longer valid. 
 
 " With respect to the 15th article of the same treaty of friend- 
 ship, limits, and navigation of 1795, in which it is stipulated 
 that the fiag shall cover the property, the two high contracting 
 parties agree that this shall be so understood with respect to 
 those Powers who recognize this principle ; but if either of the 
 two contracting parties shall be at war with a third party, and 
 the other neutral, the flag of the neutral shall cover the prop- 
 erty of enemies whose Government acknowledges this principle 
 and not of others." 
 
PETTSSIA, 1785. 113 
 
 Article XIII. — Sailors of one nation, deserting in tlie ports 
 of the other, shall be arrested and delivered up, at the instance 
 of the consul. 
 
 Article XIV. — The United States certify that they received 
 no compensation from France for claims. 
 
 Article XV. — Spanish vessels, laden only with productions 
 of Spanish growth or manufacture, coming directly from Spain, 
 or her colonies, " shall be admitted, for the term of twelve years, 
 to the ports of Pensacola and St. Augustine, without paying 
 other or higher duties on their cargoes, or of tonnage, than will 
 be paid by the vessels of the United States. During the said 
 term no other nation shall enjoy the same privileges within the 
 ceded territories." 
 
 Article XVI. — Ratifications, etc. 
 
 Signed by 
 
 JOHN QUIISrCY ADAMS. 
 LUIS DE ONIS.i 
 
 PRUSSIA, 1785. 
 
 Treaty op Amitt and Commerce 
 
 Concluded September 10, 1785. Ratified by the Continental Congress, 
 May 17, 1786. Eatifications exchanged at. the Hague, October, 1786. 
 
 Article IV. — (Regulation of commercial intercourse.) " More 
 especially each party shall have a right to carry their own pro- 
 duce, manufactures, and merchandize in their own or any other 
 vessels to any parts of the dominions of the other where it 
 shall be lawful for all the subjects or citizens of that other 
 freely to purchase them; and thence to take the produce, man- 
 ufactures, and merchandize of the other, which all the said 
 
 ' Other treaties or conventions with Spain have been conventions for 
 the settlement of claims in 1802, 1834, and 1871 ; a convention for the 
 extradition of criminals (see Extradition Treaties), Trade-Marks, 1883, 
 in respect of tonnage and other duties relatiag to the islands of Cuba and 
 Porto Rico, 1884-1887. 
 
114 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 citizens or subjects shall in like manner be free to sell them, 
 paying in both cases such duties, charges, and fees only as are 
 or shall be paid by the most favored nation. Nevertheless, the 
 King of Prussia • and the United States, and each of them, re- 
 serve to themselves the right, where any nation restrains the 
 transportation of merchandize to the vessels of the country 
 of which it is the growth or manufacture, to establish against 
 such nations restaliating [retaliating] regulations ; and also 
 the right to prohibit, in their respective countries, the im- 
 portation and exportation of all merchandize whatsoever, when 
 reasons of state shall require it. In this case, the subjects or 
 citizens of either of the contracting parties shall not import nor 
 export the merchandize prohibited by the other ; but if one of 
 the contracting parties permits any other nation to import or 
 export the same merchandize, the citizens or subjects of the 
 other shall immediately enjoy the same liberty." 
 
 Aeticlb XII.— (Liberty for either party to trade with a 
 nation, at war with the other. — Free ships make free goods.) 
 " If one of the contracting parties should be engaged in war 
 with any other Power, the free intercourse and commerce of 
 the subjects or citizens of the party remaining neuter with the 
 belligerent Powers shall not be interrupted. On the contrary, 
 in that case, as in full peace, the vessels of the neutral party 
 may navigate freely to and from the ports and on the coasts of 
 the belligerent parties, free vessels making free goods, insomuch 
 that all things shall be adjudged free which shall be on board 
 any vessel belonging to the neutral party, although such things 
 belong to an enemy of the other ; and the same freedom shall 
 be extended to persons who stall be on board a free vessel, 
 although they should be enemies to the other party, unless they 
 be soldiers in actual service of such enemy." 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — (Contraband goods intended for an enemy 
 not to be confiscated, but may be detained.) "And in the 
 same case of one of the contracting parties being engaged in 
 war with any other Power, to prevent all the difficulties and 
 misunderstandings that usually arise respecting the merchan- 
 dize heretofore called contraband, such as arms, ammunition, 
 and military stores of every kind, no such articles carried in 
 the vessels, or by the subjects or citizens of one of the parties 
 to the enemies of the other, shall be deemed contraband, so as 
 
PRUSSIA, 1785. 115 
 
 to induce confiscation or condemnation and a loss of property 
 to individuals. Nevertheless, it shall be lawful to stop such 
 vessels and articles, and to detain them for such length of time 
 as the captors may think necessary to prevent the inconvenience 
 or damage that might ensue from their proceeding, paying, 
 however, a reasonable compensation for the loss such arrest 
 shall occasion to the proprietors ; And it shall be further 
 allowed to use in the service of the captors the whole or any 
 part of the military stores so detained, paying the owners the 
 full value of the same, to be ascertained by the current price 
 at the place of its destination. But in the case supposed, of a 
 vessel stopped for articles heretofore deemed contraband, if the 
 master of the vessel stopped will deliver out the goods sup- 
 posed to be of contraband nature, he shall be admitted to do it, 
 and the vessel shall not in that case be carried into any port, 
 nor further detained, but shall be allowed to proceed on her 
 voyage." 
 
 Akticle XXIII. — (In case of war nine months to be allowed 
 merchants to settle their affairs.) — "If war should arise be- 
 tween the two contracting parties, the merchants of either 
 country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain 
 nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and 
 may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molest- 
 ation or hindrance. And all women and children, scholars of 
 every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artizans, manufacturers, 
 and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, 
 villages, or places, and in general all others whose occupations 
 are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall 
 be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall 
 not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods 
 be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the 
 armed force of the enemy, into whose power by the eveints of 
 war they may happen to fall ; but if anything is necessary to 
 be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same 
 shall be paid for at a reasonable price. And all merchant and 
 trading vessels employed in exchanging the products of dif- 
 ferent places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conven- 
 iences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, 
 and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested ; 
 and neither of the contracting Powers shall grant or issue any 
 
116 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 commission to anjr private armed vessels, empowering them 
 to take or destroy such trading vessels or interrupt such com- 
 merce." 
 Aeticlb XXIV.— (Prisoners of war to be humanely treated.) 
 
 Signed by 
 
 B. FRANKLIN. 
 
 TH. JEFFERSON. 
 
 JOHN ADAMS. 
 
 F. G. de THULEMEIER. 
 
 PRUSSIA, 1799. 
 
 Teeatt of Amity and Commeece. 
 
 Concluded July 11, 1799. Katlfications exchanged at Berlin, June 22, 1800. 
 Proclaimed November 4, 1800. 
 
 Aetiole XII. — (Free ships make free goods.) — " Experience 
 having proved, that the principle adopted in the twelfth article 
 of the treaty of 1785, according to which free ships make free 
 goods, has not been sufficiently respected during the two last 
 wars, and especially in that which still continues, the two con- 
 tracting parties propose, after the return of a general peace, ^to 
 agree, either separately between themselves or jointly with other 
 Powers alike interested, to concert with the great maritime 
 Powers of Europe such arrangements and such permanent 
 principles as may serve to consolidate the liberty and the safety 
 of the neutral navigation and commerce in future wars. And 
 if in the interval either of the contracting parties should be en- 
 gaged in a war to which the other should remain neutral, the 
 ships of war and privateers of the belligerent Power shall con- 
 duct themselves towards the merchant vessels of the neutral 
 Power as favourably as the course of the war then existing may 
 permit, observing the principles and rules of the law of nations 
 generally acknowledged." ^ 
 
 ' This treaty is practically a renewal of the treaty of 1775, which was 
 about to expire by its own limitation. 
 
PRUSSIA, 1828. 117 
 
 PRUSSIA, 1828. 
 
 TeBATT of COITMBECB AND NAVrGATION. 
 
 Concluded May 1, 1828. Ratifications exciianged at Washington March, 14, 
 1829. Proclaimed March 14,1829. 
 
 " The United States of America and His Majesty the King of 
 Prussia, equally animated with the desire of maintaining the 
 relations of good understanding which have hitherto so happily 
 subsisted between their respective States, of extending, also, 
 and consolidating the commercial intercourse between them, 
 and convinced that this object cannot better be accomplished 
 than by adopting the system of an entire freedom of navi- 
 gation, and a perfect reciprocity, based upon principles of equity 
 equally beneficial to both countries, and applicable in time of 
 peace as well as in time of war, have, in consequence, agreed 
 to enter into negotiations for the conclusiop of a treaty of navi- 
 gation and commerce ; for which purpose the President of the 
 United States has conferred full powers on Henry Clay, their 
 Secretary of State ; and His Majesty the King of Prussia has 
 conferred like powers on the Sieur Ludwig Niederstetter, 
 Charg6 d' Affaires of His said Majesty, near the United States ; 
 and the said Plenipotentiaries, having exchanged their said full 
 powers, found in good and due form, have concluded and signed 
 the following articles : 
 
 Article I.— (Reciprocal liberty of commerce.)—" There shall 
 be between the territories of the high contracting parties a re- 
 ciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants 
 of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter 
 the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, 
 wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at 
 liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said 
 territories, in order to attend to their affairs ; and they shall 
 enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as na- 
 tives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their 
 submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing." 
 
118 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article II. — (No discrimination in duties on vessels.) — 
 "Prussian vessels arriving either laden or in ballast in the 
 ports of the United States of America, and,-reciprocally, ves- 
 sels of the United States arriving either laden or^ in ballast in 
 the ports of the Kingdom of Prussia, shall be treated, on their 
 entrance, during their stay, and at their departure, upon the 
 same footing as nationjil vessels coming from the same place 
 with respect to the duties of tonnage, light-houses, pilotage, salv- 
 age and port charges, as well as to the fees and perquisites of 
 public officers, and all other duties and charges, of whatever 
 kind or denomination, levied in the name or to the profit of the 
 Government, the local authorities, or of any private estabUsh-^ 
 ment whatever." 
 
 Akticlb III.-^-(No discrimination in duties on imports on ac- 
 count of nationality of vessels importing same.)T— " All Jdnds of 
 merchandise and articles of commerce, either the produce of 
 the soil or the industry of the United States of America, or of 
 any other country, which may be lawfully imported into the 
 ports of the Kingdom of Prussia, in Prussian vessels, may also 
 be so imported in vessels of the United States of America, 
 without paying other or higher duties or charges, of whatever 
 kind or denomination, levied in the name or to the profit of the 
 Government, the local authorities, or of any private establish- 
 ment whatsoever, than if the same merchandise or produce 
 had been imported in Prussian vessels. And, reciprocally, all 
 kind of merchandise and articles of commerce, either the pro- 
 duce of the soil or of the industry of the Kingdom of Prussia, 
 or of any other country, which may be lawfully imported into 
 the ports of the United States in vessels of the said States, 
 may also be so imported in Prussian vessels, without paying 
 other or higher duties or charges, of whatever kind or denomi- 
 nation, levied in the name or to the profit of the Government, 
 the local authorities, or of any private establishments whatso- 
 ever, than if the same merchandise or produce had been im- 
 ported in vessels of the United Spates of America." 
 
 Article IV. — (The above provision further explained.)^:. 
 To prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding, it is 
 hereby declared that the stipulations contained in the two pre- 
 ceding articles are to their full extent applicable to Prussian 
 vessels and their cargoes, arriving in the ports of the United 
 
PRUSSIA, 1828. 119 
 
 states of America, and, reciprocally, to vessels of the said 
 States and their cargoes, arriving in the ports of the Kingdom 
 of Prussia, whether the said vessels clear directly from the 
 ports of the country to which they respectively belong, or from 
 the ports of any other foreign country." 
 
 Aeticlb V. — (No discrimination in duties on account of na- 
 tionality of imports.) — "No higher or other duties shall be 
 imposed on the importation into the United States of any 
 article the produce or manufacture of Prussia, and no higher 
 or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the 
 Kingdom of Prussia of any article the produce or manufacture 
 of the United States, than are or shall be payable on the like 
 article being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign 
 country. Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the impor- 
 tation or exportation of any article the produce or manufacture 
 of the United States, or of Prussia, to or from the ports of the 
 United States, or to or from the ports of Prussia, which shall 
 not equally extend to all other nations." 
 
 Aeticlb VI. — (No discrimination in duties on exports on 
 account of nationality of vessels exporting same.) — " All kinds 
 of merchandise and articles of commerce, either the produce of 
 the soil or of the industry of the United States of America, or 
 of any other country, which may be lawfully exported from the 
 ports of the said United States, in national vessels, may also be 
 exported therefrom in Prussian vessels without paying other or 
 higher duties or charges, of whatever kind or denomination, 
 levied in the name or to the profit of the Government, the local 
 authorities, or of any private establishments whatsoever, than 
 if the same merchandise or produce had been exported in vessels 
 of the United States of America. 
 
 " An exact reciprocity shall be observed in the ports of the 
 Kingdom of Prussia, so that all kinds of merchandise and ar- 
 ticles of commerce, either the produce of the soil or of the 
 industry of the said Kingdom, or of any other country, which 
 may be lawfully exported from Prussian ports in national ves- 
 sels, may also be exported therefrom in vessels of the United 
 States of America, without paying other or higher duties or 
 charges of whatever kind or denomination, levied in the name 
 or to the profit of the Government, the local authorities, or 
 of any private estabUshrnent whatsoever, than if the same 
 
120 TEEATIBS AKD CONVENTIONS. 
 
 merchandise or produce had been exported in Prussian 
 vessels." • 
 
 Article VII. — (Coastwise navigation excepted.) — "The pre- 
 ceding articles are not applicable to the coastwise naviga- 
 tion of the two countries, which is respectively reserved by 
 each of the high contracting parties exclusively to itself." 
 
 Aeticue VIII. — (Neither party to give any preference to 
 goods on account of the importing bottom.) — " No priority or 
 preference shall be given, directly or indirectly, by either of 
 the contracting parties, nor by any company, corporation, or 
 agent, acting on their behalf or under their authority, in the 
 purchase of any article of commerce, lawfully imported, on 
 account of or in reference to the character of the vessel, wheth- 
 er it be of the one party or of the other, in which such article 
 was imported; it being the true intent and meaning of the con- 
 tracting parties that no distinction or difference whatever shall 
 be made in this respect." 
 
 Article IX. — (Most favored nation.) — " If either party shall 
 hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in 
 navigation or commerce, it shall immediately become common 
 to the other party, freely, where it is freely granted to such 
 other nation, or on yielding the same compensation, when the 
 grant is conditional." 
 
 Article X. — (Consuls — Their jurisdiction.) — " The two con- 
 tracting parties have granted to each other the liberty of 
 having, each in the ports of the other, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, 
 Agents, and Commissaries of their own appointment, who shall 
 enjoy the same privileges and powers as those of the most 
 favored nations. But if any such Consul shall exercise com- 
 merce, they shall be submitted to the same laws and usages to 
 which the private individuals of their nation are submitted, in 
 the same place. 
 
 " The Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Commercial Agents shall 
 have the right, as such, to sit as judges and arbitrators in such 
 differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the 
 vessels belonging to the nation whose interests are committed 
 to their charge, without the interference of the local authori- 
 ties, unless the conduct of the crews or of the captain should 
 disturb the order or tranquillity of the country, or the said 
 Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Commercial Agents should require 
 
PRUSSIA, 1828. 121 
 
 their assistance to cause their decisions to be carried into effect 
 or supported. It is, however, understood, that this species of 
 judgment or arbitration shall not deprive the contending par- 
 ties of the right they have to resort, on their return, to the 
 judicial authority of their country." 
 
 Aeticlb XI. — (Application by Consuls to government au- 
 thorities — Deserters.) — " The said Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and 
 Commercial Agents are authorized to require the assistance of 
 the local authorities, for the search, arrest, and imprisonment 
 of the deserters from the ships of war and merchant vessels of 
 their country. For this purpose they shall apply to the com- 
 petent tribunals, judges, and ofBcers, and shall in writing 
 demand said deserters, proving by the exhibition of the regis- 
 ters of the vessels, the rolls of the crews, or by other official 
 documents, that such individuals formed part of the crews; 
 and, on this reclamation being thus substantiated, the surren- 
 der shall not be refused. Such deserters, when arrested, shall 
 be placed at the disposal of the said Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or 
 Commercial Agents, and may be confined in the public prisons, 
 at the request and cost of those who shall reclaim them, in 
 order to be sent to the vessels to which they belonged, or to 
 others of the same country. But if not sent back within three 
 months from the day of their arrest, they shall be set at liberty, 
 and shall not be again arrested for the same cause. However, 
 if the deserter should be found to have committed any crime or 
 offence, his surrender may be delayed until the tribunal before 
 which his case may be depending shall have pronounced its 
 sentence, and such sentence shall have been carried into effect." 
 
 Article XII. — (Certain stipulations in former treaties re- 
 vived — Security of neutral navigation to be the subject of 
 future treaty.) — " The twelfth article of the treaty of amity and 
 commerce, concluded between the parties in 1785, and the ar- 
 ticles from the thirteenth to the twenty-fourth, inclusive, of 
 that which was concluded at Berlin in 1799, with the exception 
 of the last paragraph in the nineteenth article, relating to 
 treaties with Great Britain, are hereby revived with the same 
 force and virtue as if they made part of the context of the pres- 
 ent treaty, it being, however, understood that the stipulations 
 contained in the articles thus revived shall be always consid- 
 ered as in no manner affecting the treaties or conventions 
 
122 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 concluded by either party with other Powers, during the inter, 
 val between the expiration of the said treaty of 1799, and the 
 commencement of the operation of the present treaty. 
 
 " The parties being still desirous, In conformity with their 
 intention declared in the twelfth article of the said treaty of 
 1799, to establish between themselves, or in concert with other 
 maritime Powers, further provisions to ensure just protection 
 and freedom to neutral navigation and commerce, and whicn 
 may, at the same time, advance the cause of civilization and 
 humanity, engage again to treat on this subject at some future 
 and convenient period." 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — (Vessels entering blockaded ports.) — " Conr 
 sidering the remoteness of the respective countries of the two high 
 contracting parties, and the uncertainty resulting therefrom, 
 with respect to the various events which may take place, it is 
 agreed that a merchant vessel belonging to either of them, which 
 may be bound to a port supposed at the time of its departure to 
 be blockaded, shall not, however, be captured or condemned for 
 having attempted a first time to enter said port, unless it can 
 be proved that said vessel could and ought to have learnt, dur- 
 ing its voyage, that the blockade of the place in question still 
 contuaued. But all vessels which, after having been warned 
 off once, shall, during the same voyage, attempt a second time 
 to enter the same blockaded port, during the continuance of 
 the said blockade, shall then subject themselves to be detained 
 and condemned." 
 
 Aeticle XIV. — (Personal estates may be disposed of by will 
 or otherwise — Inherited real estate, how disposed of.) — " The 
 citizens or subjects of each party shall have power to dispose 
 of their personal goods within the jurisdiction of the other, by 
 testament, donation, or otherwise ; and their representatives, 
 being citizens or subjects of the other party, shall succeed to their 
 said personal goods, whether by testament or ab intestato, and 
 may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others 
 acting for them, and dispose of the same at their will, paying 
 such dues only as the inhabitants of the country wherein the 
 said goods are shall be subject to pay in like cases. And hi 
 case of the absence of the representative, such care shall be 
 taken of the said goods as would be taken of the goods of a 
 native, in like case, until the lawful owner may take measures 
 
PRUSSIA, 1828. 123 
 
 for receiving them. And if questions siiould arise among several 
 claimants to which of them said goods belong, the same shall 
 be decided finally by the laws and judges of the land wherein 
 the said goods are. And where, on the death of any person 
 holding real estate within the territories of the one party, such 
 real estate would, by the laws of the land, descend on a citizen 
 or subject of the other, were he not disqualified by alienage, such 
 citizen or subject shall be allowed a reasonable time to sell the 
 same, and to withdraw the proceeds without molestation and 
 exempt from all duties of detraction, on the part of the Govern- 
 ment of the respective States. But this article shall not dero- 
 gate in any manner from the force of the laws already 
 published, or hereafter to be published by His Majesty the 
 King of Prussia, to prevent the emigration of his subjects." 
 
 Aeticlb XV. — (Duration of treaty.) — " The present treaty 
 shall continue in force for twelve years, counting from the day 
 of the exchange of the ratifications ; and if, twelve months before 
 the expiration of that period, neither of the high contracting 
 parties shall have announced, by an official notification to the 
 other, its intention to arrest the operation of said treaty, it 
 shall remain binding for one year beyond thg,t time, and so on 
 until the expiration of the twelve months, which will follow a 
 similar notification, whatever the time at which it may take 
 place." 
 
 Article XVI. — (Ratifications.) — "This treaty shall bg ap- 
 proved and ratified by the President of the United Sta,tes of 
 America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate 
 thereof, and by His Majesty the King of Prussia, and the ratifi- 
 cations shall be exchanged in the city of Washington, within 
 nine months from the date of the signature hereof, or sooner 
 if possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the above articles, both in the French and English 
 languages, and they have thereto affixed their seals ; declaring 
 nevertheless, that the signing in both languages shall not be 
 brought into precedent, nor in any way operate to the prejudice 
 of either party. 
 
 " Done in triplicate at the city of Washington on the first 
 day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 
124 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 dred and twenty-eight, and the fifty-second of the Independence 
 of the United States of America.^ 
 
 " H. CLAY. 
 
 « LUDWIG NIEDERSTETTER." 
 
 DENMARK, 1857. 
 
 CoNVENTiosr Excepting Ameeican Vessels feom the Sound 
 AND Belts-dues. 
 
 Concluded April 11, 1857. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 January 12, 1858. Proclaimed January 13, 1858. 
 
 " The United States of America and His Majesty the King 
 of Denmark, being desirous to terminate amicably the dif- 
 ferences which have arisen between them in regard to the tolls 
 levied by Denmark on American vessels and their cargoes pass- 
 ing through the Sound and Belts, and commonly called the 
 Sound-dues, have resolved to conclude a convention for that 
 purpose, and have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to 
 say: 
 
 " The President of the United States, Lewis Cass, Secretary 
 of State of the United States, and His Majesty the King of 
 Denmark, Torben Bille, Esquire, Knight of the Dannebrog, 
 and decorated with the cross of honor of the same order, his 
 said Majesty's Charge d' Affaires near the Government of the 
 United States : 
 
 " Who, after having communicated to each other their full 
 powers, in due form, have agreed to and signed the following 
 articles : 
 
 Article I. — (Navigation of the Sound and Belts to be free 
 to vessels of the United States.) — " His Majesty the King of 
 Denmark declares entire freedom of the navigation of the 
 Sound and the Belts in favor of American vessels and their 
 cargoes, from and forever after the day when this convention 
 shall go into effect as hereinafter provided. And it is hereby 
 
 ' An extradition treaty was concluded with Prussia and other States 
 of the Grermanic Confederation, in 1852. See Extradition Treaties. 
 
DENMAEK, 1857. 125 
 
 agreed that American vessels and their cargoes, after that day, 
 shall not be subject to any charges whatever in passing the 
 Sound or the Belts, or to any detention in the said waters, and 
 both Governments will concur, if occasion should require it, in 
 taking measures to prevent abuse of the free flag of the United 
 States by the shipping of other nations which shall not have 
 secured the same freedom and exemption from charges enjoyed 
 by that of the United States." 
 
 Aeticlb II. (Lights and buoys — ^Employment of Danish 
 pilots.) — " His Danish Majesty further engages that the pas- 
 sages of the Sound and Belts shall continue to be lighted and 
 buoyed as heretofore without any charge upon American vessels 
 or their cargoes on passing the Sound and the Belts, and that 
 the present establishments of Danish pilots on those waters shall 
 continue to be maintained by Denmark. His Danish Majesty 
 agrees to make such additions and improvements in regard to 
 the lights, buoys and pilot establishments in these waters as 
 circumstances and the increasing trade of the Baltic may re- 
 quire. He further engages that no charge shall be made, in 
 consequence of such additions and improvements, on American 
 ships and their cargoes passing through the Sound and the 
 Belts. 
 
 " It is understood, however, to be optional for the masters of 
 American vessels either to employ, in the said waters, Danish 
 pilots, at reasonable rates fixed by the Danish Government, or 
 to navigate their vessels without such assistance." 
 
 Aeticlb HI. — (Toll dues to be paid by the United States.) — 
 " In consideration of the foregoing agreements and stipulations 
 on the part of Denmark, whereby the free and unincumbered 
 navigation of American vessels through the Sound and the 
 Belts is forever secured, the United States agree to pay to the 
 Government of Denmark, once for all, the sum of seven hundred 
 and seventeen thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine rix 
 dollars, or its equivalent, three hundred and ninety-three thou- 
 sand and eleven dollars in United States currency, at London, 
 on the day when the said convention shall go into full effect, 
 as hereinafterwards provided." 
 
 Article IV. — (Most favored nation.) — " It is further agreed 
 that any other or further privileges, rights, or advantages which 
 may have been, or may be, granted by Denmark to the com- 
 
126 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 merce and navigation of any other nation at the Sound and 
 Belts, or on her coasts and in her harbors, with reference to the 
 transit by land through Danish territory of merchandise belong- 
 ing to the citizens or subjects of such nation, shall also be fully 
 extended to, and enjoyed by, the citizens of the United States, 
 and by their vessels and property in that quarter." 
 
 Article V. — (Convention of April 26, 1826, except 5th article, 
 revived.) — "The general convention of friendship, commerce 
 and navigation, concluded between the United States and His 
 Majesty the King of Denmark, on the 26th of April, 1826, and 
 which was abrogated on the 15th of April, 1856, and the pro- 
 visions contained in each and all of its articles, thei 5th article 
 alone excepted, shall, after the ratification of this present con- 
 vention, again become binding upon the United States and 
 Denmark ; it being, however, understood, that a year's notice 
 shall suffice for the abrogation of the stipulations of the said 
 convention hereby renewed." 
 
 Article VI. — (Time when this convention shall be operative.) 
 — " The present convention shall take effect as soon as the laws 
 to carry it into operation shall be passed by the Government 
 of the contracting parties, and the sum stipulated to be paid 
 by the United States shall be received by or tendered to Den- 
 mark; and for the fulfilment of these purposes, a period not 
 exceeding twelve months from the signing of this convention 
 shall be allowed. 
 
 " But if, in the interval, an earlier day shall be fixed upon 
 and carried into effect for a free navigation through the Sound 
 and Belts in favor of any other power or powers, the same shall 
 simultaneously be extended to the vessels of the United States 
 and their cargoes, in anticipation of the payment of the sum 
 stipulated in Article III. ; it being understood, however, that in 
 that event the Government of the United States shall also pay 
 to that of Denmark four per cent, interest on the said sura, 
 from the day the said indemnity shall have gone into operation 
 until the principal shall have been paid as aforesaid." 
 
 Article VII. — (Ratifications.)-^" The present convention 
 shall be duly ratified, and the exchange of ratifications shall 
 take place in Washington within ten months from the date 
 hereof, or sooner if practicable. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
 
ITALY, 1871. 127 
 
 the present convention, in duplicate, and have thereunto affixed 
 their seals. 
 
 "Done at Washington this eleventh day of April, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, 
 and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-first.^ 
 
 « LEWIS CASS. 
 " TORBEN BILLE." 
 
 ITALY, 1871. 
 
 Treaty or Commerce and Navigation. 
 
 Concluded February 86, 1871. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 November 18, 1871. Proclaimed November 23, 1871. 
 
 Article I. — (Freedom of Commerce and navigation ; and 
 privilsges of citizens of one nation in the territory of the other.) 
 
 " There shall be between the territories of the high contract- 
 ing parties a reciprocal liberty of conjmerce and navigation. 
 
 " Italian citizens in the United States, and citizens of the 
 United States in Italy, shall mutually have liberty to enter 
 w^ith their ships and cargoes all the ports of the United States 
 and of Italy, respectively, which may be open to foreign com- 
 merce. They shall also have liberty to sojourn and reside in 
 all parts whatever of said territories. They shall enjoy, re- 
 spectively, within the States and possessions of each party, the 
 same rights, privileges, favors, immunities, and exemptions for 
 their commerce and navigation as the natives of the country 
 wherein they reside, without paying other or higher duties or 
 charges than are paid by the natives, on condition of their 
 submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing. 
 
 " War vessels of the two Powers shall receive in their respect- 
 ive ports the treatment of those of the most favored nation. 
 
 ' The United States and Denmark concluded-a treaty of friendship 
 commerce and navigation, April 26, 1826, which is similar to that with 
 Prussia, of 1828, in the priaoiples applied to commerce and navigation. 
 
 Other treaties with Denmark are a claims convention in 1830, an ad- 
 ditional article to the treaty of 1826, in 1861, and a convention relative to 
 naturalization in 1872, (see Treaties of Naturalization). 
 
128 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Akticlb II. — (Right to travel and carry on trade.)—" The 
 citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have 
 liberty to travel in the States and Territories of the other, to 
 carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to hire and occupy houses 
 and warehouses, to employ agents of their own choice, and 
 generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade, 
 upon the same terms as the natives of the country, submitting 
 themselves to the laws there established." 
 
 Article III. — (Security of persons and property ; and exemp- 
 tion from military service.) — " The citizens of each of the high 
 contracting parties shall receive, in the States and Territories 
 of the other, the most constant protection and security for their 
 persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same 
 rights and privileges as are or shall be granted to the natives, 
 on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon 
 the natives . 
 
 " They shall, however, be exempt in their respective terri- 
 tories from compulsory military service, either on land or sea, 
 in the regular forces, or in the national guard, or in the militia. 
 They shall likewise be exempt from any judicial or municipal 
 ofBce, and from any contribution whatever, in kind or in 
 money, to be levied in compensation for personal services." 
 
 Article IV. — (No embargo without compensation.) — " The 
 citizens of neither of the contracting parties shall be liable, in 
 the States or Territories of the other, to any embargo, nor 
 shall they be detained with their vessels, cargoes, merchan- 
 dise, or effects, for any military expedition, nor for any public 
 or private purpose whatsoever, without allowing to those in- 
 terested a sufficient indemnification previously agreed upon 
 when possible." 
 
 Article V. — (No discriminations in duties, drawbacks or boun- 
 ties.) — " The high contracting parties agree that whatever kind 
 of produce, manufactures, or merchandise of any foreign coun- 
 try can be from time to time lawfully imported into the United 
 States, in their own vessels, may be also imported in Italian 
 vessels ; that no other or higher duties upon the tonnage of the 
 vessel or her cargo shall be levied and collected, whether the 
 importation be made in vessels of one country or the other ; 
 and, in like manner, that whatsoever kind of produce, manu- 
 factures or merchandise of any foreign country can be from 
 
ITALY, 1871. 129 
 
 time to time lawfully imported into Italy in its own vessels, 
 may be also imported in vessels of the United States, and that 
 no higher or other duties upon the tonnage of the vessel or her 
 cargo shall be levied and collected, whether the importation be 
 made in vessels of the one country or of the other ; and they fur- 
 ther agree that whatever may be lawfully exported and re-ex- 
 ported from the one country, in its own vessels, to any foreign 
 country, may in the like manner be exported or re-exported in 
 the vessels of the other country, and the same bounties, duties, 
 and drawbacks shall be allowed and collected, whether such 
 exportation or re-exportation be made in vessels of the United 
 States or of Italy." 
 
 Article VI. — No discriminating duties on imports or ex- 
 ports. 
 
 Article VII. — Vessels of one nation may go from one port 
 to another of the other to discharge cargo, but not engage in 
 the coasting trade. 
 
 Article VIII. — Certain vessels are to be exempt from the 
 payment of tonnage duties. 
 
 Article IX. — Protection to be given to shipwrecked vessels. 
 Article X. — (Vessels may complete their crews.) — " Vessels 
 of either of the contracting parties shall have liberty, within 
 the territories and dominions of the other, to complete their 
 crew, in order to continue their voyage, with sailors articled 
 in the country, provided they submit to the local regulations 
 and their enrollment be voluntary." 
 
 Article XI. — Vessels captured by pirates to be restored. 
 Article XII.— (Private property exempt from capture in 
 maritime war.) — " The high contracting parties agree that, in 
 the unfortunate event of a war between them, the private prop- 
 erty of their respective citizens and subjects, with the excep- 
 tion of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or 
 seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or 
 by the military forces of either party ; it being understood that 
 this exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes 
 which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval 
 forces of either party." 
 
 Article XIII. — A blockade to be legal must be so invested 
 as to create an evident danger to attempt to enter the port. 
 Article XIV. — Vessels sailing for a blockaded port in igno- 
 9 
 
130 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 ranee of a blockade shall be turned away, with an endorsement 
 on their papers ; the same rule shall apply to vessels leaving 
 such port with a cargo laden after the blockade is established. 
 
 Article XV. — (List of contraband articles.) 
 
 "1. Cannons, mortars, howitzers, swivels, blunderbusses, 
 muskets, fusees, rifles, carbines, pistols, pikes, swords, sabers, 
 lances, spears, halberds, bombs, grenades, powder, matches, 
 balls, and all other things belonging to, and expressly manufac- 
 tured for, the use of these arms. 
 
 " 2. Infantry belts, implements of war and defensive weapons, 
 clothes cut or made up in a military form and for a military use. 
 
 " 3. Cavalry belts, war saddles and holsters. 
 
 " 4. And generally all kinds of arms and instruments of iron, 
 steel, brass, and copper, or of any other materials manufac- 
 tured, prepared, and formed expressly to make war by sea or 
 land." 
 
 Article XVI. — Citizens of one State, being neutral, may sail 
 with their ships "with all manner of liberty and security, 
 no distinction being made who are the proprietors of the 
 merchandise laden thereon," to ports of tbe enemy of the 
 other. 
 
 The principle of free ships, free goods, is affirmed ; and the 
 neutral flag shall cover persons except officers or soldiers in the 
 actual service of the enemy. But this shall apply to those 
 Powers only who recognize this principle. 
 
 Article XVII. — Proof of the nationality of vessels^ shall be 
 the papers which the laws of either State require. 
 
 Articles XVIII. and XIX. — The usual rule in respect to the 
 right of search, and convoy. 
 
 Article XX. — Commanders of ships of war shall be answer- 
 able for injury to persons or property. 
 
 Article XXI. — (Rights of persons in case of war between 
 the contracting parties — Tliis article is not to be annulled or 
 suspended on any pretence.) — " If by any fatality, which cannot 
 be expected, and which may God avert, the two contracting 
 parties should be engaged in a war with each other, they have 
 agreed and do agree, now for then, that there shall be allowed 
 the term of six months to the merchants residing on the coasts 
 and in the ports of each other, and the term of one year to 
 those who dwell in the interior, to arrange their business, and 
 
ITALY, 1871. 131 
 
 transport their effects wherever they please, with the safe con- 
 duct necessary to protect them, and their property, until they 
 arrive at the ports designated for their embarkation. And all 
 women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of 
 the earth, artisans, mechanics, manufacturers, and fishermen, 
 unarmed and inhabiting the unfortified towns, villages, or 
 places, and, in general, all others whose occupations are for the 
 common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed 
 to continue their respective employments, and shall not be mo- 
 lested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt 
 or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force 
 of the belligerents in whose power, by the events of war, they 
 may happen to fall ; but, if it be necessary that anything 
 should be taken from them for the use of such belligerent, the 
 same shall be paid for at a reasonable price. 
 
 " And it is declared that neither the pretence that war dis- 
 solves treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as 
 annulling or suspending this article ; but, on the contrary, that 
 the state of war is precisely that for which it is provided, and 
 during which its provisions are to be sacredly observed as the 
 most acknowledged obligations in the law of nations." 
 
 Article XXII. — The usual rule is to be applied to personal 
 property of the citizens of one State in the territory of the 
 other ; and as to real estate, the privileges of the most favored 
 nation shall be reciprocally granted. 
 
 Article XXIII. — (Courts of justice to be open to citizens of 
 either country.)^—" The citizens of either party shall have free 
 access to the courts of justice, in order to maintain and defend 
 their own rights, without any other conditions, restrictions, or 
 taxes than such as are imposed upon the natives. They shall, 
 therefore, be free to employ, in defence of their rights, such 
 advocates, solicitors, notaries, agents, and factors as they may 
 judge proper, in all their trials at law ; and such citizens or 
 agents shall have free opportunity to be present at the decis- 
 ions and sentences of the tribunals in all cases which may 
 concern them, and likewise at the taking of all examinations 
 and evidences, which may be exhibited in the said trials." 
 
 Article XXIV, — In respect to commerce and navigation, 
 the most favored nation rule to be applied. 
 
 Article XXV. — The treaty to continue in force for five 
 
132 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 years, and thereafter for twelve months after notice to termi- 
 nate it. 
 Article XXVI. — Ratifications. 
 
 Signed by 
 
 GEORGE P. MARSH. 
 VISGONTI VENOSTA.i 
 
 RUSSIA, 1824. 
 Convention Relative to Navigation, Fishing, and Trading 
 
 IN THE PaCIEIC OcEAN AND TO ESTABLISHMENTS ON THE 
 
 .Northwest Coast. 
 
 Concluded April 17, 1834. Ratifications exchanged at' Washington, .Jan- 
 uary 11, 1825. Proclaimed January 12, 1825. 
 
 Article I. — (Navigation and fisheries of the Pacific.) — " It 
 is agreed that, in any part of the Great Ocean, or South Sea, 
 the respective citizens or subjects of the high contracting 
 Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in 
 navigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the 
 coasts, upon points which may not already have been occupied, 
 for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always 
 the restrictions and conditions determined by the following 
 articles." 
 
 Article II. — (Illicit trade.) — " With a view of preventing 
 the rights of navigation and of fishing exercised upon the Great 
 Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the high contracting 
 Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is 
 agreed that the citizens of the United States shall not resort to 
 any point where there is a Russian establishment, without the 
 permission of the governor or commander ; and that, recipro- 
 
 ' Other treaties with Italy are a consular convention, 1868, superseded 
 by the convention of 1878 and 1881 (see Consular Treaties) ; a convention 
 for the extradition of criminals, 1868, with supplements in 1869 and 1884, 
 (see Extradition Treaties); a declaration for the protection of trade-marks, 
 1882. 
 
RUSSIA, 1824. 133 
 
 cally, the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, 
 to any establishment of the United States upon the northwest 
 coast." 
 
 Article III. — (Establishments to be formed by citizens of 
 the United States or Russia.) — " It is moreover agreed that, 
 hereafter, there shall not be formed by the citizens of the 
 United States, or under the authority of the said States, any 
 establishment upon the Northwest coast of America, nor in any 
 of the islands adjacent, to the north of fifty-four degrees and 
 forty minutes of north latitude ; and that, in the same manner, 
 there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the 
 authority of Russia, south of the same parallel." 
 
 Akticlb IV. — (Interior seas.) — "It is, nevertheless, under- 
 stood that during a term of ten years, counting from the signa- 
 ture of the present convention, the ships of both Powers, or 
 which belong to their citizens or subjects respectively, may 
 reciprocally frequent without any hindrance whatever, the in- 
 terior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned 
 in the preceding article, for the purpose of fishing and trading 
 with the natives of the country." 
 
 Aeticle V. — (Articles to be excepted from this commerce.) — 
 " All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and 
 munitions of war of every kind, are always excepted from this 
 same commerce permitted by the preceding article ; and the 
 two Powers engage, reciprocally, neither to sell, nor suffer them 
 to be sold, to the natives by their respective citizens and sub- 
 jects, nor by any person who may be under their authority. 
 It is likewise stipulated that this restriction shall never afford 
 a pretext, nor be advanced, in any case, to authorize either 
 search or detention of the vessels, seizure of the merchandize, 
 or, in fine, any measures of constraint whatever towards the 
 merchants or the crews who may carry on this commerce ; the 
 high contracting Powers reciprocally reservmg to themselves 
 to determine upon the penalties to be incurred, and to inflict 
 the punishments in case of the contravention of this article by 
 their respective citizens or subjects." 
 
 Article VI. — (Ratifications.) — " When this convention shall 
 have been duly ratified by the President of the United States, 
 with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part, and, 
 on the other, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, 
 
134 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington in the space 
 of ten months from the date below, or sooner if possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed this convention, and thereto aflfl-xed the seals of their 
 arms. 
 
 " Done at St. Petersburg the 17^5 April of the year of 
 Grace one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four. 
 
 « HEISTRY MIDDLETON. 
 
 « LE COMTE CHARLES DE NESSELRODE. 
 
 " PIERRE DE POLETICA." i 
 
 RUSSIA, 1854. 
 
 Convention Relative to the Rights of N"eutral8 at Sea. 
 
 Concluded July 22, 1854. Eatiflcations exchanged at Washington, October 
 31, 1854. Proclaimed November 1, 1854. 
 
 " The United States of America and His Majesty the Em- 
 peror of all the Russias, equally animated with a desire to main- 
 tain, and to preserve from all harm, the relations of good un- 
 derstanding which have at all times so happily subsisted be- 
 tween themselves, as also between the inhabitants of their re- 
 spective States, have mutually agreed to perpetuate, by means 
 of a formal convention, the principles of the right of neutrals 
 at sea, which they recognize as indispensable conditions of all 
 freedom of navigation and maritime trade." 
 
 Article I. — (Free ships make free goods — Ifeutral property.) 
 "The two high contracting parties recognize as permanent 
 and immutable the following principles, to wit : 
 
 " 1st. That free ships make free goods ; that is to say, that 
 the effects or goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a Power 
 or State at war are free from capture and confiscation when 
 found on board of neutral vessels, with the exception of articles 
 contraband of war. 
 
 " 2d. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's ves- 
 sel is not subject to confiscation, unless the same be contraband 
 
 ^ The ten years mentioned in article IV. , having expired, Russia re- 
 fused to renew the stipulations therein contained. 
 
BUSSiA, 1867. 135 
 
 of war. They engage to apply these principles to the com- 
 merce and navigation of all such Powers and States as shall 
 consent to adopt them on their part as permanent and immu- 
 table." 
 
 Aeticle II. — (Understanding as to application of these prin- 
 ciples.) — " The two high contracting parties reserve themselves 
 to come to an ulterior understanding as circumstances may re- 
 quire, with regard to the application and extension to be given, 
 if there be any cause for it, to the principles laid down in the 
 1st article. But they declare from this time that they will take 
 the stipulations contained in said article 1 as a rule, whenever 
 it shall become a question to judge of the rights of neutrality." 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Other nations may accede to this treaty.) — " It 
 is agreed by the high contracting parties that all nations which 
 shall or may consent to accede to the rules of the first article 
 of this convention, by a formal declaration stipulating to ob- 
 serve them, shall enjoy the rights resulting from such acces- 
 sion as they shall be enjoyed and observed by the two Powers 
 signing this convention. They shall mutually communicate 
 to each other the results of the steps which may be taken on 
 the subject." 
 
 Signed by 
 
 W.L.MARCY. 
 EDOUARD STOECKL. 
 
 RUSSIA, 1867. 
 
 CoirVENTION FOE THE CESSIOlf OP THE RtJSSIAN POSSESSIONS IH 
 
 North America to the United States. 
 
 Concluded March 30, 1867. Ratifications exctianged at Washington, June 
 20, 1867. Proclaimed June 20, 1867. 
 
 " The United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor 
 of all the Russias, being desirous of strengthening, if possible, 
 the good understanding which exists between them, have, for 
 that purpose, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, William H. Seward, Secretary of 
 State ; and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the 
 
136 TREATIES AND CONTENTIONS. 
 
 Privy Counsellor Edouard de Stoeckl, his Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary to tlie United States ; 
 
 " And the said Plenipotentiaries, having exchanged their full 
 powers, vsrhich were found to be in due form, have agreed upon 
 and signed the following articles : 
 
 Aktiolb I. — (Cession of territory — Boundaries.) — "His Maj- 
 esty the Emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United 
 States, by this Convention, immediately upon the exchange of 
 the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now 
 possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and 
 in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the 
 geographical limits herein set forth, to wit : The eastern limit 
 is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British 
 possessions in North America, as established by the convention 
 between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28 — 16, 1825, 
 and described in Articles III. and IV. of said convention, in the 
 following terms : 
 
 " ' Commencing from the southernmost point of the island 
 called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel 
 of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and between the 131st 
 and 133d degree of west longitude, (meridian of Greenwich,) 
 the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called 
 Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where 
 it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude ; from this last- 
 mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the sum- 
 mit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as 
 the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, 
 (of the same meridian ;) and Anally, from the said point of in- 
 tersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its 
 prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean. 
 
 " ' IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in 
 the preceding article, it is understood — 
 
 " ' 1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall be- 
 long wholly to Russia,' (now, by this cession to the United 
 States.) 
 
 " ' 2d. That whenever the summit of the mountains which ex- 
 tend in a direction parallel to the coast from the 56th degree of 
 north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of 
 west longitude shall prove to be at the distance of more than 
 ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the 
 
RUSSIA, 1867. 137 
 
 British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to 
 Russia as above mentioned, (that is say, the limit to the pos- 
 sessions ceded by this convention,) shall be formed by a line 
 parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never ex- 
 ceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom." 
 
 " The western limit within which the territories and dominion 
 conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring's 
 Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes 
 north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which 
 passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern or Igna- 
 look, ar^d the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds 
 due north without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. 
 The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, 
 proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Beh- 
 ring's, Straits and Behring's Sea, so as to pass midway be- 
 tween the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and 
 the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one 
 hundred and seventy -two west longitude ; thence, from the 
 intersection of that meridian, in the south'Westerly direction, 
 so as to pass midway between the island of Atton and the 
 Copper Island of the Kormondorski couplet or group, in the 
 North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of oue hundred and 
 ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the 
 territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of 
 that meridian." 
 
 Aeticlb II. — (Rights included in the cession of territory and 
 dominion.) — " lu the cession of territory and dominion made 
 by the preceding article are included the right of property in 
 all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public build- 
 ings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not 
 private individual property. It is, however, understood and 
 agreed, that the churches which have been built in the ceded 
 territory by the Russian Government, shall remain the property 
 of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the 
 territory as may choose to worship therein. Any Government, 
 archives, papers, and documents relative to the territory and 
 dominion aforesaid, which may now be existing there, will be 
 left in the possession of the agent of the United States ; but 
 an authenticated copy of such of them as may be required will 
 be, at all times, given by the United States to the Russian 
 
138 TREATIES AND COKVENTIONS. 
 
 Government, or to such Russian officers or subjects as they 
 may apply for." 
 
 Aetiole III. — (Rights of inhabitants.) — " The inhabitants of 
 the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their 
 natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years ; 
 but, if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, 
 with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be ad- 
 mitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and 
 immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be main- 
 tained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
 property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject 
 to such laws and regulations as the United States may from 
 time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that 
 country." 
 
 Aetiole s lY. and Y. — Delivery of territory and m.ilitary 
 
 posts. 
 
 Aetiole YI. — (Payment — Territory to be unincumbered.) — 
 Amount to be paid, " seven million two hundred thousaind dol- 
 lars in gold." And the territory to be " unincumbered by any 
 reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions, etc." 
 
 Aetiole YII. — Ratifications.^ 
 
 Signed by 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 EDOUARD DE STOECKL. 
 
 OTHER EUROPEAN STATES. 
 
 [The end aimed at in this collection of treaties and conven- 
 tions is to select those which have a historical interest for the 
 student of American diplomacy as well as those which are or 
 have been representative of the commercial and foreign policy 
 of the United States. For this object, it is not deemed nec- 
 essary to insert a great number of treaties which are simply 
 repetitions of one another, and this is true more especially of 
 commercial treaties. Of the treaties with European countries 
 
 ' Other treaties with Russia are a treaty of commerce and navigation, 
 in 18D2, and a treaty of extradition, 1898. See Extradition Treaties. 
 
OTHER EUEOPEAN STATES. 139 
 
 not given above in this group, the following brief statement 
 is, therefore, believed to be sufiQcient.J 
 
 Austria — Hungary — .(1) The first treaty with Austria was 
 one of Commerce and Navigation, concluded August 27, 1829, 
 extended by the convention of May 8, 1848, to the subject of 
 the disposal of property by the citizens of one nation in the ter- 
 ritory of the other. (2) A treaty of Extradition, July 3, 1856. 
 (See Extradition Treaties.) (3) A consular convention, July 11, 
 1870. (See Consular Conventions). (4) A convention concern- 
 ing IsTaturalization, September 20, 1870. (See Naturalization 
 Treaties). (5) A Convention relative to trade-marks, November 
 25, 1871. 
 
 Belgium. — (1) Treaties of Commerce and Navigation, No- 
 vember 10, 1845 ; July 17, 1858, and March 8, 1875. (2) A con- 
 vention relative to import duties and capitalization of the 
 Scheldt Dues. By the 14th article of this convention, " The 
 United States, in view of the proposition of Belgium to regu- 
 late, by a common accord, the capitalization of the Scheldt dues 
 consents to contribute to this capitaUzation under the following 
 conditions : 
 
 " a. The capital sum shall not exceed thirty-six millions of 
 francs. 
 
 " h. Belgium shall assume for its part one-third of that 
 amount. 
 
 "c. The remainder shall be apportioned among the other 
 States, pro rata to their navigation in the Scheldt. 
 
 " d. The proportion of the United States, to be determined 
 in accordance with this rule, shall not exceed the sum of two 
 millions seven hundred and seventy-nine thousand francs, etc." 
 
 (3) Treaty for the Extinguishment of the Scheldt dues, July 
 20, 1863. By this treaty Belgium, and the Netherlands re- 
 nounce forever the dues established upon navigation, in the 
 Scheldt and its mouths, and the king of the Belgians engages 
 to pay the sum of 17,141,640 florins. The proportion of the 
 United States is regulated by the treaty of May 20, 1863. (4) 
 Naturalization Convention, November 16, 1868. (See Naturali- 
 zation Treaties.) (5) Consular Convention, December 5, 1868. 
 (See Consular Conventions.) (6) Extradition Treaties, March 
 19, 1874, and June 13, 1882. (See Extradition Treaties.) (7) 
 Convention concerning trade-marks, 1884. 
 
140 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Geemaist Empire. — Convention respecting consuls and trade- 
 marks, negotiated by George Bancroft and B. Konig, December 
 11, 1871. (See Consular Conventions.) 
 
 German States. — Treaties with the minor German States con- 
 cerning the subjects of (1) the Abolition of the Droit d'Aubaine, 
 (2) Consuls, (3) Extradition, and (4) Naturalization, will be 
 found mentioned under the special groups of treaties relating 
 to those subjects. 
 
 With Hanover, treaties of Commerce and Navigation were 
 concluded. May 20, 1840, and June 10, 1816. 
 
 With the Hanseatic Republics (Lubeck, Bremen, and Ham- 
 burg), a treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, De- 
 cember 20, 1827, and an additional article, June 4, 1828. 
 
 These States now form a part of the German Empire. 
 
 Greece. — Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, December 
 10-22, 1837. 
 
 Netherlands. — (1) Treaty of Amity and Commerce, negoti- 
 ated by John Adams, October 8, 1782. This treaty followed 
 closely the Plan of Treaties and is practically the same as the 
 Treaty of Commerce with Prance, of 1778. It is interesting 
 historically in that it was negotiated and concluded during the 
 period of the war of independence, and from the fact that the 
 Netherlands was the second State with which the United States 
 entered into treaty relations. (2) Convention concerning ves- 
 sels recaptured. It is agreed by this treaty that vessels of 
 either nation recaptured by privateers of the other shall be 
 restored to the first proprietor, if such vessels have not been 
 twenty-four hours in the hands of the enemy, on the payment of 
 one-third of the value .of ship and cargo to the captor as sal- 
 vage ; if more than twenty-four hours in the hands of the enemy, 
 they shall belong entirely to the captor. In case the vessel re- 
 capturmg is a ship of war, the captured vessel shall be restored 
 to the owner, he paying one-thirtieth part if recaptured within 
 twenty-four hours, and one tenth part, if after twenty-four 
 hours possession by the enemy. (3) Treaty of Commerce and 
 Navigation, January 19, 1839, and August 26, 1852, which are 
 otill in force. (4) Consular Treaties, January 22, 1855, and 
 May 23, 1878. (See Consular Conventions.) (5) Extradition 
 of Criminals. (See Extradition Treaties.) 
 
 PoETUGAL. — (1) Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, August 
 
OTHER ETJEOPBAN STATES. 141 
 
 26, 1840. (2) Treaty providing for the payment of claims and 
 the settlement of the dispute with reference to the General 
 Armstrong, February 26, 1851. The sum of 191,727 was to be 
 paid by Portugal in settlement of claims ; and the case of the 
 General Armstrong was to be referred to a friendly power. By 
 a subsequent agreement the Emperor Napoleon III. was chosen, 
 and the decision was in favor of Portugal. (See Snow's Cases 
 and Opinions on International Law, § 38.) > \ 
 
 RouMANiA. — Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of 
 Consuls, June 17, 1881. 
 
 SAEDimA. — Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, November 
 26, 1838. Articles XV., XVI., and XVII. refer to the rights and 
 duties of consuls ; Article XVIII. to the disposal of personal 
 property and real estate. 
 
 Seevia.— (1) Convention for facilitating and developing com- 
 mercial relations, October 14, 1881. (2) Consular Convention, 
 October 14, 1881. 
 
 Sweden. — Treaty of Amity and Commerce, April 3, 1783. 
 This treaty is similar to the previous commercial treaties with 
 France and the Netherlands. 
 
 Sweden and Noeway. — (1) Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 
 September 4, 1816. The Senate rejected the 3d, 4th, and 6th 
 articles relating to reciprocal trade. (2) Treaty of Commerce 
 and Navigation, July 4, 1827 (still in force). (3) Extradition, 
 March 21, 1860. (4) Naturalization, May 26, 1869. 
 
 Swiss CoNEEDEEATioN. — (1) Couveution for the mutual abo- 
 lition of the Droit d'Aubaine and taxes on Emigration, May 18, 
 1847. (See Droit d'Aubaine.) (2) Friendship, Commerce, and 
 Extradition. 
 
 Two Sicilies. — (1) Convention for the settlement of claims 
 growing out of the depredations inflicted upon American com- 
 merce by Murat during the years 1809, 1810, 1811, and 1812 
 October 14, 1832, and December 26, 1835. (2) Treaty of Com- 
 merce and Navigation, December 1, 1845. (3) Convention rela- 
 tive to the Rights of Neutrals at sea, January 13, 1855. Article 
 I. — " The two high contracting parties recognize as permanent 
 and immutable the following principles, to wit : 1st. That free 
 ships make free goods ; . . . with the exception of contraband 
 of war. 2d. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's 
 vessel is not subject to confiscation unless the same be con- 
 
142 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 traband of war. They engage to apply these principles to the 
 commerce and navigation of all such Powers and States as 
 shall consent to adopt them on their part as permanent and 
 immutable." 
 
 (4) Convention of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, and for 
 the Extradition of Criminals, October 1, 1855. . ' 
 
III. 
 
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 
 
 WITH 
 
 ASIATIC AND AFRICAN" STATES. 
 
 BARBARY STATES. 
 
 [The early treaties with the Barbary States being of little his- 
 torical interest, aside from the circumstances attending their 
 negotiation, only one — the first in date, with Morocco will 
 here be given in full.] 
 
 MOROCCO, 1787. 
 Treaty of Peace and Feiendship. 
 
 Concluded January, 1787. Ratified by the Continental Congress, 
 July 18, 1787. 
 
 " In the name of Almighty God. 
 
 " This is a treaty of peace and friendship established between 
 us and the United States of America, which is confirmed, and 
 which we have ordered to be written in this book, and sealed 
 with our royal seal, at our court of Morocco, on the twenty- 
 fifth day of the blessed month of Shaban, in the year one 
 thousand two hundred, trusting in God it will .remain perma- 
 nent." 
 
 AeticivE I. — (Emperor's assent to the treaty.) — " We declare 
 that both parties have agreed that this treaty, consisting of 
 twenty-five articles, shall be inserted in this book, and delivered 
 
 143 
 
144 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 to the Honorable Thomas Barclay, the agent of the United 
 States, now at onr court, with whose approbation it has been 
 made, and who is duly authorized on their part to treat with 
 us concerning all the matters contained therein." 
 
 Aeticle II. — (Commissions from an enemy.) — " If either of 
 the parties shall be at war with any nation whatever, the other 
 party shall not take a commission from the enemy, nor fight 
 under their colors." 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Case of captures.) — "If either of the parties 
 shall be at war with any nation whatever, and take a prize 
 belonging to that nation, and there shall be found on board 
 subjects or effects belonging to either of the parties, the sub- 
 jects shall be set at liberty, and the effects returned to the 
 owners. And if any goods belonging to any nation, with whom 
 either of the parties shall be at war, shall be loaded on vessels 
 belonging to the other party, they shall pass free and unmo- 
 lested, without any attempt being made to take or detain 
 them." 
 
 Aeticle IV. — (Vessels to have passports.) — " A signal or pass 
 shall be given to all vessels belonging to both parties, by which 
 they are to be known when they meet at sea ; and if the com- 
 mander of a ship of war of either party shall have other ships 
 under his convoy, the declaration of the commander shall alone 
 be sufficient to exempt any of them from examination." 
 
 Aeticle V. — (Right of search at sea.) — " If either of the 
 parties shall be at war, and shall meet a vessel at sea belong- 
 ing to the other, it is agreed, that if an examination is to be 
 made, it shall be done by sending a boat with two or three men 
 only ; and if any gun shall be fired, and injury done without 
 reason, the offending party shall make good all damages." 
 
 Aeticle VI. — (Captured Americans to be set free.) — " If 
 any Moor shall bring citizens of the United States, or their 
 effects, to His Majesty, the citizens shall immediately be set 
 at liberty, and the effects restored ; and in like manner, if any 
 Moor, not a subject of these dominions, shall make prize of any 
 of the citizens of America, or their effects, and bring them into 
 any of the ports of His Majesty, they shall be immediately re- 
 leased, as they will then be considered as under His Majesty's 
 protection." 
 
 Aeticle VII. — (Vessels in port to be supplied.) — " If any ves- 
 
MOROCCO, 1787. 145 
 
 sel of either party shall put into a port of the other, and have 
 occasion for provisions or other supplies, they shall he furnished 
 without any interruption or molestation." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Vessels putting in port to repair.) — " If any 
 vessel of the United States shall meet with a disaster at sea, 
 and put into one of our ports to repair, she shall he at liberty 
 to land and re-load her cargo, without paying any duty what- 
 ever." 
 
 Aeticle IX. — (Shipwrecks.) — " If any vessel of the United 
 States shall he cast on shore on any part of our coasts, she shall 
 remain at the disposition of the owners, and no one shall at- 
 tempt going near her without their' approbation, as she is then 
 considered particularly under our protection ; and if any vessel 
 of the United States shall be forced to put into any of our ports 
 by stress of weather or otherwise, she shall not be compelled to 
 land her cargo, but shall remain in tranquillity until the com- 
 mander shall think proper to proceed on his voyage." 
 
 Article X. — (Vessels engaged within gun-shot of fort.) — " If 
 any vessel of either of the parties shall have an engagement 
 with a vessel belonging to any of the Christian Powers within 
 gun-shot of the forts of the other, the vessel so engaged 
 shall be defended and protected as much as possible until she 
 is in safety ; and if any American vessel shall be cast on shore 
 on the coast of Wadnoon, or any coast thereabout, the people 
 belonging to her shall be protected and assisted, until, by the 
 help of God, they shall be sent to their country." 
 
 Aeticle XI. — (Navigation in time of war.) — " If we shall be 
 at war with any Christian Power, and any of our vessels sail 
 from the ports of the United States, no vessel belonging to the 
 enemy shall follow until twenty-four hours after the departure 
 of our vessels ; and the same regulation shall be observed to- 
 wards the American vessels sailing from our ports, be their 
 enemies Moors or Christians." 
 
 Aeticle XII. — (Ships of war not to be examined.) — " If any 
 ship of war belonging to the United States shall put into any of 
 our ports, she shall not be examined on any pretence whatever, 
 even though she should have fugitive slaves on board, nor shall 
 the governor or commander of the place compel them to be 
 brought on shore on any pretext, nor require any payment for 
 
 them." 
 10 
 
146 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. : 
 
 Aetiole XIII. — (Ships of war to be saluted.) — « If a ship of 
 war of either party shall put into a port of the other and salute, 
 it shall be returned from the fort with an equal number of guns, 
 not with more or less." 
 
 Article XIY. — (Most favored nation.) — " The commerce with 
 the United States shall be on the same footing as is the com- 
 merce with Spain, or as that with the most favored nation for 
 the time being; and their citizens shall be re3pected and 
 esteemed, and have full liberty to pass and repass our country 
 and seaports whenever they please, without interruption." 
 
 Article XV. — (Privileges of merchants.) — "Merchants of 
 both countries shall employ only such interpreters, and such 
 other persons to assist them in their business, as they shall 
 think proper. No commander of a vessel shall transport his 
 cargo on board another vessel ; he shall not be detained in port 
 longer than he may think proper ; and all persons employed in 
 loading or unloading goods, or in any other labor whatever, 
 shall be paid at the customary rates, not more and not 
 less." 
 
 Article XYI. — (Exchange of prisoners in time of war.) — " In 
 case of a war between the parties, the prisoners are not to be 
 made slaves, but to be exchanged one for another, captain for 
 captain, of&cer for officer, and one private man for another ; and 
 if there shall prove a deficiency on either side, it shall be made 
 up by the payment of one hundred Mexican dollars for each 
 person wanting. And it is agreed that all prisoners shall be 
 exchanged in twelve months from the time of their being taken, 
 and that this exchange may be effected by a merchant or any 
 other person authorized by either of the parties." 
 
 Article XVII. — (Privileges of merchants.) — "Merchants 
 shall not be compelled to buy or sell any kind of goods but 
 such as they shall think proper ; and may buy and sell all sorts 
 of merchandise, but such as are prohibited to the other Chris- 
 tian nations." 
 
 Article XVIII. — (Goods to be examined before sent on board.) 
 — " All goods shall be weighed and examined before they are 
 sent on board, and to avoid all detention of vessels, no exam- 
 ination shall afterwards be made, unless it shall first be proved 
 that contraband goods have been sent on board, in which case 
 the persons who took the contraband goods on board shall be 
 
MOROCCO, 1787. 147 
 
 punished according to the usage and custom of the country, 
 and no other person whatever shall be injured, nor shall the ship 
 or cargo incur any penalty or damage whatever." 
 
 Article XIX. — (Vessels not to be detained.) — "No vessel 
 siiallbe detained in port on any pretence whatever, nor be 
 obliged to take on board any article without the consent of the 
 commander, who shall be at full liberty to agree for the freight 
 of any goods he takes on board." 
 
 Akticle XX. — (Settlement of disputes between Americans.) 
 — " If any of the citizens of the United States, or any persons 
 under their protection, shall have any disputes with each other, 
 the Consul shall decide between the parties, and whenever the 
 Consul shall require any aid or assistance from our Govern- 
 ment, to enforce his decisions, it shall be immediately granted 
 to him." 
 
 Aeticle XXI. — (Crimes.) — " If a citizen of the United States 
 should kill or wound a Moor, or, on the contrary, if a Moor 
 should kill or wound a citizen of the United States, the law of 
 the country shall take place, and equal justice shall be rendered 
 the Consul assisting at the trial ; and if any delinquent shall 
 make his escape, the Consul shall not be answerable for him 
 in any manner whatever." / 
 
 Aeticle XXII. — (Estates of deceased citizens.) — " If an 
 American citizen shall die in our country, and no will shall 
 appear, the Consul shall take possession of his effects ; and if 
 there shall be no Consul, the effects shall be deposited in the 
 hands of some person worthy of trust, until the party shall 
 appear who has a right to demand them ; but if the heir to the 
 person deceased be present, the property shall be delivered to 
 him without interruption ; and if a will shall appear, the prop- 
 erty shall descend agreeable to that will as soon as the Consul 
 shall declare the validity thereof. 
 
 Article XXIII. — (Consuls and their privileges.) — " The 
 Consuls of the United States of America shall reside in any 
 seaport of our dominions that they shall think proper ; and they 
 shall be respected and enjoy all the privileges which the Con- 
 suls of any other nation enjoy ; and if any of the citizens of the 
 United States shall contract any debts or engagements, the 
 Consul shall not be in any manner accountable for them, unless 
 he shall have given a promise in writing for the payment or 
 
148 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 fulfilling thereof, without which promise, im writing, no ap- 
 plication to him for any redress shall be made." 
 
 Article XXIV. — (Case of war.) — " If any differences shall 
 arise by either party infringing on any of the articles of this 
 treaty, peace and harmony shall remain notwithstanding in 
 the fullest force, until a friendly application shall be made for 
 an arrangement, and until that application shall be rejected, no 
 appeal shall be made to arms. And if a war shall break out 
 between the parties, nine months shall be granted to all the 
 subjects of both parties, to dispose of their effects and retire 
 with their property. And it is further declared, that whatever 
 indulgences, in trade or otherwise, shall be granted to any of 
 the Christian Powers, the citizens of the United States shall 
 be entitled to them." 
 
 Article XXV. — (Duration of treaty.) — " This treaty shall 
 continue in full force, with the help of God, for fifty years. 
 
 " We have delivered this book into the hands of the before- 
 mentioned Thomas Barclay, on the first day of the blessed 
 month of Ramadan, in the year one thousand two hundred. 
 
 " I certify that the annexed is a true copy of the translation 
 made by Isaac Cardoza Nuiiez, interpreter at Morocco, of, the 
 treaty between the Emperor of Morocco and the United States 
 of America. 
 
 "THOS. BARCLAY." 
 
 MOROCCO, 1880. 
 
 Convention between the United States, Atjsteia, Bel- 
 gium, Denmark, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, 
 Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden 
 AND Norway, for the Establishment of the Right of Pro- 
 tection in Morocco. 
 
 Concluded July 3, 1880. Ratifications of a majority of the signatory 
 powers exchanged at Tangiers, May 1, 1881. Ratification of the United 
 States delivered to Minister for Foreign Affairs of Morocco, March 9, 1882 ; 
 Proclaimed December 21, 1881. 
 
 Article I. — (Conditions of protection.) "The conditions 
 
MOEOCCO, 1880. 149 
 
 under which protection may be conceded are those established 
 in the British and Spanish treaties with the Government of 
 Morocco, and in the convention made between that Government, 
 France and other powers in 1863, with the modifications intro- 
 duced by the present convention." 
 
 Aeticlb II. — (Interpreters and employees of the heads of 
 legations.) — " Foreign Representatives at the head of a Lega- 
 tion may select their interpreters and employees from among 
 the subjects of Morocco or others. 
 
 " These protected persons shall be subject to no duty, im- 
 post or tax whatever, other than those stipulated in articles 12 
 and 13." 
 
 Aeticlb III. — (Consuls' employees.)^" Consuls, Vice-consuls 
 or Consular Agents having charge of a post, and residing 
 within the territory of the Sultan of Morocco, shall be allowed 
 to select but one interpreter, one soldier and two servants from 
 among the subjects of the Sultan, unless they may require a 
 native secretary. 
 
 " These protected persons shall, in like manner, be subject to 
 no duty, impost or tax whatever, other than those stipulated 
 in articles 12 and 13." 
 
 Aeticlb IV. — (Subjects of Morocco as United States Con- 
 sular agents). — " If a Representative shall appoint a subject of 
 the Sultan to the office of Consular Agent in a town on the 
 coast, such agent shall be respected and honored, as shall the 
 members of his family occupying the same dwelling with him, 
 and they, like him, shall be subject to no duty, impost or tax 
 whatever, other than those stipulated in articles 12 and 13 ; 
 but he shall not have the right to protect any subjects of the 
 Sultan other than the members of his own family. 
 
 " He may, however, for the exercise of his functions, have a 
 protected soldier. 
 
 " Officers in acting charge of Vice Consulates being subjects 
 of the Sultan, shall, during the exercise of their functions, en- 
 joy the same rights as Consular Agents who are subjects of 
 the Sultan." 
 
 Aeticlb V. — (Rights of diplomatic officers ; civil suits ; per- 
 sons under prosecution for offences). — "The Government of 
 Morocco recognizes the right of Ministers, Charges d' Affaires 
 and other Representatives, which is granted to them by treaties 
 
150 TREATIES AST) CONVENTIONS. 
 
 to select the persons whom they employ, either in their own 
 service or that of their governments, unless such persons shall 
 he sheiks or other employees of the Government of Morocco, 
 such as soldiers of the line or of the cavalry, excepting the 
 Maghaznias appointed as their guard. In like manner they 
 shall not be permitted to employ any subject of Morocco who 
 is under prosecution. 
 
 " It is understood that civil suits commenced before protec- 
 tion, shall be terminated before the courts which have insti- 
 tuted such proceedings. The execution of the sentence shall 
 suffer no hindrance. Nevertheless, the local authorities of 
 Morocco, shall take care to communicate, without delay, the 
 sentence pronounced, to the Legation, Consulate or Consular 
 Agency upon which the protected person is dependent. 
 
 " As to those persons formerly protected, who may have a 
 suit which was commenced before protection was withdrawn 
 from them, their case shall be tried by the court before which 
 it was originally brought. 
 
 " The right of protection shall not be exercised towards per- 
 sons under prosecution for an offence or crime, before they 
 have been tried by the authorities of the country, or before 
 their sentence, if any has been pronounced, has been executed." 
 
 Article YI. — (Protection extends to family.) — "Protection 
 shall extend to the family of the person protected. His dwell- 
 ing shall be respected. 
 
 " It is understood that the family is to consist only of the 
 wife, the children, and the minor relatives dwelling under the 
 same roof. 
 
 " Protection shall not be hereditary. A single exception, 
 which was established by the convention of 1863, but which is 
 not to create a precedent, shall be maintained in favor of the 
 Benchimol family. 
 
 " Nevertheless, if the Sultan of Morocco shall grant another 
 exception, each of the contracting powers shall be entitled to 
 claim a similar concession." 
 
 Article VII. — (Foreign representatives to furnish names of 
 persons protected by them.) — "Foreign representatives shall 
 inform the Sultan's Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in writing, of 
 any selections of an employee made by them. 
 
 " They shall furnish annually to the said Minister a list of 
 
MOROCCO, 1880. 151 
 
 the names of the persons protected by them or by their Agents 
 throughout the States of the Sultan of Morocco. 
 
 " This list shall be transmitted to the local authorities, who 
 shall consider as persons enjoying protection only those whose 
 names are contained therein." 
 
 Aeticlb VIII. — (Consular officers to furnish names of per- 
 sons protected by them.) — " Consular officers shall transmit 
 each year to the authorities of the district in which they 
 reside a list, bearing their seal, of the persons protected by 
 them. These authorities shall transmit it to the Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs, to the end that, if it be not conformable to 
 the regulations, the Representatives at Tangier may be in- 
 formed of the fact. 
 
 "A consular officer shall be required to give immediate 
 information of any changes that may have taken place among 
 the persons protected by his Consulate." 
 
 Article IX. — (Certain persons not protected; Crimes.) — 
 " Servants, farmers and other native employees of native sec- 
 retaries and interpreters shall not enjoy protection. The same 
 shall be the case with Moorish employees or servants of foreign 
 subjects. 
 
 " Nevertheless, the local authorities shall not arrest an em- 
 ployee or servant of a native officer in the service of a Legation 
 or Consulate, or of a foreign subject or protected person, 
 without having notified the authority upon which he is de- 
 pendent. 
 
 " If a subject of Morocco in the service of a foreign subject 
 shall kill or wound any person, or violate his domicile, he shall 
 be arrested immediately, but the diplomatic or consular au- 
 thority under which he is shall be notified without delay." 
 
 Article X. — (Brokers.) — " Nothing is changed with regard 
 to the situation of brokers,- as established by the treaties and 
 by the convention of 1863, except what is stipulated, relative to 
 taxes, in the following articles." 
 
 Article XI. — (Privileges of foreigners in Morocco in regard 
 to property.) — " The right to hold property is recognized in 
 Morocco as belonging to all foreigners. 
 
 " The purchase of property must take place with the previous 
 consent of the Government, and the title of such property shall 
 be subject to the forms prescribed by the laws of the country. 
 
152 TEEATIES AND CONVEKTIONS. 
 
 "Any question that may arise concerning this right shall 
 be decided according to the same laws, with the privilege of 
 appeal to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stipulated in the 
 treaties." 
 
 Article XII. — (Agricultural tax.) — "Foreigners and pro- 
 tected persons who are the owners or tenants of cultivated land, 
 as well as brokers engaged in agriculture, shall pay the agricul- 
 tural tax. They shall send to their Consul annually, an exact 
 statement of what they possess delivering into his hands the 
 amount of the tax. 
 
 " He who shall make a false statement, shall be fined double 
 the amount of the tax that he would regularly have been 
 obliged to pay for the property not declared. In case of re- 
 peated offense this fine shall be' doubled. 
 
 " The nature, method, date and apportionment of this tax 
 shall form the subject of a special regulation between the Rep- 
 resentatives of the Powers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs 
 of His Shereeflan Majesty." 
 
 Article XIII.— (Gate-tax.) — "Foreigners, protected persons 
 and brokers owning beasts of burden shall pay what is called 
 the gate-tax. The apportionment and the manner of collect- 
 ing this tax which is paid alike by foreigners and natives, shall 
 likewise form the subject of a special regulation between the 
 Representatives of the Powers and the Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs of His Shereeflan Majesty. 
 
 " The said tax shall not be increased without a new agree- 
 ment with the Representatives of the Powers." 
 
 Article XIV. — (Mediation of offlcers of legations and con- 
 sulates.) — ." The mediation of interpreters, native secretaries or 
 soldiers of the different Legations or Consulates, when persons 
 who are not under the protection of the Legation or Consulate 
 are concerned shall be admitted only when they are the bearers 
 of a document signed by the head of a mission or by the con- 
 sular authority." 
 
 Article XV. — (Return of a subject of Morocco who has been 
 naturalized in a foreign country.) — " Any subject of Morocco 
 who has been naturalized in a foreign country, and who shall 
 return to Morocco, shall after having remained for a length of 
 time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary 
 for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire 
 
MOBOcco, 1880. 153 
 
 submission to the laws of the Empire and the obligation to 
 quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturalization 
 in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the 
 Government of Morocco. 
 
 " Foreign naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of 
 Morocco according to the rules established by the laws of each 
 country, shall be continued to them as regards all its effects, 
 without any restriction." 
 
 Aetiole XVI. — (No irregular or unofficial protection ; pro- 
 tection under certain cases.) — " No irregular or unofficial pro- 
 tection shall be granted in future. The authorities of Mo- 
 rocco will recognize no protection, of any kind whatever, save 
 such as expressly provided for in this convention. 
 
 " Nevertheless, the exercise of the customary right of protec- 
 tion shall be reserved for those cases only in which it may be 
 desired to reward signal services rendered by a native of Mo- 
 rocco to a foreign power, or for other altogether exceptional 
 reasons. 
 
 " The Minister of Foreign Affairs at Tangier shall be previ- 
 ously informed of the nature of the services, and notified of the 
 intention to reward them, in order that he may, if need be, pre- 
 sent his observations thereon ; yet the final decision shall be 
 reserved for the Government to which the service shall have 
 been rendered. 
 
 " The number of persons thus protected shall not exceed 
 twelve for each power, and this number is fixed as the maxi- 
 mum iinless the consent of the Sultan shall be obtained. 
 
 " The status of persons who have obtained protection in virtue 
 of the custom which is henceforth to be regulated by this stip- 
 ulation shall be without limitation of the number of persons 
 belonging to this class and now so protected, the same for 
 themselves and their families as that which is established for 
 other protected persons." 
 
 Aetiole XVII. — (Most favored nation.) — " The right to the 
 treatment of the most favored nation is recognized by Morocco 
 as belonging to all the powers represented at the Madrid con- 
 ference." 
 
 Aeticlb XVIII. — (Ratifications.) — " This convention shall be 
 ratified. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Tangier with 
 as little delay as possible. 
 
154 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 " By exceptional consent of the high contracting parties the 
 stipulations of this convention shall take, effect on the day on 
 which it is signed at Madrid. 
 
 "In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have 
 signed this convention, and have thereunto afBxed the seals of 
 their arms. 
 
 " Done at Madrid, in thirteen originals, this third day of July, 
 one thousand eight hundred and eighty. 
 
 "LUCIUS FAIRCHILD, 
 " on the part of the United States." ^ 
 
 ' Before the revolutionary war England had protected in the Mediter- 
 ranean, the commerce of her American colonies. During the war the 
 United States had sought to procure the assistance of France to the same 
 end ; the latter country, however, promised only to employ her good 
 offices, etc. After the peace, vessels of the United States were exposed 
 undefended to the depredations of the Barbary pirates. The European 
 States paid tribute to these corsairs, and the question arose whether the 
 United States should do the same. " It rests with Congress," said Jef- 
 ferson, " to decide between war, tribute, and ransom, as the means of 
 establishing our Mediterranean commerce.'' In May, 1784, Congress 
 gave full authority to Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, to negotiate 
 treaties of amity and commerce with the Barbary powers, and in the 
 following year they were authorized to send agents to those courts, pro- 
 vided the whole expense did not exceed 80,000 dollars. Barclay, who 
 was sent to Morocco, succeeded in concluding the treaty given above 
 This treaty was renewed, when about to expire, for another period of 
 fifty years. 
 
 Algiers. — In 1785, two American vessels were captured by Algerine 
 cruisers, and their crews, twenty-one in number, reduced to slavery. In 
 1791, fourteen of these persons were stiU in captivity, and the govern- 
 ment, the next year, began active measures for their release. But by 
 the capture of ten American vessels in 1793, the number of captives was 
 increased to one hundred and fifteen. And when the treaty with 
 Algiers was finally concluded, September 5, 1795, it had cost the United 
 States in ransoms, presents, and expenses |993,436.25, besides, for the 
 futui-e, a tribute of |21,600 a year in naval stores, $20,000 on the presenta- 
 tion of a consul, and biennial preseilts to the officers of the government, 
 estimated at $17,500. (See Schuyler's "American Diplomacy," p. 213.) 
 
 In 1815, the United States declared war against Algiers, and sent a 
 naval squadron to the Mediterranean. The Dey was compelled to con- 
 clude a treaty, by the 2d article of which tribute of all kinds was abol- 
 ished. 
 
 T-KIPOIJ;. — ^A treaty was concluded with Tripoli, in 1796, similar to that 
 
CHINA, 1844. 156 
 
 CHINA, 1844. 
 
 Teeatt of Peace, Amity and Commbece. 
 
 Concluded July 3, 1844. Eatifications exchanged December 31, 1845. 
 Proclaimed April 18, 1846. 
 
 [This first treaty with China followed the forcible opening 
 of certain ports of that Empire by the united efforts of Great 
 Britain and France. The five ports opened to the commerce of 
 the United States were Kwang-chow, Amoy, Fuchow, Ningpo, 
 and Shanghai. This treaty was superseded by that of 1858.] 
 
 with Algiers, except that the cost was less — $56,000 — and tribute was not 
 provided for. The 11th article of this treaty is peculiar. " As the 
 government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded 
 on the Christian reUgion ; as it has, in itself, no character of enmity 
 against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Mi;isselmen ; and as the said 
 States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any 
 Mahometan nation ; it is declared, by the parties, that no pretext arising 
 fr6m any religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the 
 harmony existing between the two countries." 
 
 The Bashaw became discontented, and continued to demand more 
 money, and finally declared war against the United States. In 1802 Con- 
 gress recognized the existence of war with Tripoli, and a naval force 
 was sent to the Mediterranean and the TripoUtan war followed. A treaty 
 was concluded, June 4, 1805, the United States paying |60,000 for the 
 ransom of prisoners. 
 
 Tunis. — A treaty with Tunis was concluded, in August, 1797, at a cost 
 of $107,000. This treaty was somewhat altered by a convention of 
 1834. 
 
 Remakes. — On the 80th of July, 1802, the Secretary of the Treasury 
 stated that the expenditures to re-establish and support our commerce in 
 the Mediterranean had reached the sum of $2,046,137.22. This was be- 
 fore the Tripolitan war. Tribute was moreover continued for some years 
 longer to Algiers. 
 
 See on the subject of the Barbary States ; Bancroft Davis' Notes : Ly- 
 man's "Diplomacy of the United States," II., 335 ; Schuyler's "Amer- 
 ican Diplomacy," 193. 
 
156 lEBATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 CHINA, 1858. 
 
 Teeatt of Pbacb, Amity and Commeecb, 
 
 Concluded June 18, 1858. Ratifications exchanged at Pehtang, August 16, 
 1859. Proclaimed January 26, 1860. 
 
 Article I. — Declaration of amity. 
 
 Akticlb II. — The original treaty, as ratified by the President 
 of the United States, shall be deposited at Pekin, in charge of 
 the Privy Council ; and as ratified by the Emperor of China, 
 shall be deposited at Washington, in charge of the Secretary 
 of State. 
 
 Article III. — Promulgation of treaty. 
 
 Article IV. — The Minister of the United States " shall at all 
 times have the right to correspond on terms of perfect equality 
 and confidence with the oflcers of the Privy Council at the 
 Capital, or with the Governors- General of the Two Kwangs, or 
 of the " Two Kiangs." 
 
 Article V. — (Formalities to be observed by Ministers of the 
 United States ; residence and suite of United States Ministers.) — 
 " The Minister of the United States of America in China, when- 
 ever he has business, shall have the right to visit and sojourn 
 at the capital of His Majesty the Emperor of China, and there 
 confer with a member of the Privy Council, or any other high 
 ofBcer of equal rank deputed for that purpose, on matters of 
 common interest and advantage. His visits shall not exceed 
 one in each year, and he shall complete his business without 
 unnecessary delay. He shall be allowed to go by land or come 
 to the mouth of the Peiho, into which he shall not bring ships 
 of war, and he shall inform the authorities at that place in order 
 that boats may be provided for him to go on his journey. He 
 is not to take advantage of this stipulation to request visits to 
 the capital on trivial occasions. Whenever he means to proceed 
 to the capital, he shall communicate, in writing, his intention to 
 the Board of Rites at the capital, and thereupon the said Board 
 
CHINA, 1858. 157 
 
 shall give the necessary directions to facilitate his journey and 
 give him necessary protection and respect on his way. On his 
 arrival at the capital he shall be furnished with a suitable res- 
 idence prepared for him, and he shall defray his own expenses ; 
 and his entire suite shall not exceed twenty persons, exclusive 
 of his Chinese attendants, none of whom shall be engaged in 
 trade." 
 
 Article VI. — Most favored nation principle to be applied 
 to the privileges of the United States Minister. 
 
 Article VII. — Forms of communication between officers of 
 the two nations. No presents shall ever be demanded. 
 
 Article VIII. — Rules as to personal intercourse between 
 the representatives of the two nations. 
 
 Article IX. — The vessels of the United States shall enjoy 
 all suitable facilities for procuring supplies, &c., in Chinese 
 open ports. And if attacked by pirates, the national vessels of 
 the United States may pursue the pirates, and if captured, 
 deliver them over for trial and punishment. 
 
 Article V. — (Privileges of United States Consuls in China.) 
 — "The United States of America shall have the right to 
 appoint Consuls and other Commercial Agents for the protection 
 of trade, to reside at such places in the dominions of China as 
 shall be agreed to be opened ; who shall hold official intercourse 
 and correspondence with the local officers of the Chinese Govern- 
 ment (a Consul or a Vice-Consul in charge taking rank with 
 an Intendant of circuit or a Prefect), either personally or in 
 writing, as occasions may require, on terms of equality and 
 reciprocal respect. And the Consuls and local officers shall 
 employ the style of mutual communication. If the officers of 
 either nation are disrespectfully treated or aggrieved in anyway 
 by the other authorities, they have the right to make represen- 
 tation of the same to the superior officers of the respective 
 Governments, who shall see that full inquiry and strict justice 
 shall be had in the premises. And the said Consuls and Agents 
 shall carefully avoid all acts of offence to the officers and people 
 of China. On the arrival of a Consul duly accredited at any port 
 in China, it shall be the duty of the Minister of the United 
 States to notify the same to the Governor-General of the prov- 
 ince where such port is, who shall forthwith recognize the said 
 Consul and grant him authority to act." 
 
158 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Aeticle XI.— (Privileges of United States citizens in China.) 
 — " All citizens of the United States of America in China, peace- 
 ably attending to their affairs, being placed on a common 
 footing of amity and good will with the subjects of China, 
 shall receive and enjoy for themselves and everything appertain- 
 ing to them, the protection of the local authorities of Govern- 
 ment, who shall defend them from all insult or injury of any 
 sort. If their dwellings or property be threatened or attacked 
 by mobs, incendiaries, or other violent or lawless persons, the 
 local ofB-cers, on requisition of the Consul, shall immediately 
 despatch a military force to disperse the rioters, apprehend the 
 guilty individuals, and punish them with the utmost rigor of 
 the law. Subjects of China guilty of any criminal act towards 
 citizens of the United States shall be punished by the Chinese 
 authorities according to the laws of China ; and citizens of the 
 United States, either on shore or in any merchant vessel, who 
 may insult, trouble, or wound the persons or injure the prop- 
 erty of Chinese, or commit any other improper act in China, 
 shall be punished only by the Consul or other public function- 
 ary thereto authorized, according to the laws of the United 
 States. Arrests in order to trial may be made by either the 
 Chinese or the United States authorities." 
 
 Aeticle XII. — (Privileges of citizens of the United States 
 residing at open ports.) — " Citizens of the United States, re- 
 siding or sojourning at any of the ports open to foreign com- 
 merce, shall be permitted to rent houses and places of business, 
 or hire sites on which they can themselves build houses or 
 hospitals, churches and cemeteries. The parties interested can 
 fix the rent by mutual and equitable agreement ; the proprie- 
 tors shall not demand an exorbitant price, nor shall the local 
 authorities interfere, unless there be some objections offered on 
 the part of the inhabitants respecting the place. The legal 
 fees to the oflficers for applying their seal shall be paid. The 
 citizens of the United States shall not unreasonably insist on 
 particular spots, but each party shall conduct with justice and 
 moderation. Any desecration of the cemeteries by natives of 
 China shall be severely punished according to law. At the 
 places where the ships of the United States anchor, or their 
 citizens reside, the merchants, seamen or others, can freely 
 
CHINA, 1858. 159 
 
 pass and repass in the immediate neighborhood ; but, in order 
 to the preservation of the public peace, they shall not go into 
 the country to the Tillages and marts to sell their goods unlaw- 
 fully, in fraud of the revenue." 
 
 Article XIII. — United States vessels wrecked or stranded 
 on the Chinese coast are to be protected. Such vessels shall 
 also be as far as possible protected from the depredations of 
 pirates. 
 
 Abticle XIV. — (Designation of open ports.) — " The citizens 
 of the United States are permitted to frequent the ports and 
 cities of Canton and Chau-chaii or Swatau, in the province of 
 Kwang-tung, Amoy, Fuh-chau, and Tai-wan, in Formosa, in the 
 province of Fuh-kien, Ningpo, in the province of Cheh-kiang, 
 and Shanghai, in the province of Kiang-su, and any other port 
 or place hereafter by treaty with other powers or with the 
 United States opened to commerce, and to reside with their 
 families and trade there, and to proceed at pleasure with their 
 vessels and merchandise from any of these ports to any other 
 of them. But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine and 
 fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to be 
 legal, or along the coasts thereof ; and any vessel under the 
 American flag violating this provision, shall, with her cargo, 
 be subject to confiscation to the Chinese Government ; and any 
 citizen of the United States who shall trade in any contraband 
 article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt with by the 
 Chinese Government without being entitled to any countenance 
 or protection from that of the United States ; and the United 
 States will take measures to prevent their flag from being abused 
 by the subjects of other nations as a cover for the violation of 
 the laws of the empire." 
 
 Aeticlb XV. — (Commerce at open ports — TarifE of duties.) — 
 " At each of the ports open to commerce citizens of the United 
 States shall be permitted to import from abroad, and sell, pur- 
 chase and export all merchandise of which the importation or 
 exportation is not prohibited by the laws of the empire. The 
 tariff of duties to be paid by citizens of the United States, on 
 the export and import of goods from and into China, shall be 
 the same as was agreed upon at the treaty of Wanghia, except 
 so far as it may be modified by treaties with other nations ; it 
 being expressly agreed that citizens of the United States shall 
 
160 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 never pay higher duties than those paid by the most favored 
 nation." 
 
 Article XVI. — Certain tonnage duties to be paid by Ameri- 
 can vessels. 
 
 Article XVII. — Citizens of the United States shall be 
 allowed to engage pilots, servants, and teachers. 
 
 Aeticle XVIII. — Customs ofBcers may be stationed on board 
 United States vessels in Chinese ports. Deserters from such 
 vessels shall be returned, Chinese criminals are not to take 
 refuge on American vessels. 
 
 Article XIX.— Papers of vessels of the United States cast- 
 ing anchor in Chinese harbors must be deposited with Consul 
 within forty-eight hours. Permits to land cargo — Tonnage 
 duties, due after said forty-eight hours. 
 
 Article XX. — Customs examinations in case of dispute to 
 be made by Consul and Superintendent of Customs. 
 
 Article XXI. — Re-exportation of goods permitted. 
 
 Article XXII. and XXIII. — Regulations for the payment 
 of tonnage and customs duties, and transshipment of goods. 
 
 Article XXIV. — Regulation for the collection of debts ; 
 resort had to Consul. Neither government shall be held re- 
 sponsible. 
 
 Article XXV. — Liberty to employ Chinese teachers. 
 
 Article XXVI. — (Treatment of United States vessels in 
 time of war between China and another power — ^Privileges 
 only to be enjoyed by preserving strict neutrality.) — "Rela- 
 tions of peace and amity between, the United States and China 
 being established by this treaty, and the vessels of the United 
 States being admitted to trade freely to and from the ports 
 of China open to foreign commerce, it is further agreed that, in 
 case at any time hereafter China should be at war with any 
 foreign nation whatever, and should for that cause exclude 
 such nation from entering her ports, still the vessels of the 
 United States shall not the less continue to pursue their com- 
 merce in freedom and security, and to transport goods to and 
 from the ports of the belligerent powers, full respect being paid 
 to the neutrality of the flag of the United States, provided that 
 the said flag shall not protect vessels engaged in the transport- 
 ation of ofiBcers or soldiers in the enemy's service, nor shall 
 said flag be fraudulently used to enable the enemy's ships, with 
 
CHINA, 1858. 161 
 
 their cargoes, to enter the ports of China ; but all such vessels 
 so offending shall be subject to forfeiture and confiscation to 
 the Chinese Government." 
 
 Article XXVII. — (Jurisdiction in questions of rights of 
 propierty and persons.) — " All questions in regard to rights, 
 whether of property or person, arising between citizens of the 
 United States in China shall be subject to the jurisdiction and 
 regulated by the authorities of their own Government ; and all 
 controversies occurring in China between citizens of the United 
 States and the subjects of any other government shall be reg- 
 ulated by the treaties existing between the United States and 
 such Governments, respectively, without interference on the 
 part of China." 
 
 Article XXVIII. — (Communications between citizens of the 
 United States and Chinese local officers.) — " If citizens of the 
 United States have special occasion to address any communica- 
 tion to the Chinese local officers of Government, they shall sub- 
 mit the same to their Consul or other officer, to determine if 
 the language be proper and respectful, and the matter just and 
 right, in which event he shall transmit the same to the appro- 
 priate authorities for their consideration and action in the prem- 
 ises. If subjects of China have occasion to address the Con- 
 sul of the United States, they may address him directly at the 
 same time they inform their own officers, representing the case 
 for his consideration and action in the premises ; and if contro- 
 versies aiise between citizens of the United States and subjects 
 of China, which cannot be amicably settled otherwise, the 
 same shall be examined and decided conformably to justice and 
 equity by the public officers of the two nations, acting in con- 
 junction. The extortion of illegal fees is expressly prohibited. 
 Any peaceable persons are allowed to enter the court in order 
 to interpret, lest injustice be done." 
 
 Article XXIX. — Religious freedom granted to citizens of 
 the United States in China. 
 
 Article XXX. — Most favored nation privileges in commerce 
 na,vigation, and political rights secured to the United States, 
 
 The treaty is to be ratified within one year. 
 
 "Done at Tien-tsin this eighteenth day of June, in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, and 
 the Independence of the United States of America the eighty- 
 11 
 
162 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 second, and in the eighth year of Hien-fung, fifth month, and 
 eighth day. 
 
 "WILLIAM B. REED. 
 
 "KNEILIANG. 
 
 "HWASHAJSTA." 
 
 CHINA, 1868. 
 
 Treaty con^cbrning Trade, Constils, Religious Toleration 
 AND Emigration, being Additional Articles to the Treaty 
 op June 18, 1858. 
 
 Concluded July 28, 1868. Eatiflcations exchanged at Pekin, November 
 23, 1869. Proclaimed February 5, 1870. 
 
 Article I. — Treatment of citizens in time of war. 
 
 Article III. — China may appoint Consuls. 
 
 Article V. — (Voluntary emigration of Chinese only per- 
 mitted.) — " The United States of America and the Emperor of 
 China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of 
 man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual 
 advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens 
 and subjects respectively, from the one country to the other for 
 purposes of curiosity, of trade or as permanent residents. The 
 high contracting parties therefore join in reprobating any other 
 than an entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes . They 
 consequently agree to pass laws making it a penal offence for 
 a citizen of- the United States or Chinese subjects to take 
 Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any other 
 foreign country, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United 
 States to take citizens of the United States to China or to any 
 other foreign country without their free and voluntary consent, 
 respectively." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Citizens of the United States are not to in- 
 tervene in the affairs of the Chinese Government.) — "The 
 United States, always disclaiming and discouraging all prac- 
 tices of unnecessary dictation and intervention by one nation in 
 the affairs or domestic administration of another, do hereby 
 
CHINA, 1880. 163 
 
 freely disclaim and disavow any intention or right to intervene 
 in the domestic administration of China in regard to the con- 
 struction of railroads, telegraphs or other material internal im- 
 provements. On the other hand. His Majesty the Emperor of 
 China reserves to himself the right to decide the time and 
 manner and circumstances of introducing such improvements 
 within his dominions. With this mutual understanding, it is 
 agreed by the contracting parties that if at any time hereafter 
 His Imperial Majesty shall determine to construct or cause to 
 be constructed works of the character mentioned, within the 
 empire, and shall make application to the United States or any 
 other western power for facilities to carry out that policy, the 
 United States will, in that case, designate and authorize suit- 
 able engineers to be employed by the Chinese Government, and 
 wUl recommend to other nations an equal compliance with such 
 application, the Chinese Government in that case protecting 
 such engineers in their persons and property and paying them 
 I a reasonable compensation for their service. 
 
 " Done at Washington the twenty-eighth day of July, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty -eight. 
 
 "WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 "ANSON BURLINGAME. 
 "CHIN-KANG.. 
 « SUN CHIA-KU." 
 
 CHINA, 1880. • 
 
 Teeatt Regulating Chinese Immigration into the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Concluded November 17, 1880. Ratifications exchanged at Pekin, July 
 19, 1881. Proclaimed October 5, 1881. 
 
 " Whereas, in the eighth year of Hsien Feng, Anno Domini 
 1858, a treaty of peace and friendship was concluded between 
 the United States of America and China, and to which were 
 added, in the seventh year of Tung Chih, Anno Domini 1868, 
 certain supplementary articles to the advantage of both parties, 
 
164 TREATIES AMD CONVENTIONS. 
 
 which supplementary articles were to be perpetually observed 
 and obeyed : — and 
 
 " "Whereas the GoTernment of the United States, because of 
 the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers to 
 the territory of the United States, and the embarrassments 
 consequent upon such immigration, now desires to negotiate a 
 modification of the existing Treaties which shall not be in direct 
 contravention of their spirit : " 
 
 Akticlb I. — (Limitation and suspension of immigration of 
 Chinese laborers.) — " Whenever in the opinion of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to 
 the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens 
 to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good 
 order of the said country or of any locality within the territory 
 thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government 
 of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such com- 
 ing or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. . The limi- 
 tation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only 
 to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other 
 classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken 
 in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only 
 as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspen- 
 sion of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to 
 personal maltreatment or abuse." 
 
 Article II. — (Privileges of Chinese subjects in the United 
 States.) — " Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United 
 States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, to- 
 gether with their body and household servants, and Chinese 
 laborers who are now in the United States, shall be allowed to 
 go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be 
 accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions 
 which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most 
 favored nation." 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Treatment of the Chinese in the United 
 States.) — " If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, 
 now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory 
 of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of 
 any other persons, the Government of the United States mil 
 exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and 
 to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and 
 
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1875. 165 
 
 exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of 
 the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by 
 treaty." 
 
 Aeticlb IV. — (Mitigation of hardships of Chinese to be ef- 
 fected by United States Government.) — " The high contracting 
 Powers having agreed upon the foregoing articles, whenever 
 the Government of the United States shall adopt legislative 
 measures in accordance therewith, such measures will be com- 
 municated to the Government of China. If the measures as 
 enacted are found to work hardship upon the subjects of China, 
 the Chinese Minister at "Washington may bring the matter to 
 the notice of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will 
 consider the subject with him ; and the Chinese Foreign OfBce 
 may also bring the matter to the notice of the United States 
 Minister at Pekin and consider the subject with him, to the 
 end that mutual and unqualified benefit may result. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
 and sealed the foregoing at Pekin in English and Chinese, being 
 three originals of each text of even tenor and date, the ratifica- 
 tions of which shall be exchanged at Pekin within one year 
 from date of its execution. 
 
 " Done at Pekin, this seventeenth day of November, in the 
 year of our Lord 1880. Kuangsii, sixth year, tenth moon, fif- 
 teenth day. 
 
 "JAMES B.AKGELL. 
 « JOHN F. SWIFT. 
 "WM. HENRY TRESCOT. 
 "PAO CHUN. 
 "LIHUNGTSAO." 
 
 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1875. 
 
 Convention bespbcting Commeeciai. Recipeocitt. 
 
 Concluded January 30, 1875. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 June 3, 1875. . Proclaimed June 8, 1875. 
 
 « The United States of America and His Majesty the King 
 of the Hawaiian Islands, equally animated by the desire to 
 
166 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 strengthen and perpetuate the friendly relations which have 
 heretofore uniformly existed between them, and to consolidate 
 their commericial intercourse, have resolved to enter into a 
 Convention for Commercial Reciprocity." 
 
 Article I. — (Hawaiian products to be admitted free of duty.) 
 — " For and in consideration of the rights and privileges grant- 
 ed by His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands in the next 
 succeeding article of this convention and as an equivalent 
 therefor, the United States of America agree to admit all the 
 articles named in the following schedule, the same being the 
 growth and manufacture or produce of the Hawaiian Islands, 
 into all the ports of the United States free of duty. 
 
 "Arrow-root; castor oil; bananas, nuts, vegetables, dried, 
 and undried, preserved and unpreserved ; hides and skins un- 
 dressed ; rice ; pulu ; seeds, plants, shrubs or trees ; musco- 
 vado, brown, and all other unrefined sugar, meaning hereby 
 the grades of sugar heretofore commonly imported from the 
 Hawaiian Islands and now known in the markets of San Fran- 
 cisco and Portland as ' Sandwich Island sugar,' syrups of sugar- 
 cane, melado, and molasses ; tallow." 
 
 Aeticlb II. — (American products to be admitted free of 
 duty.) — " For and in consideration of the rights and privileges 
 granted by the United States of America in the preceding ar- 
 ticle of this convention, and as an equivalent therefor. His Maj- 
 esty, the King of the Hawaiian Islands hereby agrees to admit 
 all the articles named in the following schedule, the same be- 
 ing the growth, manufacture or produce of the United States 
 of America, into all the ports of the Hawaiian Islands, free of 
 duty : — 
 
 " Agricultural implements ; animals ; beef, bacon, pork, ham 
 and all fresh, smoked or preserved meats ; boots and shoes ; 
 grain, flour, meal,. and bran, bread and breadstuff s, of all kinds ; 
 bricks, lime, and cement ; butter, cheese, lard, tallow, bullion ; 
 coal ; cordage, naval stores, including tar, pitch, resin, turpen- 
 tine raw and rectified; copper and composition sheathing; 
 nails and bolts ; cotton and manufactures of cotton bleached, 
 and unbleached, and whether or not colored, stained, painted 
 or printed; eggs; fish and oysters, and all other creatures 
 Uving in the water, and the products thereof; fruits, nuts, 
 and vegetables, green, dried or undried, preserved or unpre- 
 
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1875. 167 
 
 served ; hardware ; hides, furs, skins and pelts, dressed or un- 
 dressed ; hoop iron, and rivets, nails, spikes and bolts, tacks, 
 brads or sprigs ; ice, iron and steel and manufactures thereof ; 
 leather ; lumber and timber of all kinds, round, hewpd, sawed, 
 and unmanufactured in whole or in part; doors, sashes and 
 blinds ; machinery of all kinds, engines and 'parts thereof; oats 
 and hay ; 'paper, stationery and books, and all manufactures of 
 paper or of paper and wood ; petroleum and all oils for lubricat- 
 ing or illuminating purposes ; plants, shrubs, trees and seeds ; 
 rice ; sugar, refined or unrefined ; salt ; soap ; shooks, staves, 
 and headings ; wool and manufactures of wool, other than 
 ready-made clothing ; wagons and carts, for the purposes of 
 agriculture or of drayage ; wood and manufactures of wood 
 or of wood and metal except furniture either upholstered or 
 carved and carriages ; textile manufactures, made of a com- 
 bination of wool, cotton, silk or linen, or of any two or more of 
 them other than when ready-made clothing ; harness and all 
 manufactures of leather ; starch ; and tobacco ; whether in leaf 
 or manufactured." 
 
 Article III. — (Evidence as to growth and manufacture 
 how established.) — " The evidence that articles proposed to be 
 admitted into the ports of the United States of America, or the 
 ports of the Hawaiian Islands, free of duty, under the first 
 and second articles of this convention, are the growth, manu- 
 facture or produce of the United States of America or of the 
 Hawaiian Islands respectively, shall be established under such 
 rules and regulations and conditions for the protection of the 
 revenue as the two Governments may from time to time 
 respectively prescribe." 
 
 ' Aeticlb 1Y. — (No export duty to be imposed on free arti- 
 cles — No lease of Hawaiian ports, and no other nation to have 
 same privileges as the United States.) — " No export duty or 
 charges shall be imposed in the Hawaiian Islands or in the 
 United States, upon any of the articles proposed to be admit- 
 ted into the ports of the United States or the ports of the 
 Hawaiian Islands free of duty, under the first and second ar- 
 ticles of this convention. It is agreed, on the part of His 
 Hawaiian Majesty, that, so long as this treaty shall remain in 
 force, he will not lease or otherwise dispose of or create any 
 lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in his dominions, 
 
168 TEEATIES AND CONTENTIONS. 
 
 or grant any special privilege or rights of use therein, to any 
 other power, state or government, nor make any treaty by 
 which any other nation shall obtain the same privileges, rela- 
 tive to the admission of any articles free of duty, hereby 
 secured to the United States." 
 
 Article V. — (Duration of convention.) — "The present con- 
 vention shall take effect as soon as it shall have been approved 
 and proclaimed by His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian 
 Islands, and shall have been ratified and duly proclaimed on 
 the part of the Government of the United States, but not ilntil 
 a law to carry it into operation shall have been passed by the 
 Congress of the United States of America. Such assent having 
 been given and the ratifications of the convention having been 
 exchanged as provided in article VI. the convention shall re- 
 main in force for seven years, from the date at which it may 
 come into operation ; and further, until the expiration of twelve 
 months after either of the high contracting parties shall give 
 notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same ; each of 
 the high contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice 
 to the other at the end of the said term of seven years, or at 
 any time thereafter." 
 
 Aeticlb VI. — (Ratifications.) — " The present convention shall 
 be duly ratified, and the ratifications exchanged at Washington 
 city, within eighteen months from the date hereof, or earlier if 
 possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries of the high 
 contracting parties have signed this present convention, and 
 have affixed thereto their respective seals. 
 
 " Done in duplicate, at Washington, the thirtieth day of Jan- 
 uary, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and 
 Beventy-fl.vt5. 
 
 "HAMILTON FISH. 
 
 "ELISHAH. ALLEN. 
 
 "HENRY A, P. CAETER." 
 
HAWAHAIir ISLANDS, 1884. 169 
 
 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1884. 
 
 Contention Extending the Diteation op the Teeatt op 
 1875 ; AND Granting a Coaling Station to the United 
 States. 
 
 Concluded December 6, 1884. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 November 9, 1887. Proclaimed November 9, 1887. 
 
 Aeticle I. — (Duration of the convention of January 30, 1875, 
 extended.) — " The High Contracting Powers agree, that the time 
 fixed for the duration of the said convention, shall be definitely 
 extended for a term of seven years from the date of the exchange 
 of ratifications hereof, and further, until the expiration of 
 twelve months after either of the High Contracting Powers 
 shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, 
 each of the High Contracting Powers heing at liberty to give 
 such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven 
 years or at any time thereafter." 
 
 Akticle II. — (Right to establish a coaling station.) — " His Ma- 
 jesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government 
 of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of 
 Pearl River in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and main- 
 tain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of 
 the United States, and to that end the United States may 
 improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things 
 needful to the purpose aforesaid. 
 
 " Signed by 
 
 "FRED'K T. FRELINGHUTSEN. 
 « HENRY A. P. CARTER." i 
 
 1 The first treaty with the Hawaiian Islands was concluded December 
 20, 1849. This was a treaty of friendship, commerce, navigation, and 
 for the extradition of criminals, and contained the usual stipulations on 
 these subjects. 
 
170 TEEATIBS AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 JAPAN. 
 
 Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commeece, Maech 31, 1854. 
 
 By this treaty the ports of Simoda and Hakodade "are 
 granted by the Japanese as ports for the reception of American 
 ships, where they can be supplied with wood, water, provisions 
 and coal, and other articles their necessities may require, as far 
 as the Japanese have them." (Article IV.) But " wood, water, 
 provisions, coal, and goods required, shall only be procured 
 through the agency of Japanese officers appointed for that pur- 
 pose, and in no other manner." (Article VIII.) 
 
 Ships of the United States resorting to the ports open to 
 them shall be permitted to exchange gold and silver coin and 
 articles of goods for other articles of goods, under such reg- 
 ulations as shall be temporarily established by the Japanese 
 government for that purpose." . . . 
 
 A treaty of 1857 was superseded and abrogated by a treaty 
 of the following year. 
 
 1858. 
 
 Teeaty of Amity and Commeece. 
 
 Concluded July 29, 1858. Eatifications exchanged at Washington, May 22, 
 1860. Proclaimed May 23, 1890. 
 
 Aeticle I. — A diplomatic agent of the United States may 
 reside at Yedo, and consuls may reside at all the ports of Japan 
 open to American commerce, etc. 
 
 Aeticle II. — The President of the United States, at the re- 
 quest of the Japanese government, will act as a friendly mediator 
 between the government of Japan and any European power. 
 
 Aeticle III. — In addition to the ports of Simoda and Hako- 
 dade, the following ports shall be opened : Kanagawa, Nagasaki, 
 Nee-e-gata, and Hiogo. Simoda shall be closed six months 
 after the opening of Kanagawa. In all the foregoing ports and 
 towns American citizens may permanently reside. Americans 
 
JAPAK, 1864. 171 
 
 shall be allowed to reside at Yedo and Osaca for the purposes 
 of trade onlj. 
 
 No rice or wheat shall be exported from Japan as cargo. 
 
 Aeticlb IV. — Duties to be paid on imports into Japan. The 
 importation of opium is prohibited. 
 
 Article VI. — Americans to be under the jurisdiction of 
 their consul. 
 
 Aeticle VII. — In the opened harbors of Japan, Americans 
 may go where they please, within certain limits, generally 10 
 ri, the ri being equal to 4275 yards, American measure.^ 
 
 1864. 
 
 Convention foe Payment op $3,000,000 to the Goveenments 
 OF THE United States, Geeat Beitain, Feance, and The 
 Netherlands, as Indemnities and Expenses. 
 
 Concluded October 33, 1864. Proclaimed AprU 9, 1866. 
 
 This indemnity was the payment by Japan of the expenses 
 incurred by the four powers mentioned above in quelling the 
 insurrection of a local ruler of Japan, Prince Choshu, and for 
 damages that he had inflicted upon their commerce. The United 
 States received an amount equal to that of the other States, but 
 the actual expense and estimated damages on their part were 
 only $151,348. The several instalments received from Japan 
 amounted to $785,000. By Act of Congress, February 22, 1883, 
 the President was authorized to pay this sum to the govern- 
 ment of Japan. At this time the fund with accumulated in- 
 terest amounted to $1,887,828.78. 
 
 ' The treaty contains fourteen articles ; then follow regulations under 
 which American trade is to be conducted in Japan. 
 A convention waa concluded for the reduction of duties in Japan. 
 
172 TEEATIBS AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 1866. 
 
 Contention Establishing a Tariff of Duties between the 
 United States, Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, 
 AND Japan. 
 
 By this convention the Japanese import and export duties, 
 with reference to the four powers mentioned above, were 
 fixed and regulated. This tariff was subject to revision after 
 
 1872. 
 
 1878. 
 
 Convention Revising Certain Portions of Existing Com- 
 mercial Treaties. 
 
 Concluded July 25, 1878. Proclaimed April 8, 1879. 
 
 Article I. — The United States agree to the annulment of 
 the treaty of 1866 regulating the tariff of Japan. 
 
 " It is further understood and agreed that from the time 
 when this present convention shall take effect, the United 
 States will recognize the exclusive power and right of the 
 Japanese government to adjust the customs tariff and taxes and 
 to establish regulations appertaining to foreign commerce in 
 the open ports of Japan." 
 
 Article II. — No export duties are to be levied. 
 
 Article VII. — Japan to open additional ports. 
 
 Article X. — " The present convention shall take effect when 
 Japan shall have concluded such conventions or revisions of 
 existing treaties with all the other powers holding relations 
 with Japan as shall be similar in effect to the present conven- 
 tion, and such new conventions or revisions shall also go into 
 effect." 1 
 
 ' Japan has not as yet been able to fulfil this condition. 
 A Treaty of Extradition was concluded April 30, 1886. (See Extrar 
 dition Treaties.) 
 
THE OTTOMAJSr POETE. 173 
 
 THE OTTOMAN" PORTE. 
 
 1830. 
 
 TbEATT of CommEBCB and NAVIGATIOlir. 
 Concluded May 7, 1830. Proclaimed February 4, 1833. 
 
 Aeticlb I. — Merchants to have the privileges- of those of the 
 most favored nation. 
 
 Article II. — Consuls may be appointed. 
 
 Aeticlb III. — ^American merchants may employ semsars 
 (brokers). 
 
 Aeticlb IV. — (Settlement of disputes — Jurisdiction over 
 American citizens.) — " If litigations and disputes should arise 
 between subjects of the Sublime Porte and citizens of the United 
 States, the parties shall not be heard, nor shall judgment be 
 pronounced unless the American Dragoman be present. Causes 
 in which the sum may exceed five hundred piasters, shall be 
 submitted to the Sublime Porte, to be decided according to the 
 laws of equity and justice. Citizens of the United States of 
 America, quietly pursuing their commerce, and not being 
 charged or convicted of any crime or offence, shaU not be 
 molested ; and even when they may have committed some of- 
 fence [they shall not be arrested] and put in prison, by the local, 
 authorities, but [they shall be tried by their minister, or con- 
 sul, and punished according to their offence], following, in this 
 respect, the usage observed towards other Franks." 
 
 Aeticlb V. — American merchant vessels may go and come 
 with safety in the dominions of the Porte. Ministers and con- 
 suls of the United States shall not protect the rayahs of the 
 Sublime Porte. 
 
 Aeticlb VII. — American merchant vessels may freely pass 
 the Dardanelles, in like manner as vessels of the most favored 
 nation. 
 
 Aeticlb VIII. — Merchant vessels shaU not be impressed, for 
 the shipment of troops, etc. 
 
 Aeticlb IX. — Shipwrecks. 
 
174 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 « Given the 14th day of the moon Zilcaade, and in the year 
 of the Hegira 1245, corresponding with the 7th day Of May, 
 of the year of 1830 of the Christian sera. 
 
 "MOHAMMED HAMED." » 
 
 OTHER ASIATIC AND AFRICAN STATES. 
 
 Congo. — (1) Declaration as to the intention of the Interna- 
 tional Association of the Congo, and the recognition of its flag hy 
 the United States, April 22, 1884. The flag is blue with a 
 golden star in the center. (2) Amity, Commerce, and Navi- 
 gation, January 24, 1891. 
 
 CoEBA. — Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 
 May 22, 1882. 
 
 Lew Chew. — Compact of Friendship and Commerce, July 
 11, 1854. 
 
 ' In 1868 the Turkish authorities claimed jurisdiction over two Amer- 
 icans charged with offences against the Ottoman government. This 
 laim was resisted by the American Minister, E. Joy Morris, on the 
 ground of the stipulations of article IV. of the treaty of 1830. The 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs replied that the words in brackets of that 
 article were not in the original Turkish text of the treaty; and the Otto- 
 man government has since adhered to that view. On the other hand, the 
 government of the United States has procured a number of translations 
 of that text, in no one of which some form does not appear of distinct 
 admission of the intervention of the minister or consuls to inflict, ad- 
 minister or apply punishment in the case of American citizens. (See 
 Davis' Notes.) 
 
 A treaty of Commerce and Navigation was concluded with the Otto- 
 man Porte, February 35, 1862, to continue for twenty-eight years, either 
 party having the right, however, to give notice of revision or discontinu- 
 ance at the end of fourteen years and again at the end of twenty-ona 
 years. By the 33d article, a tariff was stipulated for the Ottoman Empire, 
 subject to revision at the end of every period of seven years. 
 
 In 1874, the Ottoman government gave notice to terminate the treaty, 
 and again in 1883 ; but the United States insisted that these notices were 
 irregular , not being given at the times provided for by the treaty. Turkey 
 has, however, considered the treaty abrogated. 
 
 Other treaties with the Porte are a treaty of extradition, 1874 ; and a 
 protocol respecting the right of foreigners to hold real estate in the Otto- 
 man Empu'e, 1874, 
 
OTHER ASIATIC AND APEICAN STATES. 175 
 
 LiBKEiA. — Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, October 21, 
 1862. 
 
 Madagascab. — (1) Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, Feb- 
 ruary 14, 1867 ; stipulating for right of doraicil, of persons 
 and property ; establishing tariff duties in Madagascar ; juris- 
 diction of consuls. (2) Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Com- 
 merce, May 13, 1881; the United States acquire right of coal- 
 ing station, and rights of trade, and to lease land. 
 
 Muscat. — Treaty of Amity and Commerce, September 21, 
 1833. American vessels may enter all the ports of the Sultan ; 
 most favored nation privileges. 
 
 Obange Fkee State. — ^Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and 
 Extradition, December 22, 1871. Most favored nation privileges 
 for consuls. 
 
 Persia. — Treaty of Friendship, and Commerce, December 13, 
 1856. 
 
 Samoa. — Treaty of Friendship and Commerce, January 17, 
 1878. The United States acquire right of coaling and naval 
 station in the port of Pagopago. (Article II.) ; Consular juris- 
 diction, etc. 
 
 By the Conference of Berlin, 1889, between the United States, 
 Germany and England it was agreed that the Samoan Islands 
 should be neutral territory, in which the citizens and subjects 
 of the three signatory powers have equal rights of residence 
 and trade. A Supreme Court of Justice was established, con- 
 sisting of one judge, styled Chief Justice of Samoa, and named 
 by the three powers, or failing that, by the King of Sweden 
 and Norway. 
 
 SiAM. — (1) Treaty of Amity and Commerce, March 20, 1833. 
 (2) Treaty of Amity and Commerce, May 29, 1856. Americans 
 acquire right to trade in all seaports of Siam, but may 
 reside only at Bangkok, where a consul may also reside. 
 Opium may be imported free of duty, but can only be sold to 
 the opium farmer or his agents. Tariff of duties arranged. 
 This treaty was modified in the 1st article, in 1867. (3) Agree- 
 ment regulating the liquor trafllc in Siam. 
 
 Tonga. — Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Octo- 
 ber 2, 1886. In the 2d article appears the following clause, 
 after stipulating for the most favored nation privileges : " it 
 being understood that the Parties hereto affirm the principle 
 
176 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 of the law of nations that no privilege granted for equiva- 
 lent or on account of propinquity or other special conditions 
 comes under the stipulations herein contained as to favored 
 nations." This was doubtless inserted on account of the claim 
 of England to the privileges of our reciprocity treaty with 
 Hawaii. By the 6th article a coaling station is to be leased on 
 Tonga Islands. 
 Zanzibae. — Treaty concerning import duty and consuls. 
 
IV. 
 
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS WITH LATIN 
 AMERICAN STATES. 
 
 COLOMBIA, 1824. 
 
 Treaty of Peace, Amitt, Navigation and Commeeoe. 
 
 Concluded October 3, 1824. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 May 37, 1825. Proclaimed May 31, 1835. 
 
 Aeticle I. — Declaration of amity. 
 
 Aeticle II. — (Most favored nation principle.) — " The United 
 States of America and the Eepublic of Colombia desiring to 
 live in peace and harmony with all the other nations of the 
 earth, by means of a policy frank and equally friendly with all, 
 engage mutually not to grant any particular favor to other 
 nations, in respect to commerce and navigation, which shall 
 not immediately become common to the other party, who 
 shall enjoy the same freely if the concession was freely made, 
 or on allowing the same compensation if the concession was 
 conditional. 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Freedom of commerce.) — " The citizens of the 
 United States maj frequent all the coasts and countries of the 
 Republic of Colombia, and reside and trade there, in all sorts 
 of produce, manufactures and merchandise, and shall pay no 
 other or greater duties, charges or fees whatsoever, than the 
 most favored nation is or shall be obliged to pay ; and they 
 shall enjoy all the rights, privileges and exemptions in naviga- 
 tion and commerce which the most favored nation does or shall 
 enjoy, submitting themselves, nevertheless, to the laws, decrees 
 and usages there established, and to which are submitted the 
 subjects and citizens of the most favored nations." 
 
 12 177 
 
178 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 The citizens of the Republic of Colombia shall enjoy like 
 privileges in the territories of the United States. 
 
 Article IV. — (Privileges of citizens of one nation in' the 
 territory of the other.) — " It is likewise agreed that it shall be 
 wholly free for all merchants, commanders of ships and other 
 citizens of both countries, to manage themselves their own 
 business, in all the ports and places subject to the jurisdiction 
 of each other, as well with respect to the consignment and sale 
 of their goods and merchandise by whole sale or retail, as with 
 respect to the loading, unloading and sending off their ships 
 they being in all these cases to be treated as citizens of the 
 country in which they reside, or at least to be placed on a foot- 
 ing with the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation." 
 
 Aeticlb V. — (Embargo not permitted.) — " The citizens of 
 neither of the contracting parties shall be liable to any embargo 
 nor be detained with their vessels, cargoes, merchandises or 
 effects, for any military expedition, nor for any public or private 
 purpose whatever, without allowing to those interested a suf- 
 ficient indemnification." 
 
 Aeticlb VI. — Vessels of the one nation in distress, or pur- 
 sued by pirates or enemies, shall fhid asylum in the ports of 
 the other. 
 
 Akticle VII. — Property captured by pirates, if found in the 
 territory of either nation, shall be restored to the owner. 
 
 Aeticlb VIII. — Vessels shipwrecked or foundered, shall 
 receive assistance, etc. 
 
 Aeticlb IX. — Protection to property of citizens of either con- 
 tracting party found in the territory of the other. In the case 
 of real estate, if the law prevents aliens from holding it, they 
 shall have three years in which to dispose of it. 
 
 Aeticlb X. — Special protection of citizens of one State in the 
 territory of the other. 
 
 Aeticlb XI. — There shall be entire religious freedom for 
 citizens of one State, being within the jurisdiction of the other. 
 
 Aeticlb XII. — Either State being neutral may trade with 
 the enemies of the other, and its ships may also go from one port 
 of the enemy to another, without molestation. "And it is 
 hereby stipulated that free ships shall also give freedom to 
 goods," contraband excepted. The same liberty is extended 
 to persons on board free ships, with the exception of oflBcers or 
 
COLOMBIA, 1824. 179 
 
 soldiers. But the stipulation that the flag shall cover the 
 property shall be understood as applying to those powers only 
 who recognize this principle. 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — (The neutral flag not to protect enemy's 
 property.) — " It is likewise agreed that in the case where the 
 neutral flag of one of the contracting parties shall protect the 
 property of the enemies of the other, by virtue of the above 
 stipulation, it shall always be understood that the neutral 
 property found on board such enemies' vessels shall be held 
 and considered as enemies' property, and, as such, shall be liable 
 to detention and confiscation, except such property as was put 
 on board such vessel before the declaration of war, or even 
 afterward, if it were done without the knowledge of it; but the 
 contracting parties agree, that two months having elapsed after 
 the declaration, their citizens shall not plead ignorance thereof. 
 On the contrary, if the flag of the neutral does not protect the 
 enemy's property, in that case the goods and merchandises, 
 of the neutral, embarked in such enemy's ships, shall be 
 free." 
 
 Aeticle XIV. — (Contraband articles.) — "This liberty of 
 navigation and commerce shall extend to all kinds of mer- 
 chandises, excepting those only which are distinguished by the 
 name of contraband; and under this name of contraband or 
 prohibited goods shall be comprehended — • 
 
 " Fu'st. Cannons, mortars, howitzers, swivels, blunderbusses, 
 muskets, fusees, rifles, carbines, pistols, pikes, swords, sabres, 
 lances, spears, halberds and grenades, bombs, powder, matches, 
 balls and all other things belonging to the use of these arms ; 
 
 " Secondly. Bucklers, helmets, breastplates, coats of mail, 
 infantry belts, and clothes made up in the form and for a 
 military use ; 
 
 " Thirdly. Cavalry belts, and horses with their furniture. 
 
 " Fourthly. And generally all kinds of arms and instruments 
 of iron, steel, brass and copper, or of any other materials man- 
 ufactured, prepared and formed expressly to make war by sea 
 or land." 
 
 Aeticle XV. — (Blockade.) — " It is declared that those places 
 only are besieged or blockaded which are actually attacked by a 
 belligerent force capable of preventing the entry of the neutral." 
 
 Article XVI. — Neutral vessels carrying contraband, may 
 
180 TREATIES AJSTD CONVENTIONS. 
 
 deliver up the contraband goods, and be allowed to proceed on 
 their voyage. 
 
 Aeticle XVII. — Neutral vessels sailing for a blockaded port 
 in ignorance of the blockade, may be turned away from such 
 port but not detained, unless on a second attempt to enter it. 
 
 Article XVIII. — (Visit and search.") — " In order to prevent 
 all kind of disorder in the visiting and examination of the ships 
 and cargoes of both the contracting parties on the high seas, 
 they have agreed mutually that whenever a vessel of war, 
 public or private, shall meet with a neutral of the other con- 
 tracting party, the first shall remain out of cannon shot, and 
 may send its boat with two or three men only in order to 
 execute the said examination of the papers concerning the 
 ownership and cargo of the vessel, without causing the least 
 extortion, violence or ill treatment, for which the commanders 
 of the said armed ships shall be responsible with their persons 
 and property; for which purpose the commanders 6f said 
 private armed vessels shall, before receiving their commissions, 
 give suf&cient security to answer for all the damages they may 
 commit. And it is expressly agreed that the neutral party 
 shall in no case be required to go on board the examining 
 vessel for the purpose of exhibiting her papers, or for any other 
 purpose whatever." 
 
 Aeticle XIX. — (Proofs of the nationality of ships in time of 
 war.) — It is agreed, " that in case one of them should be 
 engaged in war, the ships and vessels belonging to the citizens 
 of the other must be furnished with sea-letters or passports, 
 expressing the name, property and bulk of the ship, as also the 
 name and place of habitation of the master or commander of 
 said vessel, in order that it may' thereby appear that the ship 
 really and truly belongs to the citizens of one of the parties ; 
 they have likewise agreed that such ships being laden, besides 
 the said sea-letters or passports, shall also be provided with 
 certificates containing the several particulars of the cargo, and 
 the place whence the ship sailed, so that it may be known 
 whether any forbidden or contraband goods be on board the 
 same." 
 
 Article XX. — (Convoy.) — " It is further agreed that the 
 stipulations above expressed relative to the visiting and ' ex- 
 amination of vessels, shall apply only to those which sail with- 
 
COLOMBIA, 1824. 181 
 
 out convoy ; and when said vessels shall be under convoy, the 
 verbal declaration of the commander of the convoy, on his word 
 of honor, that the vessels under his protection belong to the 
 nation whose flag he carries, and, when they are bound to an 
 enemy's port, that they have no contraband goods on board, 
 shall be sufficient." 
 
 Article XXI. — Prize courts are only competent in prize 
 cases. 
 
 Aeticlb XXII. — (Letters of marque.) — " Whenever one of 
 the contracting parties shall be eftgaged in war with another 
 State, no citizen of the other contracting party shall accept a 
 commission, or letter of marque, for the purpose of assisting 
 or co-operating hostilely with the said enemy against the said 
 party so at war, under the pain of being treated as a pirate." 
 
 Aeticlb XXIII. — Six months allowed merchants to remove, 
 in case of war between the contracting parties. 
 
 Article XXIV. — (Debts not to be couflscated.)— "Neither 
 the debts due from individuals of the one nation to the individuals 
 of the other, nor shares, nor moneys, which they may have in 
 public funds, nor in public or private banks, shall ever, in any 
 event of war or of national difference, be sequestrated or con- 
 fiscated." 
 
 Article XXV. — Most favored nation principle applied to 
 public ministers. 
 
 Articles XXVI. and XXVII. — Consuls may be appointed, 
 and shall enjoy the most favored nation privileges. 
 
 Article XXVIII. — (Rights of consuls.) — " It is likewise 
 agreed that the Consuls, their secretaries, officers and persons 
 attached to the service of Consuls, they not being citizens of 
 the country in which the Consul resides, shall be exempt from 
 all public service, and also from all kinds of ' taxes, imposts 
 and contributions, except those which they shall be obliged to 
 pay on account of commerce, or their property, to which the 
 citizens and inhabitants, native and foreign, of the country in 
 which they reside are subject, being in everything besides 
 subject to the laws of the respective States. The archives and 
 papers of the Consulates shall be respected inviolably, and Under 
 no pretext whatever shall any magistrate seize or in any way 
 interfere with them." 
 
 Article XXX. — Agreement to form a consular convention. 
 
182 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article XXXT.— (Duration of treaty— Violation of treaty.) 
 — " The United States of America and tlie Republic of Colom- 
 bia, desiring to make as durable as circumstances will permit 
 the relations which are to be established between the two par- 
 ties by virtue of this treaty, or general convention of peace, 
 amity, commerce and navigation, have declared solemnly, and 
 do agree to the following points : 
 
 " First. The present treaty shall remain in full force and 
 virtue for the term of twelve years, to be counted from the day 
 of the exchange of the ratifloations, in all the parts relating to 
 navigation ; and in all those parts which relate to peace and 
 friendship, it shall be permanently and perpetually binding on 
 both powers ; 
 
 " Second. If any one or more of the citizens of either party 
 shall infringe any of the articles of this treaty, such citizens 
 shall be held personally responsible for the same, and the har- 
 mony and good correspondence between the two nations shall 
 not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to 
 protect the offender, or santion such violation ; 
 
 " Third. If, (what, indeed, cannot be expected,) unfortunately, 
 any of the articles contained in the present treaty shall be 
 violated or infringed in any other way whatever, it is expressly 
 stipulated that neither of the contracting parties will order or 
 authorize any acts of reprisal, nor declare war against the 
 other, on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party 
 considering itself offended shall first have presented to the 
 other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified by com- 
 petent proof, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the 
 same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed ; 
 
 " Fourth. Nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, 
 be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public 
 treaties with other Sovereigns or States. 
 
 " Done in the city of Bogota, on the third day of October, in 
 the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
 four, in the forty -ninth year of the Independence of the United 
 States of America, and the fourteenth of that of the Republic 
 of Colombia. 
 
 " RICHARD CLOUGH ANDERSOIST, Jr. 
 " PEDRO GUAL." 
 
NEW GRAKADA, 1846. 183 
 
 NEW GRANADA, 1846. 
 
 Tbbatt of Peace, Amity, NAViGATioiir and Commeece. 
 
 Concluded December 12, 1846. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 Jvme 10, 1848, Proclaimed June 12, 1848. 
 
 [Tliis treaty does not differ in the main from that of 1824 
 with Colombia, except Article XXXV., relating to the Isthmus 
 of Panama, which is given bek)w.] 
 
 Article XXXV. — (Panama Canal.) — " The United States of 
 America and the Republic of New Granada, desiring to make 
 as durable as possible the relations which are to be established 
 between the two parties by virtue of this treaty, have declared 
 solemnly, and do agree to the following points : 
 
 " 1st. For the better understanding of the preceding articles, 
 it is and has been stipulated between the high contracting par- 
 ties, that the citizens, vessels and merchandise of the United 
 States shall enjoy in the ports of New Granada, including those 
 of the part of the Granadian territory generally denominated 
 Isthmus of Panama, from its southernmost extremity until the 
 boundary of Costa Rica, all the exemptions, privileges and im- 
 munities concerning commerce and navigation, which are now or 
 may hereafter be enjoyed by Granadian citizens, their vessels 
 and merchandise; and that this equality of favors shall be 
 made to extend to the passengers, correspondence and mer- 
 chandise of the United States, in their transit across the said 
 territory, from one sea to the other. The Government of New 
 Granada guarantees to the Government of the United States 
 that the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Pan- 
 ama upon any modes of communication that now exist, or 
 that may be hereafter constructed, shall be open and free to the 
 Government and citizens of the United States, and for the trans- 
 portation of any articles of- produce, manufactures or mer- 
 chandise, of lawful commerce, belonging to the citizens of the 
 United States ; that no other tolls or charges shall be levied or 
 collected upon the citizens of the United States, or their said 
 merchandise thus passing over any road or canal that may be 
 
184 TKEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 made by the Government of Kew Granada, or by the authority 
 of the same, than is, under like circumstances, levied upon and 
 collected from the Granadian citizens ; that any lawful produce, 
 manufactures or merchandise, belonging to citizens of the 
 United States, thus passing from one sea to the other, in either 
 direction, for the purpose of exportation to any other foreign 
 country, shall not be liable to any import-duties vrhatever ; or 
 having paid such duties, they shall be entitled to drawback upon 
 their exportation ; nor shall the citizens of the United States 
 be liable to any duties, tolls or charges of any kind, to which 
 native citizens are not subjected for thus passing the said Isth- 
 mus. And, in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and 
 constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial com- 
 pensation for the said advantages, and for the favors they 
 have acquired by the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of this treaty, 
 the United States guarantee, positively, and efllcaciously, to 
 New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality 
 of the before-mentioned isthmus, with the view that the free 
 transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or 
 embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists ; and, 
 in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same 
 manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which N"ew 
 Granada has and possesses over the said territory. 
 
 " 2d. The present treaty shall remain in full force and vigor 
 for the term of twenty years from the day of the exchange of 
 the ratifications ; and from the same day the treaty that was 
 concluded between the United States and Colombia, on the 
 thirteenth of October, 1824, shall cease to have effect, notwith- 
 standing what was disposed in the first point of its 31st article. 
 
 " 3d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if neither party notifies 
 to the other its intention of reforming any of, or all, the articles 
 of this treaty twelve months before the expiration of the twenty 
 years stipulated above, the said treaty shall continue binding on 
 both parties beyond the said twenty years, until twelve months 
 from the time that one of the parties notifies its intention of 
 proceeding to a reform. 
 
 " 4th. If any one or more of the citizens of either party shall 
 infringe any of the articles of this treaty, such citizens shall be 
 held personally responsible for the same, and the harmony and 
 good correspondence between the nations shall not be inter- 
 
MEXICO, 1848. 185 
 
 rupted thereby ; each party engaging in no way to protect the 
 offender, or sanction such violation. 
 
 " 5th. If unfortunately any of the articles contained in this 
 treaty should be violated or infringed in any way whatever, it is 
 expressly stipulated that neither of the two contracting parties 
 shall ordain or authorize any acts of reprisal, nor shall declare 
 war against the other on complaints of injuries or damages, 
 until the said party considering itself offended shall have laid 
 before the other a statement of such injuries or damages, 
 verified by competent proofs, demandmg justice and satisfac- 
 tion, and the same shall have been denied, in violation of the 
 laws and of international right. 
 
 " 6th. Any special or remarkable advantage that one or the 
 other power may enjoy from the foregoing stipulation, are and 
 ought to be always understood in virtue and as in compensation 
 of the obligations they have just contracted, and which have 
 been specified in the first number of this article." ^ 
 
 MEXICO, 1848. 
 Treaty op Peace, Feibndship, Limits, antd Settlement. 
 
 Concluded February 2, 1848. Katifications exchanged at Queretaro, May 
 30, 1848. Proclaimed July 4, 1848. 
 
 " In the name of Almighty God : 
 
 "The United States of America and the United Mexican 
 States, animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calam- 
 ities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Re- 
 publics, and to establish upon a solid basis relations of peace 
 and friendship, which shall confer reciprocal benefits upon the 
 citizens of both, and assure the concord, harmony and mutual 
 confidence wherein the two peoples should live as good neigh- 
 bours, have for that purpose appointed their respective pleni- 
 potentiaries, that is to say : . . . . 
 
 1 A consular convention was concluded with Colombia, May 4, 1850 (see 
 Consular Conventions) ; and a claims convention, September 10, 1857, ajid 
 February 10, 1864. 
 
186 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article I. and II. — Declaration of peace ; and provision for 
 cessation of hostilities. 
 
 Article III. — Upon the ratification of the treaty, the blockade 
 of Mexican ports to cease ; troops of the United States to be 
 withdrawn ; and the custom-houses estabUshed in the occupied 
 ports to be delivered to the Mexican authorities. 
 
 Article IV. — All castles, ports, places, etc., to be restored, 
 and the final evacuation of Mexican territory to be completed in 
 three months from the exchange of ratifications. All pirisoners 
 of war to be restored as soon as practicable. 
 
 Article Y. — (Boundary line.) — " The boundary line between 
 the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three 
 leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, other- 
 wise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or opposite the mouth of its 
 deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying 
 directly into the sea ; from thence up the middle of that river, 
 following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to 
 the point where it strikes the southern boundary of E"ew 
 Mexico ; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary 
 of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to 
 its western termination ; thence, northward, along the western 
 line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the 
 river Gila ; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, 
 then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and 
 thence in a direct line to the same ;) thence down the middle of 
 the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the 
 Rio Colorado ; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the 
 division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific 
 Ocean. 
 
 " The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned 
 in this article, are those laid down in the map entitled " Map of 
 the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various 
 acts of the Congress of said repvblic, and constructed according 
 to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New 
 York, in 1 847, by J. Disturnell / " of which map a copy is added to 
 this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned 
 Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in 
 tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower 
 California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight 
 line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with 
 
MEXICO, 1848. 187 
 
 the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, dis- 
 tant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of 
 the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made 
 in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master 
 of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, 
 in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana ; 
 of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by 
 the respective Plenipotentiaries. 
 
 " In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, 
 upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground 
 landmarks which shall show the limits of both republics, as 
 described in the present article, the two Governments shall 
 each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the 
 expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifi- 
 cations of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and 
 proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course 
 to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep 
 journals and make out plans of their operations ; and the result 
 agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and 
 shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The 
 two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be 
 necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective 
 escorts, should such be necessary. 
 
 "The boundary linq established by this article shall be 
 religiously respected by each of the two repubUcs, and no change 
 shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free con- 
 sent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government 
 of each, in conformity with its own constitution." 
 
 Akticlb VI. — -The Gulf of California, and the Colorado river 
 below its confluence with the Gila to be free for the passage of 
 American vessels. A railrpad or canal may be constructed 
 along the river Gila. 
 
 Aeticle VII. — The navigation of the Gila, and Rio Bravo 
 below the boundary of New. Mexico shall be free and common 
 to the citizens of both countries. 
 
 Aeticlbs VIII. and IX. — Mexicans residing in the ceded ter- 
 ritory may remain or remove without molestation. 
 
 Aeticle X. — Stricken out. 
 
 Aeticle XI. — Incursions of savage tribes, etc. (Abrogated 
 by the 2d article of the treaty of 1853.) 
 
188 TBBATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article XII. — (Amount of money to be paid to Mexico.) — 
 " In consideration of tiie extension acquired by the boundaries 
 of the United States, as defined in the fifth article of the pres- 
 ent treaty, the Government of the United States engages to 
 pay to that of the Mexican Republic the sum of fifteen millions 
 of dollars. 
 
 " Immediately after this treaty shall have been duly ratified 
 by the Government of the Mexican Republic, the sura of three 
 millions of dollars shall be paid to the said Government by that 
 of the United States, at the city of Mexico, in the gold or silver 
 coin of Mexico. The remaining twelve millions of dollars shall 
 be paid at the same place, and in the same coin, in annual 
 instalments of three millions of dollars each, together with in- 
 terest on the same at the rate of six per centum per annum. This 
 interest shall begin to run upon the whole sum of twelve millions 
 from the day of the ratification of the present treaty by the 
 Mexican Government, and the first of the instalments shall be 
 paid at the expiration of one year from the same day. Together 
 with each annual instalment, as it falls due, the whole interest 
 accruing on such instalment from the beginning shall also be 
 paid." 
 
 Akticlb XIII. — (United States assume paynjent of claims 
 due to their citizens.) — " The United States engage, moreover, 
 to assume and pay to the claimants all the amounts now due 
 them, and those hereafter to become due, by reason of the claims 
 already liquidated and decided against the Mexican Republic 
 under the conventions between the two republics severally con- 
 cluded on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and 
 thirty-nine, and on the thirtieth daj'^ of January, eighteen 
 hundred and forty-three ; so that the Mexican Republic shall 
 be absolutely exempt, for the future, from all expense whatever 
 on account of the said claims." 
 
 Article XIV. — The United States furthermore discharge the 
 Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United 
 States not heretofore decided against the Mexican Republic 
 which may have arisen previously to the^ date of the signature 
 of this treaty. 
 
 Akticlb XV. — The United States undertake to make satis- 
 faction for the claims mentioned in the preceding article to an 
 amount not exceeding three and one-quarter millions of dollars. 
 
MEXICO, 1848. 189 
 
 To ascertain the amount of these claims, a commission shall 
 be appointed by the United States, etc. 
 
 Article XVI. — (Right to fortify territory.) — "Each of the 
 contracting parties reserves to itself the entire right to fortify 
 whatever point within its territory it may judge proper so to 
 fortify for its security." 
 
 Article XVII. — The treaty of 1831 is revived, except the 
 additional article, and except so far as it is incompatible with 
 the present treaty ; and shall continue for eight years, subject 
 then to a one year's notice. 
 
 Articles XVIII. to XX. — Deal with questions growing out of 
 the military occupation of Mexican territory. 
 
 Article XXI. — (In case of disagreement, pacific negotiations 
 shall be resorted to, and not reprisals or hostility.) — " If un- 
 happily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the 
 Governments of the two republics, whether with respect to the 
 interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect 
 to any other particular concerning the political or commercial 
 relations of the two nations, the said Governments, in the name' 
 of those nations, do promise to each other that they will en- 
 deavour, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the 
 differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and 
 friendship in which the two countries are now placing them- 
 selves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific 
 negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be 
 enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this 
 account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any 
 kind, by the one republic against the other, until the Govern- 
 ment of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely 
 considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighbourship, 
 whether it would not be better that such difference should be 
 settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each 
 side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course 
 be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, 
 unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of 
 the difference, or the circumstances of the case." 
 
 Article XXII. — (Rules to be observed in case of war.) — " If 
 (which is not to be expected, and which God forbid) war should 
 unhappily brbak out between the two republics, they do now, 
 with a view to such calamity, solemnly pledge themselves to 
 
190 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 each other and to the world to observe the foUowuig rules ; 
 absolutely where the nature of the subject permits, and as 
 closely as possible in all cases where such absolute observance 
 shall be impossible : 
 
 " 1. The merchants of either republic then residing in the 
 other shall be allowed to remain twelve months (for those 
 dwelling in the interior), and six months (for those dwelling at 
 the seaports), to collect their debts and settle their affairs ; 
 during which periods they shall enjoy the same protection, and 
 be on the same footing, in all respects, as the citizens or sub- 
 jects of the most friendly nations ; and, at the expiration there- 
 of, or at any time before, they shall have full liberty to depart, 
 carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance, 
 conforming therein to the same laws which the citizens or sub- 
 jects of the most friendly nations are required to conform to. 
 Upon the entrance of the armies of either nation into the ter- 
 ritories of the other, women and children, ecclesiastics, scholars 
 of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, merchants, artisans, 
 manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfor- 
 tified towns, villages, or places, and in general all persons whose 
 occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of man- 
 kind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments 
 unmolested in their persons. Nor shall their houses or goods 
 be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their cattle taken, nor 
 their fields wasted, by the armed force into whose power, by 
 the events of war, they may happen to fall ; but if the necessity 
 arise to take anything from them for the use of such armed 
 force, the same shall be paid for at an equitable price. All 
 churches, hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, and other estab- 
 lishments for charitable and beneficent purposes, shall be 
 respected, and all persons connected with the same protected 
 in the discharge of their duties, and the pursuit of their 
 vocations. 
 
 " 2. In order that the fate of prisoners of war may be allevi- 
 ated, all such practices as those of sending them into distant, 
 inclement, or unwholesome districts, or crowding them into 
 close and noxious places, shall be studiously avoided. They 
 shall not be confined in dungeons, prison-ships, or prisons; nor 
 be put in irons, or bound, or otherwise restrained in the use of 
 their limbs. The officers shall enjoy liberty on their paroles, 
 
MEXICO, 1848. 191 
 
 within convenient districts, and hiave comfortable quarters ; 
 and tiie common soldier shall be disposed in cantonments, open 
 and extensive enough for air and exercise, and lodged in 
 barracks as roomy and good as are provided by the party in 
 whose power they are for its own troops. But if any officer 
 shall break his parole by leaving the district so assigned him, 
 or any other prisoner shall escape from the limits of his can- 
 tonment, after they shall have been designated to him, such in- 
 dividual, officer, or other prisoner, shall forfeit so much of the 
 benefit of this article as provides for his liberty on parole or 
 in cantonment. And if any officer so breaking his parole, or 
 any common soldier so escaping from the limits assigned him, 
 shall afterwards be found in arms, previously to his being 
 regularly exchanged, the person so offending shall be dealt with 
 according to the established laws of war. The officers shall 
 be daily furnished, by the party in whose power they are, with 
 as many rations, and of the same articles, as are allowed, either 
 in kind or by commutation, to officers of equal rank in its own 
 army ; and all others shall be daily furnished with such ration 
 as is allowed to a common soldier in its own service; the value 
 of all which supplies shall, at the close of the war, or at periods 
 to be agreed upon between the respective commanders, be paid 
 by the other party, on a mutual adjustment of accounts for 
 the subsistence of prisoners ; and such accounts shall not be 
 mingled with or set off against any others, nor the balance 
 due on them be withheld, as a compensation or reprisal for 
 any cause whatever, real or pretended. Each party shall 
 be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners, appointed by 
 itself, with every cantonment of prisoners, in possession of 
 the other; which commissary shall see the prisoners as 
 often as he pleases; shall be allowed to receive, exempt 
 from all duties or taxes, and to distribute, whatever comforts 
 may be sent to them by their friends; and shall be free, to 
 transmit his reports in open letters to the party by whom he 
 is employed. 
 
 " And it is declared that neither the pretence that war dis- 
 solves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered 
 as annulling or suspending the solemn covenant contained in 
 this article. On the contrary, the state of war is precisely that 
 for which it is provided ; and, during which, its stipulations 
 
192 TKEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged obli- 
 gations under the law of nature or nations." 
 
 Article XXIII. — Ratifications. 
 
 Negotiated by K P. TRIST. 
 
 MEXICO, 1853. 
 
 Treaty Relative to Boundary, Trajs^sit of Persons, etc., 
 Across the Isthmus of Tbhuantepec. 
 
 Concluded December 30, 1853. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 June 80, 1854. Proclaimed June 30, 1854. 
 
 Article I. — (Boundary between Mexico and the United 
 States.) — " The Mexican Republic agrees to designate the follow- 
 ing as her true Umits with the United States for the future : 
 Retaining the same dividing line between the two Calif ornias as 
 already defined and established, according to the 5th article of the 
 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the limits between the two re- 
 publics shall be as follows : Beginning in the Gulf of Mexico, 
 three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, 
 as provided in the fifth article, of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidal- 
 go ; thence, as defined in the said article, up the middle of that 
 river to the point where the parallel of 31° 47', north latitude 
 crosses the same ; thence due west one hundred miles ; thence 
 south to the parallel of 31° 20' north latitude ; thence along 
 the said parallel of 31° 20' to the 111th meridian of lon- 
 gitude west of Greenwich ; thence in a straight line to a point 
 on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction 
 of the Gila and Colorado Rivers ; thence up the middle of the 
 said river Colorado until it intersects the present line between 
 the United States and Mexico." 
 Article II. — The 11th article of the treaty of 1848 annulled. 
 Article III. — (Mexico to be paid ten million dollars.) "In 
 consideration of the foregoing stipulations, the Government of 
 the United States agrees to pay to the Government of Mexico, 
 in the city of New York, the sum of ten millions of dollars, of 
 which seven millions shall be paid immediately upon the ex- 
 change of the ratifications of this treaty, and the remaining 
 
MEXICO, 1853. 193 
 
 three millions as soon as the boundary line shall be surveyed, 
 marked, and established. 
 
 Article IV. — Articles VI. and VII. of the treaty of 1848 an- 
 nulled. 
 
 Akticlb VIII. — (Provisions respecting the road across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec). — "The Mexican Government having 
 on the 5th of February, 1853, authorized the early construction 
 of a plank and railroad across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, 
 and to secure the stable benefits of said transit way to the 
 citizens and merchandize of the citizens of Mexico and the United 
 States, it is stipulated that neither Government will oppose 
 any obstacle to the transit of persons and merchandize of both 
 nations : and at no time shall higher charges be made on the 
 transit of persons and property of citizens of the United States 
 than may be made on the persons and property of other foreign 
 nations ; nor shall any interest in said transit way, nor in the 
 proceeds thereof, be transferred to any foreign government. 
 
 The United States, by its agents, shall have the right to 
 transport across the isthmus, in closed bags, the mails of the 
 United States not intended for distribution along the line of 
 communication ; also the effects of the United States Govern- 
 ment and its citizens, which may be intended for transit, and 
 not for distribution on the isthmus, free of custom-house or 
 other charges by the Mexican Government. Neither passports 
 nor letters of security will be required of persons crossing the 
 isthmus and not remaining in the country. 
 
 " When the construction of the railroad shall be completed, 
 the Mexican Government agrees to open a port of entry in ad- 
 dition to the port of Vera Cruz, at or near the terminus of said 
 road on the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 " The two Governments will enter into arrangements for the 
 prompt transit of troops and munitions of the United States, 
 which that Government may have occasion to send from one 
 part of its territory to another, lying on opposite sides of the 
 continent. 
 
 "The Mexican Government having agreed to protect with 
 its whole power the prosecution, preservation, and security of 
 the work, the United States may extend its protection as it 
 shall judge wise to it when it may feel sanctioned and war- 
 ranted by the public or international law." 
 13 
 
194 TREATIES AND COITVENTIONS. 
 
 Aeticle IX. — Katifieations. 
 
 Negotiated by JAMES GADSDEN, 
 
 MEXICO, 1883. 
 
 Contention PEOvroiNG foe Commbecial Recipeooitt. 
 
 Concluded January 20, 1883. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 May 20, 1884. Proclaimed June 2, 1883. 
 
 Aeticle I. — (Articles admitted into ITnited States free of 
 duty.) — " For and in consideration of the rights granted by the 
 United States of Mexico to the United States of America in 
 article second bi this convention, and as an equivalent there- 
 for, the United States of America hereby agree to admit, 
 free of import duties whether Federal or local, all the articles 
 named in the following schedule, into all the ports of the United 
 States of America, and into such places on their frontier with 
 Mexico, as may be established now or hereafter as ports of 
 entry by the United States of America, provided that the same 
 be the growth and manufacture or produce of the United States 
 of Mexico. 
 
 " Animals, alive, specially imported for breeding purposes ; 
 barley, not pearl ; beef ; coffee ; eggs ; esparto and other grasses, 
 and pulp of, for the manufacture of paper ; flowers, natural of 
 all kinds ; fruits ; all kinds of fresh fruits, such as oranges, 
 lemons, pine-apples, limes, bananas, plantains, mangoes, etc.; 
 goat-skins, raw ; henequen, sisal, hemp, and other like substi- 
 tutes for hemp ; hide-ropes ; hides, raw or un cured, whether dry, 
 salted, or pickled, and skins, except sheep-skins, with the wool 
 on. Angora goat-skins, raw, without the wool, and asses' skins ; 
 indiarubber, crude and milk of ; indigo ; ixtle or tampico fibre ; 
 jalap ; leather, old scrap ; logwood, berries, nuts, archil, and 
 vegetables for dyeing or used for composmg dyes ; molasses ; 
 palm or cocoanut oil ; quicksilver ; sarsaparilla, crude ; shrimps 
 and other shell fish ; straw, unmanufactured ; sugar, not above 
 number 16, Dutch standard in color ; tobacco in leaf, unmanu- 
 factured ; vegetables, fresh of all kinds ; wood, and timber of 
 all kinds, unmanufactured, including ship timber." 
 
MEXICO, 1883. 195 
 
 Article II. — (Articles admitted into Mexico free of duty.) — 
 " For and in consideration of the rights granted by the 
 United States of America in the preceding article of this con- 
 vention, and as an equivalent therefor, the United States ot 
 Mexico hereby agree to admit free ot duties whether Federal 
 or local, all the articles named in the following schedule, the 
 same being the growth, manufacture or produce of the Unitea 
 States of America, into all the ports of the United States o£ 
 Mexico and into such places on their frontier with the United 
 States of America as may be established now or hereafter as 
 ports of entry by the United States of Mexico. 
 
 " Accordeons and harmonicas ; anvils ; asbestos for roofs ; 
 bars of steel for mines, round or octagonal ; barrows and hand 
 trucks with one or two wheels ; bricks, refractory and all kinds 
 of bricks ; books, printed, unbound or bound in whole or in 
 the greater part with paper or cloth ; beams, small, and rafters 
 of iron for roofs, provided that they cannot be made use of for 
 other objects in which iron is employed ; coal of all kinds ; cars 
 and carts with springs ; coaches and cars for railways ; crucibles 
 and melting pots of all materials and sizes ; cane-knives ; 
 clocks, mantel or wall ; diligence and road carriages of all kinds 
 and dimensions ; dynamite ; flre-pumps, engines, and ordinary 
 pumps for irrigation and other purposes ; faucets ; fuse and 
 wick for mines ; feed, dry, and straw ; fruits, fresh ; fire- wood ; 
 fish, fresh ; guano ; hoes, mattocks, and their handles ; houses 
 of wood or iron, complete ; hoes, common, agricultural knives 
 without their sheaths, scythes, sickles, harrows, rakes, shovels, 
 pick-axes, spades and mattocks for agriculture ; henequen bags, 
 on condition that they be used for subsequent -exportation with 
 Mexican products ; ice ; iron and steel made into rails for rail- 
 ways ; instruments, scientific ; ink, printing ; iron beams ; lime, 
 hydraulic ; locomotives ; lithiographic stones ; masts and anchors, 
 for vessels large or small ; marble in blocks ; marble in flags for 
 pavements not exceeding forty centimeters in square and 
 polished only on one side ; machines and apparatus of all kinds 
 for industrial, agricultural and mining purposes, sciences and 
 arts, and any separate extra parts and pieces pertaining thereto ; 
 
 " The extra or separate parts of machinery and the apparatus 
 that may come united or separately with the machinery are 
 included in this provision, comprehending in this the bands of 
 
196 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 leather or rubber that serve to communicate movement, but 
 only when imported at the same time with the machinery to 
 which they are adapted. 
 
 " Metals, precious, in bullion or in powder ; money, legal of 
 silver or gold, of the United States ; moulds and patterns for 
 the arts ; naphtha ; oats in grain or straw ; oars for small ves- 
 sels : plows and plowshares ; paper, tarred for roofs ; plants 
 and seeds of any kind, not growing in the country, for cultiva- 
 tion ; pens of any metal not silver or gold ; petroleum, crude ; 
 petroleum or coal oil and its products for illuminating purposes ; 
 powder, common, for mines ; quicksilver ; rags or cloth for the 
 manufacture of paper ; roof tiles of clay or other material ; sul- 
 phur ; stoves of iron for cooking and other purposes ; staves and 
 headings for barrels ; soda, hyposulphite of; steam engines; sew- 
 ing machines ; slates for roofs and pavements ; sausages, large or 
 small ; teasels of wire, mounted on bands for machinery, or vege- 
 table teasels ; tools and instruments of steel, iron, brass, or 
 wood, or composed of these materials, for artisans ; types, coats 
 of arms, spaces, rules, vignettes, and accessories for printing 
 of all kinds ; vegetables, fresh ; wire, telegraph, the destination 
 of which will be proven at the respective custom-houses by the 
 parties interested ; wire of iron or steel for carding, from No. 
 26 and upwards ; wire, barbed, for fences, and the hooks and 
 nails to fasten the same ; water pipes of all classes, materials 
 and dimensions ; not considering as comprehended among them 
 tubes of copper or other metal that do not come closed or sol- 
 dered with seam or with riveting in all their length ; window 
 blinds, painted or not painted." ^ [See p. 204.] 
 
 ' A treaty of Limits was concluded with Mexico, January 12, 1838, by 
 which the boundary set forth in the 3d ajid 4th articles of the treaty of 
 1819, with Spain, were to be carried into effect. Articles were added, 
 April 5, 1831, and January 12, 1835. 
 
 A treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation was concluded, April 5, 
 1831, not differing essentially from that with Colombia, in 1824. 
 
 By a convention of April 11, 1889, claims against Mexico were to be 
 refeiTed to four commissioners, two being appointed by each State. In 
 the event of a difference in the commission, the King of Prussia was to 
 be asked to appoint an umpire. See agreement at the end of the treaty 
 of 1848. 
 
 An Extradition treaty was entered into December 11, 1861 (see Ex- 
 tradition Treaties.) 
 
NICABAGUA, 1867. 197 
 
 NICARAGUA. 
 
 Teeatt of Fbiendship Commerce and Navigation. 
 
 Concluded June 21, 1867. Ratifications exchanged at Granada, June 20, 
 1868. Proclaimed August 14, 1868. 
 
 Article XIV. — (Right of transit between the Atlantic and 
 Pacific Oceans.) — " The Republic of Nicaragua hereby grants 
 to the United States, and to their citizens and -property, the 
 right of transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through 
 the territory of that republic, on any route of communication, 
 natural or artificial, whether by land or by water, which may 
 now or hereafter exist or be constructed under the authority of 
 Nicaragua, to be used and enjoyed in the same manner and 
 upon equal terms by both Republics and their respective citi- 
 zens ; the Republic of Nicaragua, however, reserving its rights 
 of sovereignty over the same." 
 
 Article XV. — (Neutrality of the routes to be guaranteed — 
 Free port — Conveyance of troops — Tolls.) — " The United States 
 hereby agree to extend their protection to all such routes of 
 communication as aforesaid, and to guarantee the neutrality 
 and innocent use of the same. They also agree to employ their 
 influence with other nations to induce them to guarantee such 
 neutrality and protection. 
 
 " And the Republic of Nicaragua, on its part, undertakes to 
 establish one free port at each extremity of one of the aforesaid 
 routes of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific 
 Oceans. At these ports no tonnage or other duties shall be 
 imposed or levied by the Government of Nicaragua on the ves- 
 sels of the United States, or on any effects or merchandise 
 belonging to citizens or subjects of the United States, or upon 
 the- vessels or effects of any other country intended, bona fide, 
 
 July 1, 1868, Claims Convention, extended in 1871, 1872, 1874, 1876, 
 July 10, 1868, Convention regulating Citizenship and Emigrants. 
 July 39, 1882, Convention for an International Boundary Survey West 
 
 of the Rio Grande ; and in 1884 touching the boundary line of the Red 
 
 and Colorado Rivers. 
 
198 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 for transit across the said routes of communication, and not for 
 consumption within the Republic of Mcaragua. The United 
 States shall also be at liberty, on giving notice to the Govern- 
 ment or authorities of Nicaragua, to carry troops and muni- 
 tions of war in their own vessels, or otherwise, to either of said 
 free ports, and shall be entitled to their conveyance between 
 them without obstruction by said Government or authorities, 
 and without any charges or tolls whatever for their transporta- 
 tion on either of said routes ; provided said troops and mu- 
 nitions of war are not intended to be employed against Central 
 American nations friendly to Nicaragua. And no higher or 
 other charges or tolls shall be imposed on the conveyance or 
 transit of persons and property of citizens or subjects of the 
 United States, or of any other country, across the said routes 
 of communication, than are or may be imposed on the persons 
 and property of citizens of Nicaragua. 
 
 " And the Republic of Nicaragua concedes the right of the 
 Postmaster-General of the United States to enter into contracts 
 with any individuals or companies to transport the mails of the 
 United States along the said routes of communication, or along 
 any other routes across the Isthmus, ui its discretion, in closed 
 bags, the contents of which may not be intended for distribu- 
 tion within the said Republic, free from the imposition of all 
 taxes or duties by the Government of Nicaragua ; but this 
 liberty is not to be construed so as to permit such individuals 
 or companies, by virtue of this right, to transport the mails, 
 to carry also passengers or freight." 
 
 Article XVI. — (Protection of persons and property on tran- 
 sit routes.) — " The Republic of Nicaragua agrees that, should it 
 become necessary at any time to employ military forces for the 
 security and protection of persons and property passing over 
 any of the routes aforesaid, it will employ the requisite force 
 for that purpose ; but upon failure to do this from any cause 
 whatever, the Government of the United States may, with the 
 consent, or at the request of the Government of Nicaragua, or 
 of the Minister thereof at Washington, or of the competent 
 legally appointed local authorities, civil or military, employ 
 such force for this and for no other purpose; and when, in the 
 opinion of the Government of Nicaragua, the necessity ceases, 
 such force shall be immediately withdrawn. 
 
NICARAGUA, 1867. 199 
 
 " In the exceptional case, however, of unforeseen or imminent 
 danger to the lives or property of citizens of the United States, 
 the forces of said Republic are authorized to act for their pro- 
 tection without such consent having been previously obtained. 
 
 " But no duty or power unposed upon or conceded to the 
 United States by the provisions of this article shall be per- 
 formed or exercised except by authority and in pursuance of 
 laws of Congress hereafter enacted. It being understood that 
 such laws shall not affect the protection and guarantee of the 
 neutrality of the routes of transit, nor the obligation to with- 
 draw the troops which may be disembarked in Nicaragua 
 directly that, in the judgment of the Government of this Re- 
 public, they should no longer be necessary, nor in any manner 
 bring about new obligations on Nicaragua, nor alter her rights 
 in virtue of the present treaty.'" 
 
 Article XVII. — (Protection by the United States may be 
 withdrawn.) — " It is understood, however, that the United 
 Sta.tes, in according protection to such routes of communica- 
 tion, and guaranteeing their neutrality and security, always 
 intend that the protection and guarantee are granted condi- 
 tionally, and may be withdrawn if the United States should deem 
 that the persons or company undertaking or managing the 
 same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the trafQc 
 thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of this 
 treaty, either by making unfair discriminations in favor of the 
 commerce of any country or countries over the commerce of 
 any other country or countries or by imposing oppressive exac- 
 tions or unreasonable tolls upon mails, passengers, vessels, 
 goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles. The aforesaid 
 protection and guarantee shall not, however, be withdrawn by 
 the United States without first giving six months' notice to the 
 Republic of Nicaragua." 
 
 Aeticle XVIII. — (Rights of citizens.) — "And it is further 
 agreed and understood that in any grants or contracts which 
 may hereafter be made or entered into by the Government of 
 Nicaragua, having reference to the interoceanic routes above 
 referred to, or either of them, the rights and privileges granted 
 by this treaty to the Government and citizens of the United 
 States shall be fully protected and reserved. And if any such 
 grants or contracts now exist, of a valid character, it is further 
 
200 TREATIES AND CONTENTIONS. 
 
 understood that the guarantee and protection of the United 
 States, stipulated ui Article XV. of this treaty, shall be held 
 inoperative and void until the holders of such grants and con- 
 tracts shall recognize the concessions made in this treaty to the 
 GOTernment and citizens of the United States with respect to 
 such interoceanic routes, or either of them, and shall agree to 
 observe and be governed by these concessions as fully as if they 
 had been embraced in their original grants or contracts ; after 
 which recognition and agreement said guarantee and protection 
 shall be in full force ; provided that nothing herein contained 
 shall be construed either to afQrm or to deny the validity of the 
 said contracts." 
 
 Article XIX. — (Dividends.) — "After ten years from the 
 completion of a railroad, or any other route of communication 
 through the territory of Nicaragua, from the Atlantic to the 
 Pacific Ocean, no company which may have constructed or be in 
 possession of the same shall ever divide, directly or indirectly, 
 by the issue of new stock, the payment of dividends or other- 
 wise, more than fifteen per cent, per annum, or at that rate, to 
 its stockholders from tolls collected thereupon ; but whenever 
 the tolls shall be found to yield a larger profit than this, they 
 shall be reduced to the standard of fifteen per cent, per 
 annum." 
 
 Article XX. — ^(Duration of Treaty.) — "The two high con- 
 tracting parties, desiring to make this treaty as durable as 
 possible, agree that this treaty shall remain in force for the 
 term of fifteen years from the day of the exchange of the rati- 
 fications ; and either party shall have the right to notify the 
 other of its intention to terminate, alter, or reform this treaty, 
 at least twelve months before the expiration of the fifteen years ; 
 if no such notice be given, then this treaty shall continue bind- 
 ing beyond the said time, and until twelve months shall have 
 elapsed from the day on which one of the parties shall notify 
 the other of its intention to alter, reform, or abrogate this 
 treaty." i 
 
 ■ An Extradition Treaty was concluded with Nicaragua, June 35, 
 1887. (See Extradition Treaties.) 
 
OTHEE LATIN AMEBICAN STATES. 201 
 
 OTHER LATIN AMERICAN STATES. 
 
 Argentine Conpedeeation. — (1) Treaty for the free naviga- 
 tion of the rivers Parana and Uruguay, July 10, 1853. These 
 rivers, in so far as they are controlled by the Argentine Confed- 
 eration, are to be opened to the merchant vessels of all nations. 
 (2) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, July 27, 
 1853. 
 
 Bolivia. — Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, F,nd Navigation, 
 May 18, 1858. (See also Peru— Bolivia.) 
 
 Centeal Ameeica. — Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 
 December 5, 1825. 
 
 Chile. — (1) Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce, May 16, 
 1832. (2) Convention explanatory of the treaty of 1832. Citizens 
 of both nations shall enjoy perfect equality before the law. 
 The 3d article declares that, " It being agreed by the 29th 
 article of the aforesaid treaty that deserters from the public 
 and private vessels of either party are to be restored thereto 
 by the respective consuls ; and whereas it ^s declared by the 
 article 132 of the present constitution of Chili that ' there are 
 no slaves in Chili,' and that ' slaves touching the territory of 
 the Republic are free,' it is likewise naturally understood that 
 the aforesaid stipulation shall not comprehend slaves serving 
 under any denomination on board the public or private ships 
 of the United States of America." (3) Convention concerning 
 the submission to arbitration of the Macedonian Claims. To 
 be referred to the King of Belgium. 
 
 Costarica. — (1) Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Naviga- 
 tion, July 10, 1851. (2) Claims, July 2, 1860. 
 
 Dominican Republic. — Treaty of Amity, Commerce, Naviga- 
 tion and Extradition, February 8, 1867. 
 
 Ecuador. — (1) Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation, and 
 Commerce, June 13, 1839. — The 34th article contains an agree- 
 ment that " the words, ' most favored nation,' that occur in 
 this treaty, shall not be so construed as to prevent either of the 
 contracting parties from concluding any treaty or convention 
 with any other nation or State it may think proper, as freely 
 
/ 
 
 202 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 and as fully as though said words were not used ; Provided, 
 however, that notwithstanding any such treaty or convention, 
 the citizens of the United States shall be placed in Ecuador, 
 with respect to navigation and commerce, upon an equal foot- 
 ing with the subjects of Spain and with the citizens of Mexico 
 and of the other Hispano- American States, with which treaties 
 have been or may be concluded, etc." 
 
 Violation of the treaty is not to authorize reprisals or war. 
 (2) Claims Convention, Ifovember 25, 1862. (3) Convention 
 relative to Ifaturalization (see Naturalization Treaties). (4) 
 Extradition treaty, June 28, 1872 (see Extradition Treaties). 
 
 Guatemala. — Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, 
 March 3, 1849. Article XIV. declares the principle of "free 
 ships, free goods," provided that this shall be understood to 
 apply to those powers only who recognize this principle. 
 Article XV. — " It is likewise agreed that in the case where the 
 neutral ilag of one of the contracting parties shall protect the 
 property of the enemies of the other, by virtue of the above 
 stipulation, it shall always be understood that the neutral 
 property found in such enemy's vessels shall be held and con- 
 sidered as enemy's property, and as such shall be liable to 
 detention and confiscation, except such property as was put on 
 board such vessel before the declaration of war, or even after- 
 wards, if it were done without the knowledge of it ; but the 
 contracting parties agree that, two months having elapsed 
 after the declaration, their citizens shall not plead ignorance 
 thereof. On the contrary, if the flag of the neutral does not 
 protect the enemy's property, in that case the goods and 
 merchandises of the neutral embarked in such enemy's ship 
 shall be free." 
 
 A list of goods to be considered free is given in the 16th 
 article, which is the same as in the older treaties : and in the 
 17th article it is stipulated that all other goods shall be con- 
 sidered as free, except when going to places besieged or block- 
 aded. And those places only .are to be considered besieged 
 or blockaded which are attacked by a belligerent force capable 
 of preventing the entry of a neutral. 
 
 The 27th and 28th articles accord the privileges of the most 
 favored nation to envoys and consuls. 
 
 Hayti. — Treaty of Amity, Commerce, Navigation, and Extra- 
 
OTHEB LATIN AMEKICAN STATES. 203 
 
 ditLon, ISTovember 3, 1864. By the 19tti article, free ships 
 make free goods ; and the property of neutrals on "board of an 
 enemy's vessel is not subject to confiscation, unless it be con- 
 traband of war. 
 
 Honduras. — Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Naviga- 
 tion, July, 1864. 
 
 Paraguay. — (1) Convention for the settlement of claims of the 
 " United States and Paraguay Navigation Company." Febru- 
 ary 4, 1859, it was agreed to refer the question to commissioners. 
 (2) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, February 
 4, 1859. 
 
 Peru — Bolivia. — Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce, 
 and Navigation, November 30, 1886. 
 
 Peru. — (1) Conventions for the settlement of claims, 1841, 
 1862, 1868, 1868. (2) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and 
 Navigation, 1851, and 1857. (8) Convention relative to the 
 rights of neutrals at sea, July 22, 1856. This was for the 
 purpose of establishing " a uniform system of maritime legisla- 
 tion in time of war, in accordance with the present state of civ- 
 ilization." 
 
 1st. Free ships make free goods, with the exception of con- 
 traband. 
 
 2d. The property of neutrals on board of an enemy's ves- 
 sel is not subject to confiscation or detention ; " it being also 
 understood that, as far as regards the two contracting parties, 
 warlike articles destined for the use of either of them shall not 
 be considered as contraband of war." 
 
 And these principles are to be applied " to the commerce 
 and navigation of all such Powers and States as shall consent 
 to adopt them as permanent and immutable." 
 
 (4) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, Sep- 
 tember 6, 1870. (5) Convention for Extradition. (See Extra- 
 dition Treaties.) (6) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and 
 Navigation, August 31, 1887. By the 20th article it is stipu- 
 lated that articles of contraband " shall be subject to detention 
 aod confiscation, but the rest of the cargo and the ship shall be 
 left free, etc." By the 22d article, privateers shall give security 
 to answer for all injuries, before receiving their commissions. 
 
 Salvador. — (1) Treaty of Amity, Navigation, and Commerce, 
 January 2, 1850. (2) Convention for Extradition. (See Extra- 
 
204 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 dition Treaties.) (3) Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Con- 
 sular Privileges, December 6, 1870. In respect of property in 
 time of war, same as treaty with Peru, July 22, 1856 (articles 
 15 and 16). 
 
 Texas. (1) Convention for settlement of claims, April 11, 
 1838. (2) Convention for marking the boundary, April 25, 1838. 
 
 Venezuela. — (1) Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation, 
 and Commerce, January 20, 1836. (2) Convention for the set- 
 tlement of the Aves Island Claims, January 14, 1859. The 
 government of Venezuela to pay to the government of the 
 United States, $130,000. (3) Treaty of Amity, Commerce, 
 Navigation, and Extradition, August 27, 1860. (4) Claims 
 Convention, 1866. 
 
 Beazil. — (1) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Naviga- 
 tion, December 12, 1828. (2) Claims, Convention, 1849. (3) 
 Agreement concerning Trade-marks, September 24, 1878.^ 
 
 1 Note to Reciprocity Treaty with Mexico, of 1883. — This Treaty was to 
 go into effect only when the necessary legislation was passed. Congress has 
 failed to enact such legislation; and the treaty remains suspended. 
 
V. 
 CONSULAR CONVENTIONS. 
 
 FRANCE, 1853. 
 
 Contention Conceening the Rights and Peivileges of 
 
 Consuls. 
 
 Concluded February 23, 1853. Eatlfloations exchanged at Washington, 
 August 11, 1853. Proclaimed August 13, 1853. 
 
 " The President of the United States of America, and His 
 Majesty the Emperor of the French, being equally desirous to 
 strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two nations, 
 and to give a new and more ample development to their com- 
 mercial intercourse, deem it expedient, for the accomplishment 
 of that purpose, to conclude a special convention which shall 
 determine, in a precise and reciprocal manner, the rights, 
 privileges and duties of the Consuls of the two countries. 
 Accordingly they have named : 
 
 " The President of the United States, the Honorable Edward 
 Everett, Secretary of State of the United States ; His Majesty 
 the Emperor of the French, the Count de Sartiges, Commander 
 of the Imperial Order of the Legion of Honor, &c., &c., his 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Wash- 
 ington ; 
 
 " Who, after communicating to each other their full powers, 
 found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following 
 articles : " 
 
 Article I. — " (Exequaturs.) — The Consuls-Greneral, Consuls 
 and Vice-Consuls or Consular Agents of the United States and 
 France shall be reciprocally received and recognized, on the 
 presentation of their commissions, in the form established in 
 their respective countries. The necessary exequatur for the 
 
 205 
 
206 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 exercise of their functions shall be furnished to them without 
 charge ; and on the exhibition of this exequatur, they shall be 
 admitted at once, and without dilHculty, by the territorial au- 
 thorities, federal or State, judicial or executive, of the ports, 
 cities and places of their residence and district, to the enjoy- 
 ment of the prerogatives reciprocally granted. The Govern- 
 ment that furnishes the exequatur reserves the right to with- 
 draw it on a statement of the reasons for which it has thought 
 proper to do so." 
 
 Article II. — (Privileges and immunities.) — " The Consuls- 
 General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or Consular Agents of the 
 United States and France, shall enjoy in the two countries the 
 privileges usually accorded to their offices, such as personal 
 immunity, except in the case of crime, exemption from military 
 billetings, from service in the militia or in the national guard, 
 and other duties of the same nature ; and from all direct and 
 personal taxation, whether federal. State or municipal. If, 
 however, the said Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or 
 Consular Agents, are citizens of the country in which they 
 reside ; if they are, or become, owners of property there, or 
 engage in commerce, they shall be subject to the same taxes 
 and imposts, and with the reservation of the treatment granted 
 to Commercial Agents, to the same jurisdiction as other citi- 
 zens of the country who are owners of property, or merchants. 
 
 " They may place on the outer door of their offices, or of their 
 dwelling-houses, the arms of their nation, with an inscription in 
 these words : ' Consul of the United States,' or ' Consul of 
 France ; ' and they shall be allowed to hoist the flag of their 
 country thereon. 
 
 " They shall never be compelled to appear as witnesses be- 
 fore the courts. When any declaration for judicial purposes, or 
 deposition, is to be received from them in the administration 
 of justice, they shall be invited, in writing, to appear in court, 
 and if unable to do so, their testimony shall be requested in 
 writing, or be taken orally at their dwellings. 
 
 " Consular pupils shall enjoy the same personal privileges 
 and immunities as Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or 
 Consular Agents. 
 
 " In case of death, indisposition or absence of the latter, the 
 Chancellors, Secretaries, and Consular pupils attached to their 
 
CONSULS. 207 
 
 offices, shall be entitled to discharge ad interim the duties of 
 their respective posts ; and shall enjoy whilst thus acting the 
 prerogatives granted to the incumbents." 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Consular dwelling and archives.) — " The con- 
 sular offices and dwellings shall be inviolable. The local 
 authorities shall not invade them under any pretext. In no 
 case shall they examine or seize the papers there deposited. 
 In no case shall those offices or dwellings be used as places of 
 asylum." 
 
 Abticlb IV. — (Application to governmental authorities.) — 
 " The Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or Consular 
 Agents, of both countries, shall have the right to complain 
 to the authorities of the respective Governments whether 
 federal or local, judicial or executive, throughout the extent 
 of their consular district, of any infraction of the treaties or 
 conventions existing between the United States and France, 
 or for the purpose of protecting informally the rights and in- 
 terests of their countrymen, especially in cases of absence. 
 Should there be no diplomatic agent of their nation, they shall 
 be authorized, in case of need, to have recourse to the General 
 or Federal Government of the country in which they exercise 
 their functions." ' 
 
 Article V. — (Power of Consul to appoint Vice-Consuls and 
 Agents.) — " The respective Consuls-General, and Consuls, shall 
 be free to establish, in such par£s of their districts as they may 
 see fit, Vice-Consuls, or Consular Agents, who may be taken 
 indiscriminately from among Americans of the United States, 
 Frenchmen, or citizens of other countries. These Agents, 
 whose nomination, it is understood, shall be submitted to the 
 approval of the respective Governments, shall be provided with 
 a certificate given to them by the Consul by whom they are 
 named, and under whose orders they are to act." 
 
 Article VI. — (Verification and custody of certain papers.) — 
 "The Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Consular 
 Agents, shall have the right of taking at their offices or bu- 
 reaux, at the domicile of the parties concerned, or on board 
 ship, the declarations of captains, crews, passengers, merchants 
 or citizens of their country, and of executing there all requisite 
 papers. 
 
 " The respective Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or 
 
208 TEBATIBS AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Consular Agents, shall have the right, also, to receive at their 
 offices, or bureaux, conformably to the laws and regulations of 
 their country, all acts of agreement executed between the citi- 
 zens of their own country and citizens or inhabitants of the 
 country in which they reside, and even all such acts between 
 the latter, provided that these acts relate to property situated, 
 or to business to be transacted, in the territory of the nation 
 to which the Consul or the Agent before whom they are ex- 
 ecuted may belong. 
 
 " Copies of such papers, duly authenticated by the Consuls- 
 General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Consular Agents, and sealed 
 with the official seal of their consulate or consular agency, shall 
 be admitted in courts of justice throughout the United States 
 and France, in like manner as the original." 
 
 Artici.e VII. — (Right to hold property.) — " In all the States 
 of the Union, whose existing laws permit it, so long and to the 
 same extent as the said laws shall remain in force, Frenchmen 
 shall enjoy the right of possessing personal and real property by 
 the same title and in the same manner as the citizens of the 
 United States. They shall be free to dispose of it as they may 
 please, either gratuitously or for value received, by donation, 
 testament or otherwise, just as those citizens themselves ; and 
 in no case shall they be subjected to taxes on transfer, inher- 
 itance or any others different from those paid by the latter, or 
 to taxes which shall not be equally imposed. 
 
 " As to the States of the Union, by whose existing laws 
 aliens are not permitted to hold real estate, the President en- 
 gages to recommend to them the passage of such laws as may 
 be necessary for the purpose of conferring this right. 
 
 " In like manner, but with the reservation of the ulterior 
 right of establishing reciprocity in regard to possession and 
 inheritance, the Government of France accords to the citizens 
 of the United States the same rights within its territory in 
 respect to real and personal property, and to inheritance, as are 
 enjoyed there by its own citizens." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Settlement of disputes between masters and 
 crews.) — " The respective Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Con- 
 suls or Consular Agents, shall have exclusive charge of the 
 internal order of the merchant- vessels of their nation, and shall 
 alone take cognizance of differences which may arise, either at 
 
CONSULS. 209 
 
 sea or in port, between the captain, officers and crew, without 
 exception, particularly in reference to the adjustment of wages 
 and the execution of contracts. The local authorities shall not, 
 on any pretext, interfere in these differences, but shall lend 
 forcible aid to the Consuls, when they may ask it, to arrest and 
 imprison all persons composing the crew whom they may 
 deem it necessary to confine. Those persons shall be arrested 
 at the sole request of the Consuls, addressed in writing to the 
 local authority, and supported by an official extract from the 
 register of the ship or the list of the crew, and shall be held, 
 during the whole time of their stay in the port, at the disposal 
 of the Consuls. Their release shall be granted at the mere 
 request of the Consuls made in writing. The expenses of the 
 arrest and detention of those persons shall be paid by the 
 Consuls." 
 
 Aeticle IX. — (Deserters.) — " The respective Consuls-General, 
 Consuls, Vice-Consuls or Commercial Agents, may arrest the 
 officers, sailors and all other persons making part of the crews 
 of ships of war, or merchant- vessels of their nation, who may 
 be guilty or be accused of having deserted said ships and ves- 
 sels, for the purpose of sending them on board, or back to their 
 country. To that end the Consuls of France in the United 
 States shall apply to the magistrates designated in the act of 
 Congress of May 4, 1826 — that is to say, indiscriminately to any 
 of the federal, state or municipal authorities ; and the Consuls 
 of the United States in France shall apply to any of the com- 
 petent authorities and make a request in writing for the desert- 
 ers, supporting it by an exhibition of the registers of the vessel 
 and list of the crew, or by other official documents, to show that 
 the men whom they claim belonged to said crew. Upon such 
 request alone, thus supported, and without the exaction of any 
 oath from the Consuls, the deserters, not being citizens of the 
 country where the demand is made, either at the time of their 
 shipping or of their arrival in the port, shall be given up to 
 them. All aid and protection shall be furnished them for the 
 pursuit, seizure and arrest of the deserters, who shall even be put 
 and kept in the prisons of the country at the request and at the 
 expense of the Consuls, until these agents may find an oppor- 
 tunity of sending them away. If, however, such opportunity 
 should not present itself within the space of three months, 
 14 
 
210 TREATIES AND CONVENTIOKS. 
 
 counting from the day of the arrest, the deserters shall he set 
 at liberty, and shall not again be arrested for the same cause." 
 
 Article X. — (Power of Consuls relative to the vessels of their 
 country.) — " The respective Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice- 
 Consuls or Consular Agents, shall receive the declarations, pro- 
 tests and reports of all captams of vessels of their nation in 
 reference to injuries experienced at sea ; they shall examine and 
 take note of the stowage ; and when there are no stipulations 
 to the contrary between the owners, freighters or insurers, 
 they shall be charged with the repairs. If any of the inhabit- 
 ants of the country in which the Consuls reside, or citizens of 
 a third nation, are interested in the matter, and the parties 
 cannot agree, the competent local authority shall decide." 
 
 Article XI. — (Salvage.) — "All proceedings relative to the sal- 
 vage of American vessels wrecked upon the coasts of France, and 
 of French vessels wrecked upon the coasts of the United States, 
 shall be respectively directed by the Consuls-General, Consuls 
 and Vice-Consuls of the United States in France, and by the Con- 
 suls-General, Consuls and Vice-Consuls of France in the United 
 States, and until their arrival,by the respective Consular Agents, 
 wherever an agency exists. In the places and ports where an 
 agency does not exist, the local authorities, until the arrival of 
 the Consul in whose district the wreck may have occurred, and 
 who shall be immediately informed of the occurrence, shall 
 take all necessary measures for the protection of person and 
 the preservation of property. 
 
 " The local authorities shall not otherwise interfere than for 
 the maintenance of order, the protection of the interests of the 
 salvors, if they do not belong to the crews that have been 
 wrecked, and to carry into effect the arrangements made for 
 the entry and exportation of the merchandise saved. 
 
 " It is understood that such merchandise . shall not be sub- 
 jected to any custom-house duty if it is to be re-exported ; and 
 if it be entered for consumption, a diminution of such duty 
 shall be allowed in conformity with the regulations of the 
 respective countries." 
 
 Article XII. — (Most favored nation.) — "The respective Con- 
 suls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls or Consular Agents, as well 
 as their consular pupils, chancellors, and secretaries, shall en- 
 joy in the two countries all the other privileges, exemptions and 
 
CONSULS. 211 
 
 immunities wliich may at any future . time be granted to the 
 agents of the same rank of the most favored nation." 
 
 Aeticle XIII. — (Duration of convention.) — " The present 
 convention shall remain in force for the space of ten years from 
 the day of the exchange of the ratifications, which shall be 
 made in conformity with the respective constitutions of the 
 two countries, and exchanged at Washington within the period 
 of six months, or sooner if possible. In case neither party gives 
 notice twelve months before the expiration of the said period 
 of ten years of its intention not to renew this convention, it 
 shall remain in force a year longer, and so on from year to year, 
 until the expiration of a year from the day on which one of the 
 parties shall give such notice. 
 
 " In testimony whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed this convention, and hereunto affixed their respective 
 seals. 
 
 " Done at the city of Washington the twenty -third day of 
 February, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-three. 
 
 "EDWARD EVERETT, 
 « SARTIGES." 
 
 BELGIUM, 1880. 
 
 CONVENTIOSr CoiSrCEENING THE RiGHTS, IMMUNITIES AND 
 
 Privileges of Consulae Oepicees. 
 
 Concluded March 9, 1880. Eatiflcations exchanged at Washington, 
 February 35, 1881. Proclauned March 1, 1881. 
 
 " The President of the United States of America and His 
 Majesty the King of the Belgians, being mutually desirous of 
 defining the rights, privileges and immunities of consular offi- 
 cers in the two countries, deem it expedient to conclude a con- 
 sular convention for that purpose, and have accordingly named 
 as their Plenipotentiaries : ^ 
 
 " The President of the- United States, William Maxwell 
 Evarts, Secretary of State ; and His Majesty the King of the 
 Belgians, Maurice Delfosse, Commander of the Order of Leo- 
 pold, &c., &c., his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- 
 tentiary in the United States ; who after having communicated 
 
212 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 to each other their respective full powers, found to be in good 
 and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles : " 
 
 Article I. — (Liberty to appoint Consuls.) — " Each of the 
 high contracting parties agrees to receive from the other, Con- 
 suls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, in 
 all its ports, cities and places, except those where it may not 
 be convenient to recognize such oflBcers. This reservation, 
 however, shall not apply to one of the high contracting parties 
 without also applying to every other power." 
 
 Article II. — (Most favored nation privileges accorded to 
 Consuls — Exequaturs.) — " The Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice- 
 Consuls, and Consular Agents of each of the two high contract- 
 ing parties shall enjoy reciprocally, in the States of the other, 
 all the privileges, exemptions and immunities that are enjoyed 
 by officers of the same rank and quality of the most favored^ 
 nation. The said officers, before being admitted to the exercise 
 of their functions, and the enjoyment of the immunities thereto 
 pertaining, shall present their commissions in the forms estab- 
 lished in their respective countries. The government of each 
 of the two high contracting powers shall furnish them the neces- 
 sary exequatur free of charge, and, on the exhibition of this in- 
 strument, they shall be permitted to enjoy the rights, privileges 
 and immunities granted by this convention." 
 
 Article III. — (Rights of Consuls, citizens of the States ap- 
 pointing them.) — " Consuls -General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and 
 Consular Agents, citizens of the State by which they are ap- 
 pointed, shall be exempt from preliminary arrest except in the 
 case of offences which the local legislation qualifies as crimes 
 and punishes as such ; they shall be exempt from military bil- 
 letings, from service in the regular army or navy, in the mil- 
 itia, or in the national guard ; they shall likewise be exempt 
 from all direct taxes, national. State or municipal, imposed 
 upon persons, either in the nature of capitation tax or in re- 
 spect to their property, unless such taxes become due on account 
 of the possession of real estate, or ^for interest on capital in- 
 vested in the country where the said officers exercise their 
 functions. This exemption shall not, however, apply to Con- 
 suls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Consular Agents en- 
 gaged in any profession, business or trade, but the said officers 
 shall in such case be subject to the payment of the same taxes 
 
CONSTTLS. 213 
 
 that would be paid by any other foreigner under the like cir- 
 cumstances." 
 
 Article IV. — (Evidence of Consuls in courts of justice.) — 
 " When a court of one of the two countries shall desire to re- 
 ceive the judicial declaration or deposition of a Consul- General, 
 Consul, Vice-Consul or Consular Agent, who is a citizen of the 
 State which appointed him, and who is engaged in no com- 
 mercial business, it shall request him, in writing, to appear be- 
 fore it, and in case of his inability to do so, it shall request him 
 to give his testimony in writing, or shall visit his residence or 
 office to obtain it orally. 
 
 " It shall be the duty of such officer to comply with this 
 request with as little delay as possible. 
 
 " In all criminal cases, contemplated by the sixth article of 
 the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 
 whereby the right is seci^red to persons charged with crimes to 
 obtain witnesses in their favor, the appearance in court of said 
 consular officer shall be demanded, with all possible regard to 
 the consular dignity and to the duties of his office. A similar 
 treatment shall also be extended to the consuls of the United 
 States in Belgium, in the like cases." 
 
 Aeticlb V. — (Arms and flags.) — " Consuls-General, Consuls, 
 Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents may place over the outer 
 door of their offices the arms of their nation, with this inscrip- 
 tion : Consulate- General, or Consulate, or Vice- Consulate, or 
 Consular- Agency of the United States or of Belgium. 
 
 " They may also raise the flag of their country on their 
 offices, except in the capital of the country when there is a 
 leg-ation there. They may, in like manner, raise the flag of their 
 country over the boat employed by them in the port for the 
 exercise of their functions." 
 
 Article VI. — (Consular offices inviolable — Not to be used 
 as asylums — Consular archives.) — " The Consular offices shall 
 at all times be inviolable. The local authorities shall not, 
 under any pretext, invade them. In no case shall they ex- 
 amine or seize the papers there deposited. In no case shall 
 those offices be used as places, of asylum. When a consular 
 officer is engaged in other business, the papers relating to the 
 consulate shall be kept separate." 
 
 Article VII. — (Rights of Acting Consuls.) — " In the event of 
 
214 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 the death, incapacity or absence of Consuls-General, Consuls, 
 Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents, their chancellors or secre- 
 taries, whose ofllcial character may have previously been made 
 known to the Department of State at Washington, or to the 
 Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Belgium, may temporarily ex- 
 excise their functions, and while thus acting they shall enjoy 
 all the rights, prerogatives and immunities granted to the in- 
 cumbents." 
 
 Aeticlb VIII. — (Power of Consuls to appoint Vice-Consuls.) 
 — "Consuls-General and Consuls may, so far as the laws of 
 their country allow, with the approbation of their respective 
 governments, appoint Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents in the 
 cities, ports and places within their consular jurisdiction. 
 These agents may be selected from among citizens of the 
 United States or of Belgium, or those of other countries. They 
 shall be furnished with a regular commission, and shall enjoy 
 the privileges stipulated for consular offlcers in this convention, 
 subject to the exceptions specified in Articles III. and IV." 
 
 Article IX. — (Application by Consuls to governmental 
 authorities.) — See Article IV. of the Convention of 1853 with 
 France. 
 
 Article X. — (Verification and custody of certain papers.) — 
 " Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents 
 may take at their offices, at their private residences, at the 
 residence of the parties, or on board ship, the depositions of 
 the captains and crews of vessels of their own country, of 
 passengers on board of them, and of any other citizen of their 
 nation. They may also receive at their offices, conformably to 
 the laws and regulations of their country, all contracts between 
 the citizens of their country and the citizens or inhabitants of 
 the country where they reside, and even all contracts between 
 the latter, provided they relate to property situated or to busi- 
 ness to be transacted in the territory of the nation to which 
 the said consular officer may belong. 
 
 " Such papers and official documents of every kind, whether 
 in the original, in copies, or in translation, duly authenticated 
 and legalized by the Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls 
 and Consular Agent, and sealed with their official seal, shall be 
 received as legal documents in courts of justice throughout the 
 United States and Belgium." 
 
CONSULS. 215 
 
 Akticle XI. — (Power of Consuls relative to the vessels of 
 their country and their masters and crews.) — " The respective 
 Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents 
 shall have exclusive charge of the internal order of the 
 merchant vessels of their nation, and shall alone take cogni- 
 zance of all differences which may arise, either at sea or in 
 port, between the captains, officers and crews, without exception, 
 particularly in reference to the adjustment of wages and the ex- 
 ecution of contracts. The local authorities shall not interfere 
 except when the disorder that has arisen is of such a nature as 
 to disturb tranquillity and public order on shore, or in the port, 
 or when a person of the country or not belonging to the crew 
 shall be concerned therein. 
 
 "In all other cases, the aforesaid authorities shall couflne 
 themselves to lending aid to the Consuls and Vice-Consuls 
 or Consular Agents, if they are requested by them to do so, in 
 causing the arrest and imprisonment of any person whose name 
 is inscribed on the crew-list, whenever, for any cause, the said 
 officers shall think proper." 
 
 Aeticle XII. — (Deserters.) — "The respective Consuls-Gen- 
 eral, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents may cause to be 
 arrested the officers, sailors, and all other persons making part 
 of the crews, in any manner whatever, of ships of war or 
 merchant vessels of their nation, who may be guilty, or be ac- 
 cused, of having deserted said ships and vessels, for the pur- 
 pose of sending them on board or back to their country. To 
 this end they shall address the competent local authorities of 
 the respective countries, in writing, and shall make to them a 
 written request for the deserters, supporting it by the exhibi- 
 tion of the register of the vessel and list of the crew, or by 
 other official documents, to show that the persons claimed 
 belonged to the said ship's company. 
 
 " Upon such request alone thus supported, the delivery to 
 them of the deserters cannot be refused, unless it should be 
 duly proved that they were citizens of the country where their 
 extradition is demanded at the time of their being inscribed on 
 the crew-list. All the necessary aid and protection shall be 
 furnished for the pursuit, seizure and arrest of the deserters, 
 who shall even be put and kept in the prisons of the country, 
 at the request and expense of the consular officers until there 
 
216 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 may be an opportunity for sending them away. If, however, 
 such an opportunity should not present itself within the space 
 of three months, counting from the day of the ai-rest, the 
 deserters shall be set at liberty, nor shall they be again ar- 
 rested for the same cause. 
 
 " If the deserter has committed any misdemeanor, and the 
 court having the right to take cognizance of the offence shall 
 claim and exercise it, the delivery of the deserter shall be de- 
 ferred until the decision of the court has been pronounced and 
 executed." 
 
 Article XIII. — (Settlement of damages suffered at sea by 
 vessels of either nation.) — ^"In the absence of an agreement to 
 the contrary between the owners, freighters and insurers, all 
 damages suffered at sea by the vessels of the two countries, 
 whether they enter port voluntarily, or are forced by stress 
 of weather, shall be settled by the Consuls-General, Consuls, 
 Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents of the respective countries. 
 If, however, any inhabitant of the country or citizen or subject, 
 of a third power, shall be interested in the matter, and the 
 parties cannot agree, the competent local authorities shall 
 decide." 
 
 Article XIV. — (Shipwrecks — Salvage.) — Same as Article XI 
 of the Convention with France, with the addition of the fol- 
 lowing clause : 
 
 " The intervention of the local authorities in these different 
 cases shall occasion no expense of any kind, except such as may 
 be caused by the operations of salvage and the preservation 
 of the goods saved, together with such as would be incurred 
 under similar circumstances by vessels of the nation." 
 
 Article XV. — (Death of citizens of one nation in territory of 
 the other.) — " In case of the death of any citizen of the United 
 States in Belgium, or of a citizen of Belgium in the United 
 States, without having any known heirs or testamentary ex- 
 ecutor by him appointed, the competent local authorities shall 
 give information of the circumstances to-the Consuls or Con- 
 sular Agents of the nation to which the deceased belongs, in 
 order that the necessary information may be immediately 
 forwarded to parties interested. 
 
 " Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular 
 Agents shall have the right to appear, personally or by dele- 
 
CONSULS. 217 
 
 gate, in all proceedings on behalf of the absent or minor heirs, 
 or creditors, until they are duly represented." 
 
 Article XVI. — (Buration of Convention.) — Same as Article 
 XIII. of the Convention with France, 1853. 
 
 WILLIAM MAXWELL EVARTS. 
 MAURICE DELFOSSE.i 
 
 ' The first separate consular treaty concluded by the United States was 
 that with France, in 1788. (See Treaties with France.) The extensive 
 consular powers claimed by France under that treaty formed one of the 
 causes of the subsequent controversy with that country ; and, together 
 with the treaties of Commerce and Alliance of 1778, it was abrogated by 
 Act of Congress, in 1798. No other separate consular convention was 
 negotiated by the United States until 1850 ; but most, if not all of the 
 treaties of Amity and Commerce contain an article providing for the 
 appointment of consuls, and generally stipulating for the privileges of 
 the most favored nation. 
 
 In the period since 1850. it will be seen that there are some differences 
 in the two conventions given above in full, that with France in 1853, 
 and that with Belgium in 1880. Other separate consular conventions 
 are as f oUows : — 
 
 New Granada, May 4, 1850. — This treaty is, in the main, similar to 
 that with France. In Article V., " The contracting Republics recognize 
 no diplomatic character in consuls, for which reason they wiU not enjoy, 
 in either country, the immunities granted to pubUc agents accredited in 
 that character. 
 
 " Whenever the presence of consuls may be required in courts or 
 offices of justice, they shall be summoned in writing." 
 
 Hansbatic Eepdblics, April 30, 1852. — This is a convention of only 
 three articles negotiated by Daniel Webster. 
 
 Netherlands, January 22, 1855, with reference to the rights of Amer- 
 ican consuls in Dutch colonies. 
 
 May 23, 1878, a general Consular Convention was concluded with 
 Netherlands, the 4th article of which is as follows : — 
 
 "If the testimony of a consular officer, who is a citizen or subject of 
 the State by which he is appointed, and who is not engaged in business, 
 is needed before the courts of either country, he shall be invited in 
 writing to appear in court, and, if unable to do so, his testimony shall be 
 requested in writing, or be taken orally at his dwelling or office. 
 
 " To obtain the testimony of such consular officer before the courts of 
 the country where he may exercise his functions, the interested party in 
 civil cases, or the accused in criminal cases, shall apply to the com- 
 petent judge, who shall invite the consular officer in the manner pre- 
 scribed in § 1., to give his testimony. 
 
 "It shall be the duty of said consular officer to comply with this 
 request, without any delay which can be avoided. 
 
218 TEEATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 "Nothing in the foregoing part of this article, however, shall be con- 
 strued to conflict with the provisions of the sixth article of the amend- 
 ments to the Constitution of the Uiiited States, qr with like provisions in 
 the Constitution of the several States, whereby the right is secured to 
 persons charged with crimes, to obtain witnesses in their favor, and to 
 be confronted with the witnesses against them." ■ 
 
 Italy, February 8, 1868, superseded by the convention of May 8, 1878. 
 The 4th article in each of these treaties is similar to the 4th article of the 
 convention with the Netherlands of 1878 given above with reference to 
 the testimony of consuls before the courts. And these later conventions 
 are essentially the same as that with Belgium, given above in fuU. 
 
 Austria-Hungary, July 11, 1870. 
 
 German Empire, December 11, 1871. — This is the only treaty that the 
 United States have concluded with this new State. 
 
 EOUMANIA, June 17, 1881. 
 
 Servia, October, 1881. 
 
 Zanzibar, July 3, 1886. 
 
 Bights and Privileges of Consuls. — By the 8th article of the Consular 
 Convention with France (1853), consuls are given the " exclusive charge 
 of the internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation, * * * 
 and the local authorities shall not, on any pretext, interfere in these 
 differences." This is giving a larger power to consuls than is generally 
 granted by treaty. In most consular conventions, and in articles of 
 general treaties with reference to consuls, an exception is made in the 
 case of disorders on board merchant-vessels in foreign ports which dis- 
 turb the pubUc peace on shore or in port." To this effect is the 8th 
 article of the general treaty with Russia (1833), the conventions with the 
 German Empire (1871), with the Netherlands (1878), with Belgium (1880), 
 and in other treaties. In the absence of treaty stipulations, consuls 
 have not these powers. (See Snow's Cases and Opinions on International 
 Law, pp. 121-138.) 
 
 The provision in the treaty with France (1853), exempting consuls from 
 appearing as witnesses before courts of justice led to a controversy with 
 that country, in the case of the French Consul Dillon. (Wharton's 
 Digest, I. 665 ; Snow's Cases, p. 99.) The exemption granted by the 
 treaty is in conflict with the 6th amendment of the constitution, which 
 gives the accused, in criminal cases, the right of compulsory process to 
 procure witnesses in his favor, and to be confronted by the witnesses 
 against him. It vtdll be seen that subsequent consular conventions make 
 an exception in the case of criminal trials. 
 
 Consuls in Semi-civilized States. — In treaties with most Asiatic and 
 African countries. United States Consuls are granted exclusive jurisdiction 
 over disputes between citizens of the United States, and, in some cases, 
 over offenses committed by citizens of the United States. These 
 countries are : Borneo, China, Japan, Morocco, Madagascar, Muscat, 
 Persia, Samoa, Tripoli, Tunis, and Turkey. (Wharton's Digest, I., § 
 125.) 
 
yi. 
 
 CONVENTIONS FOR THE EXTRADITION OF 
 CRIMINALS. 
 
 FRANCE, 1843. 
 
 Concluded November 9, 1843. Eatifications exchanged at Washington, 
 April 12, 1844. Proclaimed April 13, 1844. 
 
 Article I. — " It is agreed that the high contracting parties 
 shall, on requisitions made in their name, through the medium 
 of their respective diplomatic agents, deliver up to justice per- 
 sons who, being accused of the crimes enumerated in the next 
 following article, shall seek an asylum, or shall he found within 
 the territories of the other : Provided, That this shall he done 
 only when the fact of the commission of the crime shall be so 
 established as that the laws of the country in which the fugitive 
 or the person so accused shall be found would justify his or her 
 apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime had been 
 there committed," 
 
 Aeticle II. — " Persons shall be so delivered up who shall be 
 charged, according to the provisions of this convention, with 
 any of the following crimes, to wit : Murder (comprehending 
 the crimes designated in the French penal code by the terms, 
 assassination, parricide, infanticide and poisoning), or with 
 an attempt to commit murder, or with rape, or with forgery, or 
 with arson, or with embezzlement by public officers, when the 
 same is punishable with infamous punishment." 
 
 Article III. — " On the part of the French Government, the 
 surrender shall be made only by authority of the Keeper of 
 the Seals, Minister of Justice ; and on the part of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, the surrender shall be made only by 
 author ty of the Executive thereof." 
 
 219 
 
220 TEEATIBS AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 Article IV. — " The expenses of any detention and delivery 
 effected in virtue of the preceding provisions shall be borne 
 and defrayed by the government in whose name the requisition 
 shall have been made." 
 
 Article Y. — " The provisions of the present convention shall 
 not be applied in any manner to the crimes enumerated in the 
 second article, committed anterior to the date thereof, nor to 
 any crime or offence of a purely political character." 
 
 Article VI. — " The treaty shall be in force until abrogated 
 by the contracting parties, or one of them, on giving six months 
 notice. 
 
 " Signed by, 
 
 A. P. UPSHUR. 
 « A. PAGEOT. " 1 
 
 PRUSSIA, 1852. 
 
 Prussia and other States of the German Confederation, 
 
 1852. 
 
 Concluded June 16, 1853. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, May 
 30 ; 1953. Proclaimed June 1, 1853. 
 
 "Whereas it is found expedient, for the better adminis- 
 tration of justice and the prevention .of crime within the terri- 
 tories and jurisdiction of the parties respectively, that persons 
 committing certain heinous crimes, being fugitives from justice, 
 should, under certain circumstances, be reciprocally delivered 
 up, and also to enumerate such crimes explicitly ; and whereas 
 the laws and constitution of Prussia, and of the other German 
 
 ' By a convention of February 24, 1845, the crimes of robbery and 
 burglary were added to the list of extraditable offenses ; and by the 
 convention of February 10, 1858, the following offenses were included : 
 Forging or knowingly passing or putting in circulation counterfeit cola 
 or bank notes or other paper current as money, with intent to de 
 fraud any person or persons : embezzlement by any person or persons, 
 hired or salaried to the detriment of their employers, when these crimes 
 are subject to infamous punishment. 
 
EXTRADITIO:ijr. 221 
 
 states, parties to this convention, forbid them to surrender 
 their own citizens to a foreign jurisdiction, the Government of 
 the United States, with a view of -making the convention 
 strictly reciprocal, shall be held equally free from any obligation 
 to surrender citizens of the United States; therefore on 
 the one part, the United States of America, and, on the 
 other part, His Majesty the King of Prussia, in his own 
 name, as well as in the name of His Majesty the King of 
 Saxony, His Royal Highness the Elector of Hesse, His Royal 
 Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse and on Rhine, His Royal 
 Highness the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar-Eisenach, His 
 Highness the Duke of Saxe-Meinigen, His Highness the Duke 
 of Saxe-Altenburg, His Highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg- 
 Gotha, His Highness the Duke of Brunswick, His Highness the 
 Duke of Anhalt-Dessau, His Highness the Duke of Anhalt- 
 Bernburg, His Highness the Duke of Nassau, His Serene High- 
 ness the Prince Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, His Serene Highness 
 the Prince of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Her Serene High- 
 ness the Princess and Regent of Waldeck, His Serene Highness 
 the Prince of Reuss, elder branch, His Serene Highness the 
 Prince of Reuss, junior branch. His Serene Highness the 
 Prince of Lippe, His Serene Highness the Landgrave of Hesse- 
 Homburg, as well as the free city of Francfort, having resolved 
 to treat on this subject, have for that purpose appointed their 
 respective Plenipotentiaries to negotiate and conclude a con- 
 vention, that is to say : 
 
 "The President of the United States of America, Daniel 
 Webster, Secretary of State, aiid His Majesty the King of 
 Prussia in his own name, as well as in the name of the other 
 German Sovereigns above enumerated, and the free city of 
 Francfort, Frederic Charles Joseph von Gerolt, his said Majesty's 
 Minister Resident near the Government of the United States : 
 
 " Who, after reciprocal communication of their respective 
 powers, have agreed to and signed the following articles : " 
 
 Article I. — (Grimes — Proceedings before surrender.) — " It 
 is agreed that the United States and Prussia, and the other 
 States of the Germanic Confederation included in or which may 
 hereafter accede to this convention, shall upon mutual requisi- 
 tions by them or their ministers, officers, or authorities, res- 
 pectively made, deliver up to justice all persons who, being 
 
222 TREATIES ANB CONTENTIONS. 
 
 charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to com- 
 mit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the 
 utterance of forged papers, or the fabrication or circulation of 
 counterfeit money, whether coin or paper money, or the em- 
 bezzlement of public moneys, committed within the jurisdic- 
 tion of either party, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found 
 within the territories of the other ; Provided, That this shall 
 only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to 
 the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged 
 shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commit- 
 ment for trial, if the crime or offence had there been com- 
 mitted ; and the respective judges and other magistrates of the 
 two Governments shall have power, jurisdiction, and authority, 
 upon complaint made under oath, to issue a warrant for the 
 apprehension of the fugitive, or person so charged, that he may 
 be brought before such judges or other magistrates respectively, 
 to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and 
 considered; and if, on such hearing, the evidence be deemed 
 suificient to sustain the charge, it shall be the duty of the 
 examining judge or magistrate to certify the same to the proper 
 executive authority, that a warrant may issue for the surrender 
 of such fugitive. The expense of such apprehension and 
 delivery shall be borne and defrayed by the party who makes 
 the requisition and receives the fugitive." 
 
 Aeticlb II. — (Other States may accede hereto.) — " The stip- 
 ulations of this convention shall be applied to any other State of 
 the Germanic Confederation which may hereafter declarfe its 
 accession thereto." 
 
 Aeticle III. — (Neither nation to deliver its citizens.) — " None 
 of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own 
 citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this convention." 
 
 Article IV.— (Offences in country of asylum.) — " Whenever 
 any person accused of any of the crimes enumerated in this 
 convention shall have committed a new crime in the territories 
 of the State where he has sought an asylum, or shall be found, 
 such person shall not be delivered up under the stipulations of 
 this convention until he shall have been tried, and shall have 
 received the punishment due to such new crime, or shall have 
 been acquitted thereof." 
 
 Aeticle V. — (Duration of treaty.) — " The present convention 
 
EXTRADITION. 223 
 
 shall continue in force until the 1st of January, 1858, and if 
 neither party shall have given to the other six months' notice 
 of its intention, then to terminate the same, it shall further 
 remain in force until the end of twelve months after either of 
 the high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other 
 of such intention ; each of the high contracting parties reserv- 
 ing to itself the right of giving such notice to the other, at any 
 time after the expiration of the said first day of January, 
 1858." 
 
 Aeticlb VI. — (Ratifications.) — " The present convention shall 
 be ratified by the President, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate of the United States, and by the Govern- 
 ment of Prussia, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at 
 Washington within six months from the date hereof, or sooner 
 if possible. 
 
 " In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have 
 signed this convention, and have hereunto affixed our seals. 
 
 "Done in triplicate at Washington, the sixteenth day of 
 June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, and the 
 seventy-sixth year of the Independence of the United States. 
 
 [Seal.] "DAN'L WEBSTER. 
 
 [Seal.] « FR. V. GEROLT." 
 
 BELGIUM, 1882. 
 
 EXTEADITION-. 
 
 Concluded June 13, 1883. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, 
 November 18, 1882. Proclauned November 30, 1883. 
 
 Article I. — " The Government of the United States and the 
 Government of Belgium, mutually agree to deliver up persons 
 who, having been charged, as principals or accessories, with or 
 convicted of any of the crimes and offences specified in the fol- 
 lowing article, committed within the jurisdiction of one of the 
 contracting parties, shall seek an asylum, or be found within 
 the territories of the other : Provided that this shall only be 
 done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the 
 
224 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall 
 be found, would justify his or her apprehension and commit- 
 ment for trial if the crime had been thpre committed." 
 
 Aeticle II. — (Crimes.) — " Persons shall be delivered up who 
 shall have been convicted of or be charged, according to the 
 provisions of this convention, with any of the following 
 crimes : 
 
 "1. Murder, comprehending the crimes designated in the 
 Belgian penal code by the terms of parricide, assassination, 
 poisoning and infanticide. 
 
 " 2. The attempt to commit murder. 
 
 " 3. Rape, or attempt to commit rape. Bigamy. Abortion. 
 
 "4. Arson. 
 
 " 5. Piracy or mutiny on shipboard whenever the crew, or 
 part thereof, shall have taken possession of the vessel by fraud 
 or by violence against the commander. 
 
 " 6. The crime of burglary, defined to be the act of breaking 
 and entering by night into the house of another with the intent 
 to commit felony ; and the crime of robbery, defined to be the 
 act of feloniously and forcibly taking from the person of another 
 money or goods by violence or putting him in fear ; and the 
 corresponding crimes punished by the Belgian laws under the 
 description of thefts committed in an inhabited house by night, 
 and by breaking in by climbing or forcibly, and thefts com- 
 mitted with violence or by means of threats. 
 
 " 7. The crime of forgery, by which is understood the utter- 
 ance of forged papers, and also the counterfeiting of public, 
 sovereign or governmental acts. 
 
 "8. The fabrication or circulation of counterfeit money, 
 either coin or paper, or of counterfeit public bonds, coupons of 
 the public debt, bank-notes, obligations, or in general, any- 
 thing being a title or instrument of credit ; the counterfeiting 
 of seals and dies, impressions, stamps and marks of state and 
 public administrations, and the utterance thereof. 
 
 " 9. The embezzlement of public moneys committed within 
 the jurisdiction of either party by public officers or depositaries. 
 
 " 10. Embezzlement by any person or persons, hired or 
 salaried, to the detriment of their employers, when the crime is 
 subject to punishment by the laws of the place where it was 
 committed. 
 
EXTRADITION. 225 
 
 " 11. Wilful and unlawful destruction or obstruction of 
 railroads which endanger human life. 
 
 " 12. Eeception of articles obtained by means of one of the 
 crimes or ofEences provided for by the present convention. 
 
 " Extradition may also he granted for the attempt to commit 
 any of the crimes above enumerated when such attempt is 
 punishable by the laws of both contracting parties." 
 
 Article III. — (Persons not to be tried or punished for 
 ofEences not provided for by convention — Extradition to 
 third country.) — " A person surrendered under this convention, 
 shall not be tried or punished in the country to which his ex- 
 tradition has been granted, nor given up, to a third power for 
 a crime or offence, not provided for by the present convention 
 and committed previously to his extradition, until he shall have 
 been allowed one month to leave the country after having been 
 discharged ; and, if he shall have been tried and condemned to 
 punishment, he shall be allowed one month after having suf- 
 fered his penalty or having been pardoned. 
 
 " He shall moreover not be tried or punished for any crime 
 or offence provided for by this convention committed previous 
 to his extradition,, other than that which gave rise to the 
 extradition, without the consent of the Government which 
 surrendered him, which may, if it think proper, require the 
 production of one of the documents mentioned in Article VII 
 of this convention. 
 
 " The consent of that Government shall likewise be required 
 for the extradition of the acrfused to a third country ; never- 
 theless such consent shall not be necessary when the accused 
 shall have asked of his own accord to be tried or to undergo 
 his punishment, or when he shall not have left within the space 
 of time above specified the territory of the country to which he 
 has been surrendered." 
 
 Article IV. — (Persons cannot be extradited for political 
 offences — Exceptions.) — " The provisions of this convention 
 shall not be applicable to persons guilty of any pohtical crime 
 or offence or of one connected with such a crime or offence. A 
 person who has been surrendered on account of one of the 
 common crimes or offences mentioned in Article II., shall con- 
 sequently in no case be prosecuted and punished in the state 
 to which his extradition has been granted on account of a po- 
 15 
 
226 TEBATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 litical crime or offence committed by him previously to his 
 extradition or on account of an act connected with such a po- 
 litical crime or offence, unless he has been at liberty to leave 
 the country for one month after having been tried and, in case 
 of condemnation, for one month after having suffered his 
 punishment or having been pardoned. 
 
 " An attempt against the life of the head of a foreign govern- 
 ment, or against that of any member of his family when such 
 attempt comprises the act either of murder or assassination, 
 or of poisoning, shall not be considered a political offence or an 
 act connected with such an offence." 
 
 Article V. — (Neither nation to deliver its citizens.) — " Neither 
 of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own 
 citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this convention." 
 
 Aeticle VI. — (Offences in country of asylum.) — " If the 
 person whose surrender may be claimed pursuant to the stipu- 
 lations of the present treaty shall have been arrested for the 
 commission of offences in the country where he has sought an 
 asylum, or shall have been convicted thereof, his extradition 
 may be deferred until he shall have been acc[uitted, or have 
 served the term of imprisonment to which he may have been 
 sentenced." 
 
 Article VII. — (Requisitions for extradition : mode of pro- 
 cedure.) — "Requisitions for the surrender of fugitives from jus- 
 tice shall be made by the respective diplomatic agents of the 
 contracting parties, or, in the event of the absence of these 
 from the country or its seat of government, they may be made 
 by superior consular officers. 
 
 " If the person whose extradition may be asked for shall 
 have been convicted of a crime or offence, a copy of thte sen- 
 tence of the court in which he may have been convicted, authen- 
 ticated under its seal, and attestation of the of&cial character 
 of the judge by the proper executive authority, and of the 
 latter by the minister or consul of the United States or of Bel- 
 gium, respectively, shall accompany the requisition. When, 
 however, the fugitive shall have been merely charged with 
 crime, a duly authenticated copy of the warrant for his arrest 
 in the country where such warrant may have been issued, must 
 accompany the requisition as aforesaid. 
 
 " The President of the United States, or the proper executive 
 
EXTRADITION. 227 
 
 authority in Belgium, may then issue a warrant for the appre- 
 hension of the fugitive, in order that he may be brought before 
 the proper judicial authority for examination. If it should then 
 be decided that, according to the law, and the evidence, the 
 extradition is due pursuant to the treaty, the fugitive may 
 be given up according to the forms prescribed in such 
 cases." 
 
 Article VIII. — (Expenses.) — " The expenses of the arrest, 
 detention and transportation of the persons claimed shall be 
 paid by the government in whose name the requisition has 
 been made." 
 
 Aeticle IX. — (Exemption from extradition under statutes of 
 limitation.) — " Extradition shall not be granted, in pursuance 
 of the provisions of this convention, if legal proceedings or the 
 enforcement of the penalty for the act committed by the person 
 claimed, has become barred by limitation, according to the laws 
 of the country to which the requisition is addressed." 
 
 Article X. — (Articles seized with accused.)—" All articles 
 found in the possession of the accused party and obtained 
 through the commission of the act with which he is charged, 
 or that may be used as evidence of the crime for which his 
 extradition is demanded, shall be seized if the competent 
 authority shall so order, and shall be surrendered with his 
 person. 
 
 " The rights of third parties to the articles so found shall 
 nevertheless be respected." 
 
 Article XI.( — Duration of convention.) — " The present con- 
 vention shall take effect thirty days after the exchange of 
 ratifications. 
 
 " After it shall have taken effect, the convention of March 
 19, 1874, shall cease to be in force and shall be superseded by 
 the present convention which shall continue to have binding 
 force for six months after a desire for its termination .shall 
 have been expressed in due form by one of the two governments 
 to the other. 
 
 " It shall be ratified and its ratifications shall be exchanged 
 at Washington as soon as possible. 
 
 " In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the above articles, both in the English and French lan- 
 guages, and they have thereunto affixed their seals. 
 
228 TEEATIES AKD CONVENTIONS. 
 
 « Done in duplicate, at the city of Washington, this thirteenth 
 day of June, 1882.i 
 
 . (Seal.) " FREDK. T. FRELINGHUTSEN, 
 (Seal.) " THRE. DE BOUNDER DE MELSBRCECK." 
 
 1 The first attempt of the United States to regulate extradition by treaty 
 stipulation is the 27th article of the Jay treaty, of 1794. It included the 
 crimes of murder and forgery only. The next treaty which contains a 
 provision for extradition is the Ashburton treaty of 1843, by the 10th 
 article of which the crimes of murder, assault with intent to commit 
 murder, piracy, robbery, forgery, or the utterance of forged paper, " pro- 
 vided, that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, 
 according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged 
 shaU. be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial 
 if the crime or offense had j;here been committed." 
 
 By the convention of July 12, 1889, the following ofifenses were added 
 to this list : — 
 
 1. Manslaughter, when voluntary, 2. Counterfeiting or altering 
 money ; uttering or bringing into circulation counterfeited or altered 
 money. 3. Embezzlement ; larceny ; receiving any money, valuable 
 security or other property, knowing the same to have been embezzled, 
 stolen, or fraudulently obtained. 4. Fraud by bailee, banker, agent, 
 factor, trustee, or director or member or officer of any company, made 
 criminal by the laws of both countries. 5. Perjury, or subordination of 
 perjury. 6. Eape ; abduction ; chUd-stealing ; kidnapping, 7. Bur- 
 glary, house-breaking or shop-breaking. 8. Piracy by the law of nations. 
 
 9. Revolt, or conspiracy to revolt by two or more persons on board a 
 ship on the high seas, against the authority of the master ; wrongfully 
 sinking or destroying a vessel at sea, or attempting to do so ; assault on 
 board ship on the high seas, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. 
 
 10. Crimes and offenses against the laws of both countries for the sup- 
 pression of slavery and slave-trading. 
 
 Extradition is also to take place for participating in any of the crimes 
 mentioned in this convention or in the aforesaid Tenth Article [of the 
 treaty of 1842], provided such participation be punishable by the laws of 
 both countries. 
 
 Extradition is not to take place in the case of poUtical offenses, and an 
 extradited person is to be tried for no offense other than that for which 
 he was surrendered.. 
 
 The United States have concluded extradition treaties as follows : — 
 
 Austria, 1856. 
 
 Baden, 1857. 
 
 Bavaria, 1853. 
 
 Belgium, 1874 and 1883. 
 
 Ecuador, 1872. ■ 
 
 France, 1843. 
 
 Great Britain, 1889. 
 
BXTEADITIOK. 229 
 
 Hanover, 1855. 
 
 Italy, 1868, with supplements, 1869 and 1884. 
 
 Japan, 1886. 
 
 Luxemburg, 1883. 
 
 Mexico, 1861. 
 
 Netherlands, 1880. 
 
 Nicaragua, 1870. 
 
 Ottoman Empire, 1874. 
 
 Peru, 1870. 
 
 Pi-ussia, 1852. 
 
 Russia, 1893. 
 
 San Salvador, 1870. 
 
 Spain, 1877, Supplement, 1883. 
 
 Sweden and Norway, 1860. 
 
 Several niinor German States acceded to the treaties with Prussia and 
 Bavaria. 
 
 The following general treaties contain articles with reference to extra- 
 dition : — 
 
 Dominican Republic, 1867, articles 28-30. 
 
 Great Britain, 1794, article 27 ; 1842, article 10. 
 
 Hawaii, 1849, article 14. 
 
 Hayti, 1864, articles 88-40. 
 
 Orange Tree State, 1871, articles 8-13. 
 
 Swiss Confederation, 1850, articles 13-18. 
 
 Two Sicilies, 1855, articles 31-34. 
 
 Venezuela, 1860, articles 27-30. 
 
 Extradition of citizens. — The United States Government, holding the 
 common-law doctrine that criminals should be punished where the 
 criminal act was committed, was willing to surrender its own citizens, 
 under extradition provisions ; but the Continental States of Europe, for 
 the most part, punish their citizens for offenses committed abroad, and 
 they were, therefore, unwilling to deliver them up ; and accordingly a 
 clause is inserted in the greater number of extradition treaties with these 
 states stipulating that " neither party shall be bound to deUver up its 
 own citizens under the provisions of this treaty." Such a clause is found 
 in the treaties with Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Hanover, Japan, 
 Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Ottoman Empire, Peru, Prussia, 
 Spain, Sweden and Norway, and Hayti. 
 
 In the extradition treaty with Japan, this clause is followed by the 
 proviso, that " they shall have the power to dehver them up if in their 
 discretion it be deemed proper to do so." In the 34th article of the treaty 
 of 1855 with the Two Sicilies, it is stipulated that "the citizens and sub- 
 jects of each of the high contracting parties shaU remain exempt from 
 the stipulations of the preceding articles, so far as they relate to the sur- 
 render of fugitive criminals,'' It has become a question in the United 
 States whether the clause, "neither is bound, etc.," is mandatory upon 
 the President, or whether he may use his discretion in the matter. (See 
 Snow's Cases on International Law, 158), 
 
vn. 
 
 NATURALIZATION TREATIES. 
 
 NORTH GERMAN UNION, 1868. 
 
 Concluded February 33, 1868. Ratifications exchanged at Berlin, May 9, 
 1868. Proclaimed May 27, 1868. 
 
 " The President of the United States of America and His 
 Majesty the King of Prussia in the name of the North German 
 Confederation, led by the wish to regulate the citizenship of 
 those persons who emigrate from the North German Confeder- 
 ation to the United States of America, and from the United 
 States of America to the territory of the North German Con- 
 federation, have resolved to treat on this subject, and have for 
 that purpose appointed Plenipotentiaries to conclude a con- 
 vention, that is to say : The President of the United States of 
 America, George Bancroft, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary from the said States near the King of Prussia 
 and the North German Confederation : and His Majesty the 
 King of Prussia, Bernhard Konig, Privy Councillor of Legation ; 
 who have agreed to and signed the following articles : " 
 
 Aeticle I. — (Reciprocal naturalization conditions.) — "Citi- 
 zens of theNorth German Confederation, who become naturalized 
 citizens of the United States of America and shall have resided 
 uninterruptedly within the United States five years, shall be 
 held by the North German Confederation to be American 
 citizens, and shall be treated as such. 
 
 " Reciprocally, citizens of the United States of America who 
 become naturalized citizens of the North German Confederation, 
 and shall have resided, uninterruptedly within North Germany 
 five years, shall be held by the United States to be North 
 German citizens, and shall be treated as such. The declaration 
 of an intention to become a citizen of the one or the other 
 country has not for either party the effect of naturalization. 
 230 
 
NATTTRAIiIZATION. 231 
 
 " This article shall apply as well to those already naturalized 
 in either country as those hereafter naturalized." 
 
 Article II. — (Oifences committed before emigration.) — " A 
 naturalized citizen of the one party on return to the territory 
 of the other party remains liable to trial and punishment for 
 an action punishable by the laws of his original country and 
 committed before his emigration ; saving, always, the limit- 
 ations established by the laws of his original country." 
 
 Article III. — (Former convention for extradition of fugitives 
 from justice extended.) — " The convention for the mutual 
 delivery of criminals, fugitives from justice, in certain cases, 
 concluded between the United States on the one part, and 
 Prussia and other States of Germany on the other part, the six- 
 teenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, 
 is hereby extended to all the States of the North German Con- 
 federation." 
 
 Article IV. — (Renunciation of citizenship.) — " If a German 
 naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany, 
 without the intent to return to America, he shall be held to 
 have renounced his naturalization in the United States. Re- 
 ciprocally, if an American naturalized in North Germany re- 
 news his residence in the United States, without the intent to 
 return to North Germany, he shall be held to have renounced 
 his naturalization in North Germany. The intent not to return 
 may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one 
 country resides more than two years in the other country." 
 
 Article V. — (Duration of convention.) — " The present con- 
 vention shall go into effect immediately on the exchange of 
 ratifications, and shall continue in force for ten years. If 
 neither party shall have given to the other six months' previous 
 notice of its intention then to terminate the same, it shall 
 further remain in force until the end of twelve months after 
 either of the contracting parties shall have given notice to the 
 other of such intention." 
 
 Article VI. — (Ratifications.) — " The present convention shall 
 be ratified by the President, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate of the United States, and by His Majesty 
 the King of Prussia, in the name of the North German Con- 
 federation ; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Berlin 
 within six months from the date hereof. 
 
232 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 " In faith whereof, the Plenipotentiaries have signed and 
 sealed this convention. 
 
 " Berlin, the 22d of February, 1868. 
 
 " GEORGE BANCROFT. 
 "BERNHARD KOENIG." 
 
 GREAT BRITAIIf, 1870. 
 
 CoNVENTioK Relative to Natueaxization. 
 
 Concluded May 13, 1870. Ratifications exciianged at London, August 
 10, 1870. Proclaimed September 16, 1870. 
 
 Article I. — (Citizens of eitljer country naturalized in the 
 other). — " Citizens of the United States of America who have 
 become, or shall become, and are naturalized accordiag to law 
 within the British dominions as British subjects, shall, subject 
 to the provisions of Article II., be held by the United States to 
 be in all respects and for all purposes British 'subjects, and 
 shall be treated as such by the United States. 
 
 " Reciprocally, British subjects who have become, or shall be- 
 come, and are naturalized according to law within the United 
 States of America as citizens thereof shall, subject to the pro- 
 visions of Article II., be held by Great Britain to be in all re- 
 spects and for all purposes citizens of the United States, and 
 shall be treated as such by Great Britain." 
 
 Aeticlb II. — (Renunciation of naturalization.) — " Such citi- 
 zens of the United States as aforesaid who have become and are 
 naturalized withui the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty as 
 British subjects, shall be at liberty to renounce their naturali- 
 zation and to resume their nationality as citizens of the United 
 States, provided that such renunciation be publicly declared 
 within two years after the exchange of the ratifications of the 
 present convention. 
 
 " Such British subjects as aforesaid who have become and are 
 naturalized as citizens within the United States, shall be at 
 liberty to renounce their nautralization and to resume their 
 British nationality, provided that such renunciation be publicly 
 declared within two years after the twelfth day of May, 1870. 
 
KATTJEALIZATION. 233 
 
 " The manner in which this renunciation may be made and 
 publicly declared shall be agreed upon by the Governments of 
 the respective countries." 
 
 Aeticlb III. — " A naturalized citizen renewing his residence 
 in his original country may be restored to citizenship there, and 
 no claim shall be made for him by the country of his former 
 naturalization." 
 
 Article IV. — Ratification, etc. 
 
 " JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY. 
 « CLARENDON." 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, 1870. 
 
 Convention Conoekning Naturalization. 
 
 Concluded September 30, 1870. Ratifications exchanged at Vienna, July 
 14, 1871. Proclaimed August 1, 1871. 
 
 Abticle II. — (Offences committed before emigration— Vio- 
 lation of military laws.) — " A naturalized citizen of the one party 
 on return to the territory of the other party, remains liable to 
 trial and punishment for an action punishable by the laws of 
 his original country committed before his emigration, saving 
 always the limitation established by the laws of his original 
 country and any other remission of liability to punishment. 
 
 "In particular, a former citizen of the Austro- Hungarian 
 Monarchy, who, under the first article, is to be held as an 
 American citizen, is liable to trial and punishment, according 
 to the laws of Austria-Hungary, for non-fulfilment of military 
 duty : 1st, If he has emigrated, after having been drafted at 
 the time of conscription, and thus having become enrolled as a 
 recruit for service in the standing army, 2d, If he has emigrated 
 whilst he stood in service under the flag, or had ^a leave of absence 
 only for a limited time ; 3d, If, having a leave of absence for an 
 unlimited time, or belonging to the reserve or to the militia, he 
 has emigrated after having received a call into service, or after 
 a public proclamation requiring his appearance, or after a 
 war has broken out. On the other hand, a former citizen of 
 the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, naturalized in the United 
 
234 TREATIES AND CONVENTION'S. 
 
 States, who by, or after, his emigration has transgressed the 
 legal provisions on military duty by any acts or omissions 
 other than those above enumerated in the clauses numbered 
 one, two, and three, can, on his return to his original country, 
 neither be held subsequently to military service nor remain 
 liable to trial and punishment for the non-fulfllment of his 
 military duty." 
 
 Article III.^(Treaties of 3d July, 1856, and 8th May, 1848, 
 remain in force.) — " The convention for the mutual delivery of 
 criminals, fugitives from justice, concluded on the 3d July, 
 1856, between the Government of the United States of America 
 on the one part, and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy on the 
 other part, as well as the additional convention, signed on the 
 8th May, 1848, to the treaty of commerce and navigation con- 
 cluded between the said Governments on the 27th of August, 
 1839 [1829], and especially the stipulations of Article IV. of 
 the said additional convention concerning the delivery of 
 the deserters from the ships of war and merchant-vessels; re- 
 main in force without change." 
 
 Article IV. — (Renunciation of citizenship.) — " The emigrant 
 from the one State, who, according to Article I. is to be held as 
 a citizen of the other State, shall not, on his return to his original 
 country, be constrained to resume his former citizenship ; yet, 
 if he shall of his own accord require it, and renounce the citi- 
 zenship obtained by naturalization, such a renunciation is allow- 
 able, and no fixed period of residence shall be required for the 
 recognition of his recovery of citizenship in his original coun- 
 try." 
 
 Article V. — The treaty shall continue in force for ten years, 
 and thereafter until a notice to terminate it. 
 
 Article VI. — Ratifications. 
 
 "JOHN JAY 
 " BENST." 1 
 
 ' Other conventions concerning naturalization have been concluded 
 with Bavaria, 1868; Baden, 1868; Belgium, 1868; Denmark, 1872; 
 Ecuador, 1873 ; Hesse, 1868 ; Mexico, 1868 ; Sweden and Norway, 1869 ; 
 and Wiirtemberg, 1868. 
 
 In the fourth article of the treaty with Mexico, it is agreed that " the 
 intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in 
 the one country resides in the other country more than two years, but 
 this presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary." 
 
VIII. 
 
 CONVENTIONS CONCERNING DEOIT D'AU- 
 
 BAINE ; TRADE-MARKS ; INDUSTRIAL 
 
 PROPERTY ; SUBMARINE CABLES. 
 
 DROIT D'AUBAINE. 
 
 Conventions for the mutual abolition of the droit d'aubaine 
 and taxes on emigration have been concluded by the United 
 States with Bavaria, The Grand Duchy of Hesse, Nassau, Sax- 
 ony, Swiss Confederation, and Wtlrtemberg. Similar pro- 
 visions are also found in several general treaties. 
 
 " The municipal laws of all European countries formerly pro- 
 hibited aliens from holding real property within the territory 
 of the State. During the prevalence of the feudal system, the 
 acquisition of property in land involved the notion of alle- 
 giance to the prince within whose dominions it lay, which might 
 be inconsistent with that which the proprietor owed to his 
 native sovereign. It was also during the same rude ages that 
 the jtcs albinacjii or droit d'aubaine was established ; by which 
 all the property of a deceased foreigner (movable and immov- 
 able) was confiscated to the use of the State, to the exclusion 
 of his heirs, whether claiming ah intestato, or under a will of 
 the decedent. In the progress of civilization, this barbarous 
 and inhuman usage has been, by degrees, almost entirely abol- 
 lished. This improvement has been accomplished either by 
 municipal regulations, or by international compacts founded 
 upon the basis of reciprocity. * * * 
 
 " The analogous usage of the droit de detraction (jus detrac- 
 tus) by which a tax was levied upon the removal from one 
 State to another of property acquired by succession or testa- 
 mentary disposition, has also been reciprocally abolished in 
 
 235 
 
236 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS. 
 
 most civilized, countries." (Wheatou's International Law, Sth 
 ed., p. 138.) 
 
 The treaties with France of 1778 and 1800 stipulated for the 
 aboUtion of these rights. And treaties on this subject were 
 concluded with Bavaria, 1845, Grand Duchy of Hesse, 1844, 
 Nassau, 1846, Saxony, 1845. Swiss Confederation, 1847, and 
 Wlirtemberg, 1844. A large number of treaties contain pro- 
 visions respecting the right to dispose of real property. 
 
 TRADE-MARKS. 
 
 Conventions for the protection of trade-marks have been con- 
 cluded with Russia, 1868 and 1874, France, 1869, Austria-Hun- 
 gary, 1871, German Empire, 1871, Great Brita.in, 1877, Brazil, 
 Italy, 1882, Spain, 1882 ; also an article in the treaty with Bel- 
 gium, 1884. 
 
 In these conventions, it is stipulated, that if citizens of either 
 country fulfil the formalities required by the laws of the re- 
 spective States in respect of trade-marks, they shall have the 
 same rights therein as native citizens, 
 
 A treaty for the general protection of Industrial Property 
 was entered into, March 20, 1883, by Belgium, Brazil, France, 
 Guatemala, Italy, ISTetherlands, Portugal, Salvador, Serbia, 
 Spain, Switzerland, and acceded to by Dominican Republic, 
 Great Britain, Sweden and Norway, The XInited States, and 
 Tunis. 
 
 PROTECTION OF SUBMARINE CABLES. 
 
 A convention for the protection of submarine cables was con- 
 cluded at Paris, March 14, 1884, nearly all the European and 
 American States taking part. 
 
PART II. 
 
 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. • 
 
 " The so-called Monroe Doctrine, at the time it was announced 
 was partly a measure of self-defense against the threatened 
 aggression of the European Alliance, and partly the expression 
 of the natural antagonism between the principles of free gov- 
 ernment, as exemplified by the history of the United States, 
 and the principles of monarchical despotism, as exhibited in 
 the policy of the four great powers of continental Europe. 
 
 The treaty of Vienna gave peace to Europe ; but it restored 
 the despotism of the old regime in all the countries of continental 
 Europe with the exception of France. The liberal ideas and 
 aspirations awakened by the French revolution and the wars 
 of Napoleon were suppressed ; and that they should remain 
 forever suppressed was the firm determination of the monarchs 
 of these countries. In England, on the other hand, when the 
 fear of French ascendency was removed,, a strong liberal reac- 
 tion set in which forced the government in the end to break 
 with its continental allies. 
 
 The treaty which formed the basis of the European Alliance 
 — erroneously termed Holy Alliance — was signed at Chau- 
 mont, in France, on March 1, 1814.^ This was a union of the 
 four powers — Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England^ — primarily 
 for the eflB.cient prosecution of the war ; and secondarily, to 
 • maintain the peace of Europe in the future. It was renewed 
 and made permanent by the treaty of alliance signed at Vienna 
 by the same powerk, March 25, 1815 ; and after the second fall 
 
 1 Hertslet : Map of Europe by Treaty, p. 2043. 
 
 237 
 
238 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 of Napoleon, at Waterloo, it was reaffirmed and continued, 
 with some additions by the treaty of alliance at Paris, Novem- 
 ber 20, 1815.1 
 
 The preamble of this treaty contains the following declara- 
 tion: 
 
 ' ' Desirous moreover of drawing closer the ties which unite 
 them (the four powers) for the common interests of their peoples, 
 Ithey] have resolved to give to the principles solemnly laid down 
 in the treaties of Chaumont and Vienna the application the most 
 analogous to the present state of affairs, and to fix beforehand 
 the principle which they propose to follow in order to guarantee 
 Europe from dangers by which she may still be menaced." 
 
 Then follow in five articles the details providing for any 
 future renewal of the disturbance of Europe by Napoleon or 
 France. By the sixth article the powers agree to renew their 
 meetings at fixed periods. And before separating the first of 
 those meetings was fixed for the year 1818. 
 
 In accordance with this agreement at Paris, these powers 
 met in the conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, in October, 1818.'' 
 At this conference the evacuation of French territory by the 
 allied armies was decreed, and France was admitted as a mem- 
 ber of the alliance, thus completing the grand alliance of the 
 five great powers. After transacting certain business and 
 providing for future meetings, a declaration, setting forth the 
 principles by which they would be guided, was issued. It is 
 proclaimed that the intimate union of the monarchs offers to 
 Europe the most sacred pledge of its future tranquillity. " It 
 has no other object than the maintenance of peace, and the 
 guarantee of those transactions on which the peace was founded 
 and consolidated. * * * The repose of the world will be con- 
 stantly their motive and their end." 
 
 The language of this declaration is extremely vague ; and 
 the English representatives seemed to regard it as harmless. 
 Lord Bathurst (acting Foreign Secretary) wrote to Castle- 
 reagh, November 10, " You have so neutralized the protocol and 
 declaration, that there cannot be any objection, I imagine, 
 from any quarter against them." The English cabinet had 
 feared that there might be something in these acts which it 
 
 1 Hertslet, I., 372. 2 Hertslet, L, 571. 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTRINE. 239 
 
 would be difficult to explain in parliament. "The Russian 
 must be made to feel," said Lord Liverpool, " that we have a 
 parliament and a public, to which we are responsible, and that 
 we cannot permit ourselves to be drawn into views of policy 
 which are wholly incompatible with the spirit of our govern- 
 ment."^ There was one member of the cabinet, however, who 
 was opposed to the whole scheme of the European alliance ; 
 this was Canning. Lord Bathurst, in writing to Castlereagh, 
 October 20, says that the Cabinet are opposed to the Congress 
 of Aix-la-Chapelle publicly announcing continued meetings of 
 the allied powers at fixed points. The next meeting might be 
 fixed but no others. The Cabinet, except Canning, are not 
 averse to the system, but to the publicly announcing it. Can- 
 ning objects to the system itself. " He does not consider the 
 9th article as having been generally understood to apply to 
 any meetings except for the purpose of watching the internal 
 state of France, as far as it may endanger the public tranquillity. 
 He thinks the system of periodical meetings of the four great 
 powers, with a view to the general concerns of Europe, new, 
 and a very questionable policy ; tliat it will necessarily involve 
 us deeply in all the politics of the continent, whereas our true 
 policy has always been not to interfere except in great emer- 
 gencies, and then with a commanding force. He thinks that 
 all other states must protest against such an attempt to place 
 them under subjection ; that the meetings may become a scene 
 of cabal and intrigue ; and that the people of this country may 
 be taught to look with jealousy for their liberties, if our court 
 is engaged in meetings with great despotic monarchs, deliberat- 
 ing upon what degree of revolutionary spirit may endanger 
 the public security, and therefore require the interference of 
 the alliance." 
 
 The Emperor of Russia was disappointed because the treaty 
 was not more definite ; he wished it to be one of " explicit, 
 universal, and reciprocal guarantee." 
 
 Events soon occurred which forced an interpretation of the 
 language of these treaties and declarations ; when it was found 
 that the three courts of Russia, Austria, and Prussia considered 
 the allies as the constituted guardians of Europe. The peace, 
 
 1 Letters of Castlereagh, XII., 62, 63. 
 
240 TOPICS IN AMEBIC AN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 the internal prosperity of States, even the sentiments of religion 
 and morality were to be objects of the care of the alliance. 
 England, however, could see no authority in the alliance to 
 erect the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of 
 States into a general rule. 
 
 The people of Spain, abandoned by their kings in 1808, had 
 made a brave resistance to Napoleon's aggressions, and in 1812 
 had formed a liberal constitution ; but at the general peace in 
 1815, they had been again delivered over to that bigoted tyrant, 
 Ferdinand VII. In 1820 (March 8), the army which had been 
 assembled at Cadiz to be sent against the rebellious Spanish- 
 American Colonies, revolted, and refused to embark. This, 
 stand taken by the army was followed by an uprising of the 
 people throughout Spain. The liberal constitution of 1812 
 was revived, and forced upon the reluctant king, and a new 
 era seemed to open for the Spanish nation. 
 
 The revolution in Spain was followed, July 2, 1820, by a like 
 movement of the army and people of Naples. Having nothing 
 better at hand, they also proclaimed the Spanish constitution 
 of 1812. A similar insurrection took place in Portugal on the 
 23d of August. 
 
 Alarmed by these popular movements, the Emperors of 
 Austria and Russia proposed a meeting of the alliance to con- 
 sult upon measures to be taken for the peace of Europe. The 
 representatives of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, met accord- 
 ingly in November, 1820, at Troppau. 
 
 The three powers issued a circular, in which they call atten- 
 tion to the wickedness and danger of these rebellions, and declare 
 that " the alliance formed under the most trying circumstances, 
 * * * affirmed by the conventions of 1815 and 1818," had freed 
 Europe from the military tyranny of the representative of 
 revolution, should now be in a position " to put a curb on a 
 force no less tyrannical and no less detestable — that of revolt 
 and crime." 
 
 It was decided to act first against Naples as presenting the 
 most pressing danger ; and the deliberations at Troppau were 
 transferred to Laybach, where the final arrangements for inter- 
 vention m the affairs of Naples were made. In accordaaoe 
 
 1 Hertslet, I., 658. 
 
THE MONROE DOGTBINE. 241 
 
 with these arrangements, an Austrian army began its march 
 to southern Italy, March 4, 1821, and entered Naples the 23d of 
 the same month ; the constitutional government was sup- 
 pressed, and Ferdinand II. was restored to absolute authority. 
 
 In this same month an insurrection broke out in Piedmont ; 
 and a division of the Austrian army was directed toward that 
 state, and with the same result as in Naples. The Greek rev- 
 olution began too while the powers were still at Laybach. 
 
 England was not officially represented at Troppau and Lay- 
 bach, although the English Ambassador to Vienna, Sir C. 
 Stewart, was present to watch the proceedings. France, 
 although represented, refused to accede to the final act of in- 
 tervention in Italy. England not only refused to join in the 
 deliberations, she also protested, in the circular despatch of 
 January 19, 1821, against the principles which the three powers 
 had set forth in the Troppau circular.^ 
 
 Before separating, the sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and 
 Prussia, arranged for another meeting in the course of the 
 following year, to take into consideration the affairs of Greece, 
 Italy, and more especially of Spain ; and Verona was fixed upon 
 as the place of the Congress, which assembled about the 
 middle of October, 1822. And this time all the five powers of 
 the alliance were represented, England believing the questions 
 to be discussed involved her interests. The death of Castlereagh, 
 who was to represent England, occurred a short time before 
 the meeting of the Congress, and Wellington was sent in his 
 stead ; while at home. Canning became minister for foreign 
 affairs. 
 
 The great question at issue in the Congress was the inter- 
 vention in the affairs of Spain. Wellington's instructions were, 
 to assent in no case to any intervention in Spanish affairs. 
 Spain, said Canning, if left to herself, would emerge from her 
 state of disorder; there was no direct danger, he said, to 
 neighboring States growing out of Spanish affairs. In the 
 Congress, Wellington protested strongly against intervention ; 
 and when it was found that his protest would not prevent in- 
 tervention in Spain, he withdrew from the Congress (November 
 30, 1822). After issuing a circular,^ the Congress broke up 
 
 ' Hertslet, I., 664. = Brit, and For. Stat. Pap., X., 9al. 
 
 16 
 
242 TOPICS IJT AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 about the middle of December, with the secret understanding 
 that France should undertake the suppression of the Spanish 
 Constitution. In its own counsels, however, the French govern- 
 ment was divided on the question of undertaking the Spanish 
 war ; there was a strong liberal party in France, opposed, 
 not only to this particular case of intervention, but to all dic- 
 tation of the more Eastern States. The liberal Journal des De- 
 bats pointed out the danger of allowing Eastern and absolute 
 sovereigns to interfere in determining the form of government 
 of the Western and constitutional powers. The war party, 
 backed by the influence of Russia and Austria, finally pre- 
 vailed ; and the French army, which had been collected on the 
 Spanish frontier, ostensibly for the purpose of quarantine 
 against the yellow fever then prevailing in Northern Spain, 
 crossed the Bidassoa in April, 1823. In October all op- 
 position of consequence had been overcome, and the king re- 
 stored to absolute power. Thus, French bayonets restored 
 Ferdinand VII., and with him, the rule of bigotry and intoler- 
 ance which have continued to blight the destinies of Spain to 
 the present day. The popular constitution, faulty no doubt, 
 but under which the people began to work out their own des- 
 tiny, was swept away, and the great opportunity of Spanish 
 progress was lost. 
 
 A majority of the people of England were probably ready to 
 take up arms in aid of the Spanish nation ; the liberals in par- 
 liament, led by Brougham, Sir James Mackintosh and others 
 attacked vigorously the neutral policy of the government. But 
 Canning believed that it was not the interest of England to 
 plunge into a war with all the continental powers combined 
 for a mere principle, and with no advantage to England, and 
 with little hope of effective aid to Spain. He carried his point 
 in parliament, though against a strong opposition. 
 
 The Congress of Verona was the last meeting of the Quin- 
 tuple Alliance for the regulation of the internal affairs of 
 European States. The principles set forth in the circulars 
 and declarations of Troppau, Laybach, and Verona, formed a 
 political code for Europe of the most absolute type ; it meant 
 that the people were to have no voice in the formation of their 
 political institutions. Count Nesselrode said of the Spanish 
 constitution of 1812, that it was " a constitution which estab- 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 243 
 
 lifihed for the people a right of sovereignty, of which the ex- 
 ercise is happily impossible, but of which the simple theory, once 
 admitted, is the child of calamity — a constitution which calls 
 to the making of laws the sole class interested in their absence." 
 
 The continental powers, aided by the temporary revulsion of 
 sentiment against the enormities of the French revolution and 
 the outrageous schemes of Napoleon, were making a last 
 effort to restore and maintain the old regime and the divine 
 right of kings. But their success was of short duration ; hardly 
 more than a quarter of a century had passed before nearly all 
 these despotic powers were forced to yield to the demands of 
 popular liberty. It was against the extension of this system 
 that the United States protested in the declaration of the 
 Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 The Congress of Verona marks the final breaking up of the 
 Quintuple Alliance by the practical withdrawal of England. 
 Thereafter the four continental powers would appear to have 
 revised and set up the " Holy Alliance " as their guiding prin- 
 ciple ; and it has been usual to designate the previous Alliance 
 by the same title. The following is the text of the Treaty of 
 Holy Alliance, and of the secret treaty of Verona : 
 
 TEEATY OF THE HOLY ALLIANCE. 
 
 Signed at Paris, September 26, 1815. 
 
 " In the name of the Holy and Invisible Trinity. 
 
 "Their Majesties the Em^peror of Austria, the King of Prussia, 
 and the Emperor of Russia, in consequence of the great events, 
 which have distinguished in Europe the course of the three last 
 years, and especially of the blessings, which it has pleased Divine 
 Providence to shed upon those states, whose governments have 
 placed their confidence and their hope in it alone, having acquired 
 the thorough conviction, that it is necessary for insuring their 
 continuance that the several powers, in their mutual relations, 
 adopt the sublime truths which are pointed out to us by the 
 eternal religion of our Saviour God — 
 
 '■'■Declare solemnly. That the present act has no other object 
 than to show, in the face of the universe, their unwavering deter- 
 mination to adopt for the only rule of their conduct, both in the 
 
244 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 administration of their respective states, and in their political 
 relations with every other government, the precepts of their 
 holy religion, the precepts of justice, of charity and of peace, 
 which, far from being solely applicable to private life, ought, on 
 the contrary, directly to influence the resolutions of princes, and 
 to guide all their undertakings, as being the only means of giving 
 stability to human institutions, and of remedying their imperfec- 
 tions — their majesties have, therefore, agreed to the following 
 articles : 
 
 "Article I. — In conformity to the words of the Holy Script- 
 ures, which command all men to regard one another as brethren, 
 the three contracting monarchs will remain united, by the bonds 
 of a true and indissoluble fraternity ; and, considering each other 
 as compatriots, they wiU lend one another, on every occasion, 
 and in every place, assistance, aid, and support ; and, regarding 
 the subjects and armies, as the fathers of their families, they will 
 govern them in the spirit of fraternity with which they are ani- 
 mated, for the protection of religion, peace and justice. 
 
 " Article II. — Therefore, the only governing principle between 
 the above-mentioned governments and their subjects, shall be 
 that of rendering reciprocal services; of testifying, by an un- 
 alterable beneficence, the mutual affection with which they ought 
 to be animated ; of considering all as only the members of one 
 Christian nation, the three allied powers looking upon themselves 
 as delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the same 
 family, to wit : Austria, Prussia, and Russia, confessing, like- 
 wise, that the Christian nation, of which they and their people 
 form a part, have really no other sovereign than Him to whom 
 alone power belongs of right, because in Him alone are found all 
 the treasures of love, of science and of wisdom, that is to say, 
 God, our Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, the word of the Most High, 
 the word of Life. 
 
 ' ' Their Majesties, therefore, recommend, with the most tender 
 solicitude, to their people, as the only means of enjoying that 
 peace which springs from a good conscience, and which alone is 
 durable, to fortify themselves every day more and more in the 
 principles and exercise of the duties which the divine Saviour has 
 pointed out to us. 
 
 " Article III. — AU powers which wish solemnly to profess the 
 sacred principles which have delegated this act, and who shall 
 acknowledge how important it is to the happiness of nations, too 
 long disturbed, that these truths shall henceforth exercise upon 
 
THE MONKOE DOCTEINE. 245 
 
 / 
 
 human destinies, all the influence which belongs to them, shall 
 be received with as much readiness as affection, injto this holy 
 alliance.'' ^ 
 
 SECEET TREATY OF VEENOA. 
 Signed November 22, 1822. 
 
 " The undersigned, specially authorized to make some addi- 
 tions to The Treaty of the Holy Alliance^ after having exchanged 
 their respective credentials, have agreed as follows : 
 
 "Article. I. — The high contracting powers being convinced 
 that the system of representative government is equally as in- 
 compatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the 
 sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, 
 in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end 
 to the system of representative governments, in whatever country 
 it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in 
 those countries where it is not yet known. 
 
 ' ' Article II. — As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the 
 press is the most powerful means used by the pretended support- 
 ers of the rights of nations, to the detriment of those of Princes, 
 the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all 
 proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own states, but, 
 also, in the rest of Europe. 
 
 1 Unlike ordinary treaties, the Holy Alliance was a personal union of 
 sovereigns, signed, not by their ministers, but by their own hands. The 
 original signitaries were the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. 
 Louis XVIII. signed it November 19; and within the space of two years, 
 nearly all the secondary powers of Europe acceded to it. The Prince- 
 Regent of England, though approving the principles of the alliance, was 
 obliged to refuse his signature, because, as he wrote, " the forms of the 
 British Constitution preclude me from acceding formally to this treaty, in 
 the shape in which it has been presented to me." Wellington said bluntly 
 to the Emperor Alexander, " The idea of your Imperial Majesty would not 
 be understood in parliament. It would be impossible for the Prince- 
 Regent to adhere to a treaty without any basis, and of which one cannot 
 know the exact import." (Capeflgue: Histoire de la Restoration, III., 21.5). 
 
 The Holy Alliance was a sentimental conception of the Emperor Alex- 
 ander, assisted by that remarkable person, the Baroness von Crudner. 
 "The original of this treaty," says Capefigue, "is entirely in the hand- 
 writing of the Emperor Alexander, with corrections by Madame Crudner. 
 The word Sainte Alliance is written by this extraordinary woman." 
 
246 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 "Article III. — Convinced that the principles of religion con- 
 tribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive 
 obedience which they owe to their Princes, the high contracting 
 parties declare it to be their intention to sustain, in their re- 
 spective states," those measures which the clergy may adopt, with 
 the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately con- 
 nected with the preservation of the authority of Princes ; and the 
 contracting powers join in oflEering their thanks to the Pope, for 
 what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant co- 
 operation in their views of submitting the nations. 
 
 Article IV. — ^The situation of Spain and Portugal unite un- 
 happily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular 
 reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France 
 the care of putting an end to them, engage to assist her in the 
 manner which may the least compromise them with their own 
 people and the people of France, by means of a subsidy on the 
 part of the two empires, of twenty millions of francs every year, 
 from the date of the signature of this treaty to the end of the 
 war. 
 
 ' ' Article V. — In order to establish in the Peninsula the order 
 of things which existed before the revolution of Cadiz, and to 
 insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, 
 the high contracting parties give <to each other the reciprocal 
 assurance, that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting 
 all other ideas of utility, or other measures to be taken, they 
 will address themselves with the shortest possible delay, to all 
 the authorities existing in their states, and to all their agents in 
 foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending 
 towards the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this 
 treaty. 
 
 " Article VI. — This treaty shall be renewed with such changes 
 as new circumstances may give occasion for, either at a new 
 Congress, or at the Court of one of the contracting parties, as 
 soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated. 
 
 "Article VII. — The present treaty shall be ratified, and the 
 ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space of six months. 
 
 "(Signed) For Austria, Metternich ; for France, Chateaubriand; 
 for Prussia, Bemstet ; for Russia, Nesselrode." 
 
 The question of intervention in Spanish- American affairs to 
 aid Spain to reconquer her rebellious colonies had been broached 
 at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, and again at Verona, but it 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 247 
 
 had then been laid aside ; but in the autumn of 1823, when 
 France had suppressed the Liberal government in Spain, the 
 proposition was revived, and another meeting of the allies was 
 proposed for the purpose of considering the matter. 
 
 The war of independence had begun in these colonies in 1810. 
 When the kings, Charles IV., and Ferdinand VII., had handed 
 over the crown of Spaiii to Napoleon, at Bayonne, in 1808, the 
 people of Spain did not acquiesce in this disposition of their 
 country, and prepared to defend it against the French. But 
 for a time there was a lack of unity in their .counsels, and 
 various rival bodies {Juntas) contended for the supreme central 
 authority in the state. Each of these juntas, as well as the 
 new king — Joseph Bonaparte — claimed dominion of the colonies 
 of Spain. Those in America, however, remained loyal to King 
 Ferdinand, and anxious as to their fate in the event of the con- 
 quest of Spain by Napoleon, they began to set up provisional 
 governments in the several provinces, and in some cases ex- 
 pelled the Spanish governors. The Regency, which had taken 
 the place of the various juntas in Spain, at a time when it 
 could not defend its own territory, yet sent troops to the 
 colonies in 1810 to suppress all independent or revolutionary 
 movements therein. Acts of violence were committed which 
 were met by counter violence, and thus the " war of death " 
 began, the atrocities and brutality of which has hardly been 
 equaled in modern times. At first there was little thought of 
 independence among the people, but it soon developed, and in 
 1811, Venezuela, New Granada and Mexico, declared their in- 
 dependence ; other colonies followed suit, namely, Buenos 
 Ayres in 1816, Chih in 1818, and Peru in 1821. These declara- 
 tions bear a close resemblance to that of the United States ; 
 and the form of government adopted in its essential features 
 was, in most cases, modeled after the constitution of the North 
 American Republic. The most radical difference was in respect 
 to religion, the Roman Catholic Church being established by 
 the new constitutions as a state church. 
 
 The war continued in Peru till 1824, but in other states it 
 was practically ended much earlier — in Buenos Ayres, 1817, 
 in Columbia, Mexico, and Chili, 1821. 
 
 Having given a brief outline of affairs in Europe and in 
 Spanish-America during the period of the formation of the 
 
248 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 \ 
 
 Monroe doctrine, let us now turn to the United States and see 
 what was taking place there at the same time. 
 
 The Oei&in and Development of the Monkoe Docteine. 
 
 The policy of not intermeddling in strictly European poli- 
 ties, which has become a maxim in the history of the United 
 States, was, in its origin, the result of necessi ty^ rather than of 
 choice; it was the policy of a state not yet in a position to 
 make its power respected abroad, if, indeed, it could defend 
 itself at home. The statesmen of the revolutionary period be- 
 gan by seeking alliances among the sovereigns of Europe ; and 
 it was chiefly through their unfortunate engagements in the 
 treaty of allianc/e with France, of 1778, that the United States 
 were led to see the danger of entangling foreign relations. 
 
 When the war broke out in 1793 between England and 
 France, the last-named power demanded of the United States 
 the fulfillment of the stipulations of the above-mentioned 
 treaties. But without a navy, as the United States then were, 
 it was utterly impossible to carry out the stipulation of guar- 
 antee, and to permit France to use our ports for the purpose of 
 fitting out cruisers and the sale of prizes as she claimed the 
 right to do, while England was excluded from those privileges 
 would be equivalent to taking part in the war. The Presi- 
 dent and the Federalist leaders felt that, in the condition of 
 the country at that time to join in a European war would en- 
 danger the very existence of republican government in America. 
 England still held commanding positions on the western lakes ; 
 an insurrection was threatened in Western Pennsylvania; 
 serious party dissensions existed ; the fundamental institutions 
 of government were hardly yet organized and settled; the 
 debts of the country in proportion to its resources were very 
 large ; and Indian wars existed in the west. In view of these 
 circumstances and the exaggerated pretensions of France, the 
 government decided to maintain a strictly neutral position ; 
 accordingly a proclamation to that efliect was issued by Presi- 
 dent Washington, April 22, 1793. And to give legal force 
 to the principles of this proclamation, an act was passed the 
 next year, June 5, 1794, since known as the first " Neutrality 
 Act." It was to be in force for two years, but it was continued 
 
THE MOKEOE DOCTKINE 249 
 
 by the act of 1797, and made permanent by the act of 1800.' 
 To maintain this neutrality and the rights of a neutral cost the 
 country ultimately a war with England, and a gtiasi-wa,T with 
 France. France was indignant not only at the refusal to allow 
 her to use our ports for the purpose of fitting out cruisers and 
 of condemning prizes, but also at the declaration of neutrality, 
 and later the concluding of a treaty with England (the Jay 
 treaty of 1794). England on her part was intolerant of neutral 
 rights, and especially of the rights of neutral commerce which 
 might benefit France. Thus it was, that during nearly twenty 
 years of the wars of the French revolution, the weak republic 
 of the United States was buffeted between the arbitrary blows 
 of the two chief belligerents ; it was equally dangerous to go 
 to war and to remain neutral. Between the Orders in Council 
 and the Imperial decrees, American commerce was destroyed. 
 It was during this period that the' conviction became settled in 
 the minds of Americans that their welfare and safety demanded 
 an entire isolation from and independence of European politics. 
 So strong did this feeling become that finally in 1812, the 
 nation went to war with England, mainly in defense "of the 
 right to be let alone. 
 
 Washington was among the first to perceive the danger to 
 the new state of taking part in European wars ; and he saw in 
 this a reason for superseding the government of the confederacy 
 by a stronger and more united government to prevent the sep- 
 arate states from involving themselves in foreign complications. 
 Even as early as January 1, 1 788, he wrote to Jefferson : 
 
 " The American revolution has spread through Europe abetter 
 knowledge of the rights of mankind, the privileges of the people, 
 and the principles of liberty than has existed in aziy former period ; 
 a war in that quarter is likely to be kindled, especially between 
 France and England ; in the impending struggle, an energetic 
 general government must prevent the several states from involv- 
 ing themselves in the pohtical disputes of European powers. 
 The situation of the United States is such as makes it not only un- 
 necessary but extremely imprudent for them to take part in foreign 
 quarrels. Let them wisely and properly improve the advantages 
 which nature has given them, and conduct themselves with cir- 
 
 1 1 Stat, at L, 381. In 1818 a more stringent act was passed. 
 
250 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 cumspection. By that policy, and by giving security to property 
 and liberty they will become the asylum of the peaceful, the in- 
 dustrious, and the wealthy from all parts of the civilized world.'" 
 
 The necessity of keeping aloof from European disputes which 
 he had foreseen, was still more impressed upon his mind by 
 the events of his two administrations, and his vain attempt to 
 reconcile the differences of the two parties in American politics, 
 the French and the English. He therefore dwells upon the 
 subject with considerable insistence in his Farewell Ad- 
 dress : 
 
 ' ' The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations 
 is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as 
 little political connection as possible. So far as we have already 
 formed engagements, let them be fiilfllled with perfect good faith. 
 Here let us stop. 
 
 ' ' Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none 
 or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in 
 frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign 
 to our -concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to 
 implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes 
 of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her 
 friendships or enmities. 
 
 ' ' Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to 
 pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an 
 efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy 
 material injury from external annoyance ; when we may take 
 such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time 
 resolve upon to be scrupulously respected ; when belligerent 
 nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, 
 will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation ; when we may 
 choose peace or war as our interests, guided by justice, shaU 
 counsel. 
 
 ' ' Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation ? Why 
 quit our own to stand on foreign ground ? Why, by interweav- 
 ing our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our 
 peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, 
 interest, humor, or caprice ? 
 
 " It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with 
 any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now 
 
 1 Bancroft: History of the Confederation, Vol. II., 299. 
 
THE MONKOB DOCTRINE. 251 
 
 at liberty to do it ; for let me not be understood as capable of 
 patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim 
 no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty 
 is the best policy. I repeat, therefore, that those engagements 
 be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is un- 
 necessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care 
 always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respect- 
 able defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary aUiances 
 for extraordinaiy emergencies. 
 
 ' ' Harmony and a liberal intercourse with aU nations are recom- 
 mended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our com- 
 mercial policy should hold an equal and impartial plan ; neither 
 seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences ; consulting 
 a natural course of things ; diffusing and diversifying by gentle 
 measures the stream of commerce, but forcing nothing : estab- 
 lishing with powers so disposed (in order to give trade a stable 
 course, to define the rights of our merchants, to enable the govern- 
 ment to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best 
 that present circumstances and natural opinions will permit, but 
 temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied 
 as experience and circumstances shall dictate ; constantly keep- 
 ing in. view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested 
 favors from another — that it must pay with a portion of its inde- 
 pendence for whatever it may accept under that character — that 
 by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having 
 given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached 
 with ingratitude with not having given more. There can be no 
 greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from 
 nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, 
 which a just pride ought to discard. 
 
 ' ' In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my procla- 
 mation of the 22d of AprU, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanc- 
 tioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representa- 
 tives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has 
 continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter 
 or divert me from it. 
 
 ' ' After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights 
 I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under aU the 
 circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in 
 duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, 
 I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it 
 with moderation, perseverance and firmness. 
 
252 TOPICS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " The considerations which respect the right to hold this con- 
 duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I wiU only 
 observe, that according to my understanding of the matter, that 
 right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, 
 has been virtually admitted by all. 
 
 " The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, with- 
 out anything more from the obligation which justice and human- 
 ity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to 
 maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other 
 nations. 
 
 " The inducements of interest for observing that conduct wUl 
 best oe referred to your own reflections and experience. With 
 me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to 
 our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions ; and 
 to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and 
 constancy which it is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, 
 the command of its own fortune." 
 
 In his first inaugural address, John Adams said : 
 
 " Although it is very true that we ought not to involve our- 
 selves in the political system of Europe, but to keep ourselves al- 
 ways distinct and separate from it if we can, yet to effect this 
 separation, early, punctual, and continual information of the 
 current chain of events, and of the political projects in con- 
 templation, is no less necessary than if we were directly con- 
 cerned in them. It is necessary, in order to the discovery of the 
 efforts made to draw us in the vortex, in season to make prepa- 
 rations against them. However we may consider ourselves, the 
 maritime and commercial powers of the world wiU consider the 
 United States of America as forming a weight in that balance of 
 power in Europe which can never be forgotten or neglected." ^ 
 
 Jefferson, whose radical democratic principles made him con- 
 demn all monarchical governments, would naturally wish to 
 have as little to do with them as possible. In 1801, March 18, 
 he wrote to Thomas Paine : — 
 
 " Determined as we are to avoid, if possible, wasting the ener- 
 gies of our people in war and destruction, we shaU avoid impli- 
 cating ourselves with the powers of Europe, even in support of 
 principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., p. 111. 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTEINE. 253 
 
 interests difiEerent from ours, that we must avoid being entangled 
 in them." ^ 
 
 On October 3d, 1801, he wrote to "William Short :— 
 
 " We have a perfect horror at everything like connecting our- 
 selves with the politics of Europe. It would indeed be advanta- 
 geous to us to have neutral rights established on a broad ground ; 
 but no dependence can be placed in any European coalition for 
 that. They have so many other bye-in};erests of greater weight, 
 that some one or other wUl always be bought off. To be en- 
 tangled with them would be a ranch greater evU than a temporary 
 acquiescence in the false principles which have prevailed. Peace 
 is our most important interest, and a recovery from debt. We feel 
 ourselves strong and growing stronger. * * * If we can delay 
 but for a few years the necessity of vindicating the laws of nature 
 on the ocean, we shall be the more sure of doing it with effect. 
 The day is within my time as well as yours, when we may say 
 by what laws other nations shall treat us on the sea. And we 
 shall say it. In the mean time we wish to let every treaty we 
 have drop off without renewal. We call in our diplomatic mis- 
 sions, barely keeping up those to the most important nations. 
 There is a strong disposition in our countrymen to discontinue 
 even these ; and very possibly it may be done. Consuls will be 
 continued as usual. The interest which European nations feel, 
 as well as ourselves, in the mutual patronage of commercial inter- 
 course, is a sufficient stimulus on both sides to insure that pat- 
 ronage. A treaty contrary to that interest renders war neces- 
 sary to get rid of it." ' 
 
 The opinions and the policy of the first three • presidents 
 sufiBLciently show the drift of American thought upon this 
 question. Self-defense was the primary motive of the policy 
 of isolation. To be involved in the wars of Europe, it was felt 
 would endanger the very existence of the new republic; to 
 gain time and to tide over the period of weakness incident 
 to the founding of a new state and new institutions were the 
 great objects of Washington and his successors. They saw 
 that European complications were the chief danger, for on 
 this continent there were no powerful neighbors, — and that 
 
 1 IV. Jefferson's Works, 370. 
 
 2 IV. Jefferson's Works, 414: Gilman's Life of Munroe, 165, 166. 
 
254 TOPICS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 there should be none was a part of their general policy. So 
 we find the feeling very strong that Louisiana should at all 
 hazards be kept out of the hands of England or France, either 
 one of which in such a position would be a dangerous neighbor. 
 This was the chief motive in purchasing that territory from 
 France in 1803. 
 
 Up to this time, there seems to have been no particular 
 sentiment involved other than self-interest. To be sure the 
 Americans sympathized with popular governments and move- 
 ments wherever tried, but as yet there had been no such move- 
 ment on the western continent, except that of the United 
 States. There was yet no intimation of the Spanish- American 
 outbreak. 
 
 With the overthrow of the Spanish government by Napoleon, 
 and the consequent attempt of the Spanish-American colonies 
 to set up their independence, begins a new phase of the 
 American sentiment, which culminated a few years later in 
 the now famous declaration of President Monroe. 
 
 The active mind of Jefferson was foremost in grasping the 
 new idea — of including the whole of the new world in opposi- 
 tion to monarchical Europe. In respect to the struggle of the 
 Spaniards against Napoleon, Jefferson wrote to Governor 
 Claiborne, October 29, 1808 :— 
 
 " The truth is that the patriots of Spain have no warmer friends 
 than the administration of the United States ; but it is our duty 
 to say nothing and to do nothing for or against either. If they 
 succeed we shall be well satisfied to see Cuba and Mexico remain 
 in their present dependence, but very unwilling to see them in 
 that of either France or England, politically or commercially. 
 We consider their interests and ours as the same, and that the 
 object of both must be to exclude all European influence from 
 this hemisphere." ^ 
 
 The people of the United States took naturally a lively in- 
 terest in the Spanish-American struggle for independence. 
 At the close of their own war with England in 1815, under 
 the lead of a younger and more sanguine generation, the United 
 States had finally established not only the right to exist, but 
 
 ' V. Jefferson's Works, 381 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 255 
 
 also experienced a sense of self-sufficiency and continental im- 
 portance, not possible before. Freed from danger to them- 
 selves, they could afford to indulge in the sentiment of 
 sympathy for the neighbors to the south who were following 
 their own earlier example. Not only sympathy, but material 
 aid was furnished to those states by citizens of the Union ; 
 and to such an extent indeed, that the government felt called 
 upon, in order to preserve its neutral character, to demand 
 a more stringent neutrality act. And thereupon Congress 
 amended the act of 1794 with that view. 
 
 Of public men Henry Clay was the first to espouse openly 
 the cause of the Spanish- American States ; by his enthusiasm 
 and his eloquence, he did more, perhaps, than any one else to 
 arouse a sentiment in their favor, and to bring about the early 
 recognition by the American government of the independence 
 of those states. In his speech in the House of Representatives 
 in January, 1816, he expressed his sympathy with the South 
 American colonists, and again in his speech on the Neutrality 
 Bill, January 24, 1817 ; but his great speech in this cause and 
 one of the greatest of his life was that on Emancipation of 
 South America, March 24, 1818. 
 
 In the autumn of 1817, President Monroe appointed three 
 commissioners to proceed to South America to obtain inform- 
 ation in respect of the condition and political prospects of the 
 Spanish colonies. When the bill appropriating money for the 
 expenses of this commission ^ came up at the next session of 
 Congress, 24th March, 1818, Mr. Clay offered an amendment to 
 the effect that an additional sum be appropriated for one year's 
 salary and an outfit to a minister to the United Provinces of 
 Rio de la Plata. Speaking in favor of his amendment, Mr. 
 Clay said : — 
 
 " In the establishment of the independence of Spanish America, 
 the United States have the deepest interest. I have no hesitation 
 in asserting my firm belief, that there is no question in the foreign 
 policy of this country, which has ever arisen, or which I can con- 
 ceive as ever occurring, in the decision of which we have had or can 
 
 1 The commission consisted of Caesar A. Kodney, John Graham, and 
 Theodoric Bland, with H. M. Brackenridge as secretary. They sailed in 
 November, 1817, and returned (except Bland) July, 1818. 
 
256 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 have so much at stake. This interest concerns our politics, our 
 conunerce, our navigation. There cannot be a doubt that Spanish 
 America, once independent, whatever may be the form of the 
 government established in the several parts, these governments 
 will be animated by an American feeling, and guided by an Amer- 
 ican policy. They will obey the laws of the system of the new 
 world of which they will compose a part, in contradistinction to 
 that of Europe, without the influence of that vortex in Europe, 
 the balance of power between its several parts, the preservation 
 of which has so often drenched Europe in blood. America is suf- 
 ciently remote to contemplate the new wars which are to afllict 
 that quarter of the globe, as a calm, if not a cold and indifferent 
 spectator. In relation to those wars, the several parts of America 
 wUl generally stand neutral. And as, during the period when 
 they rage, it will be important that a liberal system of neutrahty 
 should be adopted and observed, all America wiU be interested in 
 maintaining and enforcing such a system. The independence of 
 Spanish America, then, is an interest of primary consideration. "^ 
 
 Clay's amendment was rejected by the house by a vote of 
 115 to 45. But on the 3d of April, 1820, Clay carried a 
 resolution in the House, 80 to 75, to the effect that it was ex- 
 pedient to send ministers to any of the governments of South 
 America " which have established or are maintaining their 
 independence of Spain." Again on the 10th February, 1821, 
 he carried a similar resolution through the House. 
 
 The speeches of Clay were translated into Spanish and read 
 at the head of the armies of the Southern Republics. A. year 
 later the executive and the Senate took the same view. 
 
 In the meantime, from the beginning of Monroe's ad- 
 ministration, the president and cabinet had been occupied 
 from time to time with the same subject. Madison's policy 
 had been to observe a strict neutrality between the two parties 
 to the war. 
 
 "It was anticipated at an early stage," said Mr. Munroe in 
 his first annual message, " that the contest between Spain and 
 the colonies would become highly interesting to the United States. 
 It was natural that our citizens should sympathize in events 
 which aflEected their neighbors. * * * Should the colonies establish 
 
 1 Colton's Life of Clay, I., 216, 217, 222. 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 257 
 
 their independence, it is proper now to state, that this government 
 neither seeks nor would accept from, them any advantage in com- 
 merce or otherwise which will not be equally open to all other 
 nations. The colonies wUl in that event become independent states, 
 free from any obligations to or connection with us, which it may 
 not then be their interest to form on the basis of a fair reciprocity. " 
 
 On the 20th of September, 1817, J. Q. Adams, the new 
 secretary of state, arrived in Washington, and had his first 
 interview with the president. The president, says Adams in 
 his diary, entered largely upon the motives of the mission 
 which he had contemplated sending to South America, and 
 expressed the wish to converse further. The 29th of September, 
 Crawford, secretary of the treasury, said Clay was determined, 
 at the next session of congress, to propose the acknowledg- 
 ment of the independence of the South American insurgents, 
 October 24. — The president said he desired to consult on South 
 American affairs. " He should put the question whether we 
 should now acknowledge the government of Buenos Ayres ? " 
 The question was discussed in the cabinet on the 25th, and 
 again on the 28th, but no decision arrived at ; on the 29th of 
 October Adams consults with the agent of the Buenos Ayres 
 government ; and the next day it was decided in cabinet meet- 
 ing to send the frigate Congress with commissioners to Buenos 
 Ayres. " I also," says Adams," explicitly avowed my opinion 
 that it is not now expedient for the president to acknowledge 
 the government of Buenos Ayres. But the president postponed 
 his determination upon this." 
 
 Clay's advocacy of this proposition was looked upon by the 
 cabinet as an attack upon the administration. December 6, 
 1817, Adams says, " Mr. Clay had already mounted his South 
 American great horse." " Clay's project is that in which John 
 Randolph failed — to control or overthrow the executive by 
 swaying the House of Representatives. He intends to bring 
 forward his motion to acknowledge the government of Buenos 
 Ayres, and perhaps Chili. He professes a wish to harmonize 
 with the executive as to the manner of bringing it forward." 
 December 6. — Mr. Calhoun pronounced himself most decisively 
 against the measure. "I had done the same before; the 
 President now, after some little hesitation did the same." 
 17 
 
258 TOPICS IN" AMEEICAK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 December 24,1817. — Dinner at Crawford's. "Clay came out 
 with great violence against the course of the executive on South 
 American affairs. Clay is as rancorously benevolent as John 
 Randolph. He has taken his stand of opposition from the first 
 day of the session, and his object is to make grounds for it." 
 
 January 12, 1818. — Hyde de Neuville (the French minister 
 at Washington) told Adams that the Duke de Richelieu had 
 written that there was a convention about South American 
 affairs on foot in Europe. May 1, 1818. — ^Adams has a con- 
 versation with Correa (the Portuguese minister) on Soutli 
 America and the European alliance. Correa said the European 
 alliance would take part against South America. Adams 
 answered that " if the European alliance undertook to settle 
 matters which concerned us so closely, without consulting us, 
 they should not be surprised if we acted without consulting 
 them." May 3, 1818. — Correa says the affairs of South 
 America are to be arranged without the intervention of Europe. 
 June 25, 1818. — Adams asks Bagot (the English minister), 
 what the allies were doing about South America. July 25, 
 1818. — The president asks Adams to see Bagot and propose 
 the co-operation of the two governments to promote the inde- 
 pendence of South America. " All South America, Mexico, and 
 the islands included." 
 
 November 7, 1818. — There was a cabinet meeting on the 
 question of the recognition of certain South American states. 
 The decision was against it. 
 
 Instructions appear to have been sent to Rush, who had 
 taken Adams' place as minister to England, to ascertain if 
 possible the intentions of the European alliance in this regard. 
 On the 16th of July, 1818, we find Rush broaching the subject 
 to Castlereagh, the minister of Foreign Affairs. Castlereagh 
 replied that no plan had as yet been matured. " Difficulties 
 had arisen with Spain, on points the most essential." Even 
 the place for the mediation had not been fixed upon. The 
 allied sovereigns, he said, when assembled at Aix-la-Chapelle 
 in the autumn, would probably take up the subject. Some days 
 later, July 31, Castlereagh sought another interview with 
 Rush and laid before him what had transpired touching the 
 question of South America. An invitation to mediate had 
 been received from Spain, but on conditions not very liberal ; 
 
THE MONBOB DOCTEINE. 259 
 
 yet the British answer approved in general, admitting the 
 supremacy of Spain, but demanding the opening of trade with 
 the colonies to the world, the mother country having a reason- 
 able preference. The previous year England had made a 
 similar proposition — asking no privileges for herself but insist- 
 ing upon freedom of trade and non-employment of force. 
 
 Then Castlereagh asked what were the views of the United 
 States government. 
 
 Rush replied, that the United States desired the complete 
 independence of the Spanish colonies .and would decline taking 
 part, if they took part at all, on any other basis. 
 
 Castlereagh was disappointed with this answer.^ 
 
 Adams' Diary, December 7, 1818.- — " I told Bagot that as the 
 congress of Aix-la-Chapelle had refused to take up the sub- 
 ject of South America, I concluded that mediation was aban- 
 doned. And Great Britain would probably soon be prepared 
 to acknowledge the independence of one or more South Ameri- 
 can colonies, and we could then act in concert, though not by 
 formal compact. I desired him to write Castlereagh to that 
 effect." 
 
 December 14. — Adams proposes to France to recognize the 
 independence of Buenos Ayres. 
 
 The President stated in his annual message of this year, 
 November 17, 1818, that from information received from the 
 commissioners who had returned from South America, and 
 from other sources, it appeared that Buenos Ayres and other 
 provinces of South America were practically independent, 
 while some other parts were still in the possession of Spain. 
 As to the question concerning the interference of the allied 
 powers of Europe in the affairs of South America, it appeared, 
 said the president, that resort would not be had to force, and 
 he advised a continuance of the policy thus far pursued by the 
 United States. 
 
 Although the European allies decided at the congress of 
 Aix-la-Chapelle to abstain from using force to restore the au- 
 thority of Spain in South America, they were nevertheless 
 much concerned by the attitude of the United States toward 
 Spain, and by their influence with the Spanish colonies. They 
 
 1 Memoranda of Eesidence at the Court of London, 330, 354, 358. 
 
260 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 feared the effect of recognition of those colonies by the United 
 States. 
 
 On January 2d, 1819, says Adams, the president proposed in 
 cabinet meeting to inform Castlereagh that we intended to re- 
 cognize Buenos Ayres before long. The cabinet was surprised 
 and a discussion followed. Calhoun wished to act only in con- 
 cert with Great Britain. Adams continues in his diary. May 
 29, 1819: Poli^tica, the Russian diplomatic agent, "is charged 
 by all the means in his power to promote an amicable arrange- 
 ment of affairs between the United States and Spain." There 
 was apprehension on the part of the Russian government lest 
 "the government of the United States, yielding to popular 
 clamor, will have recognized the independence of some of the 
 South American colonies before he arrives here." " If not, he 
 has orders to use all his endeavors * * * to dissuade them from 
 such an act of hostility to Spain." Also to use the power of 
 persuasion, " to prevail upon the government of the United 
 States not to associate itself with the European alliance, but to 
 pursue a course of policy in harmony with them, hinting that 
 a contrary course of policy could not be carried into effect, and 
 that the United States, whether willing or not, must follow the 
 impulse of Europe combined." The answer of Adams tersely 
 and plainly intimates that the United States, far from follow- 
 ing "the impulse of Europe combined," stood ready to give 
 active aid to the South American colonies in the case of Euro- 
 pean intervention against them. "I related to him," gays 
 Adams, " all that has been done by us concerning the South 
 American question ; told him we were convinced that Buenos 
 Ayres at least would maintain her independence of Spain; 
 that sooner or later they must be recognized as an independent 
 power ; that we had thought that the time would before now 
 have arrived when they might justly claim this as a right, but 
 from the time when we learnt that the allies had determined, 
 that whatever might be the event of their mediation, not to 
 use force against the South Americans, the president had con- 
 cluded that we might also forbear to take an immediate, deci- 
 sive part in their favor." 
 
 December 3, 1819. — At the cabinet meeting the president's 
 message was submitted. Adams thought the paragraph on 
 South America was much too strong in their favor. In this 
 
THE MONEOB DOCTKINE 261 
 
 opinion, Adams seemed to be alone; the draft however was 
 modified, and as published it has the same general tone in re- 
 lation to South America as the two previous messages.^ 
 
 The next day after the above-mentioned cabinet meeting, 
 Hyde de Neuville, the French minister, sounded Adams as to 
 giving a promise to Spain not to recognize the South American 
 colonies unless in concert with France. 
 
 The very strained relations between the United States and 
 Spain had been settled by treaty (1819), known subsequently as 
 the Florida Treaty, but the Spanish government had refused 
 to ratify it on account of the known intention of the United 
 States government to recognize the South American colonies. 
 The next year, Nov. 14, 1820, Monroe said in his annual mes- 
 sage, after mentioning the progress which the South American 
 colonies had made towards independence, and the favorable 
 effect which the revolution in Spain would have on this, " No 
 facts are known to this government to warrant the belief that 
 any of the powers of Europe will take a part in the contest ; 
 whence it may be inferred, considering all circumstances which 
 must have weight in producing the result, that an adjustment 
 will finally take place on the basis proposed by the colonies 
 [Independence]. To promote that result by friendly counsels 
 with other powers, including Spain herself, has been the uni- 
 form policy of this government." ^ 
 
 March 9, 1821. — Adams' Diary. About the time that Clay 
 carried the resolutions in the House, Adams said to Clay " that 
 the final issue of their (the South Americans') present struggle 
 would be their independence of Spain I had never doubted. 
 That it was our true policy and duty to take no part in the 
 contest was equally clear. The principle of neutrality to all 
 foreign wars was, in my opinion, fundamental to the continu- 
 ance of our liberties and our Union. So far as they were con- 
 tending for independence, I wish well to their cause ; but I had 
 seen and yet see no prospect that they will establish free or 
 liberal institutions of government." Adams was opposed at this 
 time, to entering into any close political or commercial rela- 
 tions with the Spanish American states, believing that the 
 United States had nothing to gain by such relations. All their 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., 415. ^ Statesman's Manual, I., 422. 
 
262 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 political education, customs, traditions, and religion were to- 
 tally different from ours. As to commerce " they want none of 
 our productions, and we could afford to purchase very few of 
 theirs." 
 
 Adams, with a certain impartiality, wished the Spanish 
 Americans to have a chance, independent of European influ- 
 ence, to wprk out their own destiny. 
 
 Monroe had more of Clay's spirit, but modified by long experi- 
 ence. 
 
 Clay had an enthusiastic sympathy for liberty in general and 
 wished to give aid everywhere to the oppressed. He had an 
 exalted idea of the usefulness of the Spanish American states as 
 members of the " American System." The two Americas com- 
 bined would be a counterpoise against monarchical Europe. In 
 a speech at Lexington in the summer of 1821, he said: — 
 
 ' ' Am.ong the motives which always appeared to him to recom- 
 mend to this country the countenance, by all means short of 
 actual war, that cause (the cause of the South American republics), 
 one, and not the least considerable, was that it would give ad- 
 ditional tone, and hope, and countenance to the friends of liberty 
 throughout the world. It was evident after the overthrow of 
 Bonaparte that the alliance, by which that event was unexpect- 
 edly brought about, would push the principle of legitimacy, a 
 softer and covered name for despotism, to the uttermost extent. 
 Accordingly, the present generation had seen, with painful feel- 
 ing, congress after congress assembling in Europe to decide with- 
 out ceremony, the destiny and afiEairs of foreign independent 
 states. And if we, the greatest offender of all against the 
 principle of legitimacy, had not been brought under their juris- 
 diction, and subjected to their parental care, we owed the ex- 
 emption to our distance from Europe and to the known bravery 
 of our countrymen. But who can Say, that has observed the 
 giddiness and intoxication of power, how long this exemption 
 will continue ? It had seemed to him desirable that a sort of 
 counterpoise to the holy alliance should be found in the two 
 Americas in favor of national independence and liberty, to oper- 
 ate by the force of example and by moral influence ; that here a 
 raUying-point and an asylum should exist for freemen and for 
 freedom." 
 
 Monroe continued in his second inaugural address, and in his 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTEINB. 263 
 
 message of December 3, 1821, to express his sympathy with 
 tlie Spanish American colonies, and to predict their indepen- 
 dence in tlie near future. And on the 8th of March, 1822, he 
 sent to Congress a special message, recommending the recogni- 
 tion of the Spanish American provinces as independent states.* 
 Soon after the reception of this message, both houses passed 
 resolutions favoring recognition, and on May 4, 1822, an act 
 was passed appropriating money for the support of diplomatic 
 agents to " such independent nations on the American conti- 
 nent as the president may deem proper." ^ 
 
 In his next annual message, December 3, 1822, the President 
 foreshadows the policy declared the next year and known as 
 the Monroe Doctrine. Mr. Monroe seemed to foresee the order 
 of events which would force the United States to defend them- 
 selves against the aggressions of Europe, as Clay had done 
 more than a year before. He recognized the antagonism be- 
 tween the political system represented by the European alli- 
 ance and that of America, and that they would possibly come 
 into conflict ; he would therefore prepare for it. As a link in 
 the chain of ideas which developed into the Monroe Doctrine, 
 the following passage from this message is worth studying : — 
 
 ' ' Other objects will likewise claim, your attention ; because, 
 from, the station the United States hold, as a member of the great 
 comm.unity of nations, they have rights to maintain, duties to 
 perform, and dangers to encounter. * * * 
 
 ' ' A great effort has been made in Spain and Portugal to im- 
 prove the condition of the people, and it must be very consoling 
 to all benevolent minds to see the extraordinary moderation with 
 which it has been conducted. That it may promote the happiness 
 of both nations is the ardent wish of this whole people, to the ex- 
 pression of which we confine ourselves ; for whatever may be 
 the feelings or sentiments which every individual under oiu* 
 government has a right to indulge and express, it is nevertheless 
 a sacred maxim, equally with the government and people, that 
 the destiny of every independent nation, in what relates to such 
 improvements, of right belongs and ought to be left exclusively 
 to themselves. 
 
 " Whether we reason from the late wars, or from those menac- 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., 483. 
 
 * Benton's Debates, VII., 204, 205, 287, 297-309, 319, 320. 
 
264 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ing symptoms which now appear in Europe, it is manifest, that 
 if a convulsion should take place in any of those countries, it 
 will proceed from causes which have no existence and are utterly 
 unknown in these states, in which there is but one order, that of 
 the people, to whom the sovereignty exclusively belongs. Should 
 war break out in any of those countries, who can foretell the ex- 
 tent to which it may be carried, or the desolation which it may 
 spread ? Exempt as we are from these causes, our internal tran- 
 quillity is secure ; and distant as we are from the troubled scene, 
 and faithful to first principles in regard to other powers, we 
 might reasonably presume that we should not be molested by 
 them. This, however, ought not to be calculated upon as certain. 
 Unprovoked injuries are often inflicted, and even the peculiar 
 felicity of our situation might, with some, be a cause for excite- 
 ment and aggression. The history of the late wars in Europe 
 furnishes a complete demonstration that no system of conduct, 
 however correct in principle, can protect neutral powers from 
 injury from any party ; that a defenseless position and dis- 
 tinguished love of peace are the surest invitations to war ; and 
 that there is no way to avoid it other than by being always pre- 
 pared, and willing for a just cause to meet it. If there be a 
 people on the earth whose more special duty it is to be at all times 
 prepared to defend the rights with which they are blessed, and 
 to surpass all others in sustaining the necessary burdens, and in 
 submitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, it is undoubt- 
 edly the people of these states. 
 
 "In view of the civil wars on the Adriatic and Black Seas; 
 of the symptoms of war in other parts ; of the war still going on 
 between Spain and her provinces ; and of the system of piracy 
 carried on in the neighboring seas, the reasons for sustaining the 
 attitude we now hold, and for pushing forward all our measures 
 of defense with the utmost vigor, appear to me to acquire new 
 force. 
 
 ' ' The United States owe to the world a great example, and, 
 by means thereof, to the cause of liberty and humanity a gener- 
 ous support. They have so far succeeded to the satisfaction of 
 the virtuous and enlightened of every country. There is no 
 reason to doubt that their whole movement by a sacred regard 
 to principle, all our institutions being founded on that basis. 
 The ability to support our own cause, under any trial to which 
 it may be exposed, is the great point on which the public solicitude 
 rests. It has often been charged against free governments that 
 
THE MONKOE DOCTEINE. 265 
 
 they have neither the foresight nor the virtue to provide at 
 the proper season for great emergencies ; that their course is im- 
 provident and expensive ; that war will always find them unpre 
 pared, and whatever may belts calamities, that its terrible warn- 
 ings will be disregarded and forgotten as soon as peace returns. 
 I have fuU confidence that this charge, so far as relates to the 
 United States, wiU be shown to be utterly destitute of truth."' 
 
 It is evident from the discussions in congress and in the 
 executive councils, during the period from 1817 to 1822, that 
 the Monroe Doctrine was not the creation of a moment ; it did 
 not spring into existence all at once in 1823. The idea and the 
 principle had become familiar to the people ; and the policy it 
 proclaims was strong in the nation before it was distinctly 
 formulated by Mr. Monroe in his seventh annual message. If 
 the occasion had presented itself at an earlier date — any time 
 indeed after 1817, there is every reason to think that the same 
 stand would have been taken by the government of the United 
 States. From the very first, we see with what interest and 
 anxiety Mr. Monroe and his cabinet watched the proceedings 
 of the European Alliance ; and seized upon every rumor of their 
 interference in the afEairs of South America. They were deter- 
 mined to prevent this at all hazards. It was evident to 
 American statesmen that England was not in sympathy with the 
 continental powers in their policy of intervention and coercion, 
 and especially in the case of Spanish America. So we find Mr. 
 Monroe proposing to England as early as July, 1818, a co-oper- 
 ation of the two governments to promote the independence of 
 Spanish America. So far indeed from Canning being the first 
 to suggest such co-operation in favor of Spanish America, as 
 has been claimed, we find that the idea was familiar in America 
 six years before Canning suggested it. On October 11, 1817, 
 Niles said in his Register : ^ "It seems understood that some 
 very important matters, in regard to Spain and her colonies, 
 will occupy the attention of the next congress. In our own 
 right and that of oppressed humanity, we might lawfully de- 
 clare war against Spain, and no doubt should have declared it 
 long since, if we had not been apprehensive of embroiling our- 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., 449. " XIII., 99. 
 
266 TOPICS IN AMBKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 selves with the kings of other countries, united to defend one 
 another against the people. But we trust that this unholy 
 alliance may soon be broken ; not because we wish war, 
 but that every nation may freely regulate its own affairs — and 
 as sovereigns, declare war and make peace, as to them shall 
 seem just. And this event is certain — that if England would 
 only balance the great European powers, the United States 
 could easily throw in such a weight of strength and influence as 
 immediately to destroy every vestige of Spanish supremacy on 
 the American continent." This was very nearly what took 
 place six years later. 
 
 What Canning did in 1823 was to warn our government 
 through Mr. Rush, of the threatened danger from the conti- 
 nental powers. 
 
 When it became evident that the French army would soon 
 overcome all resistance in Spain, it became a pressing question 
 what action to take in respect to the Spanish American colonies 
 then in revolt against the mother country. The four allied 
 powers of the continent proposed to meet in a congress to set- 
 tle a course of policy in this case. When the new.s of this pro- 
 ceeding came to the ears of Canning, then foreign minister, he 
 cast about for the best means of thwarting the designs of the 
 alliance. Knowing the strong sympathy of the United States 
 for their southern neighbors, and their suspicion and dislike of 
 the principles of the European alliance, he naturally turned to 
 this country for aid. 
 
 England had as yet rejected all the overtures of the United 
 States to join them in recognizing the independence of the Span- 
 ish Republics. Although anxious to stand well with those re- 
 publics, and convinced of their ultimate independence of Spain, 
 England was, nevertheless, held back from actual acknowledg- 
 ment by fear of an open breach and perhaps war, with her con- 
 tinental allies. But now the time had come when her own 
 interests were at stake ; her rivals of the continent, and partic- 
 ularly France, were about to establish their authority on the 
 western continent — a danger to British prestige and to British 
 commerce.^ ' 
 
 At this juncture of affairs, Canning, who had hitherto shown 
 
 1 8 Knight's England. 
 
THE MONROE DOCTEINE. 267 
 
 no friendship to the United States, suddenly developed an 
 admiration for our early statesmen, and began to shower com- 
 pliments for them upon the American minister.^ 
 
 On the 16th of August, 1823, he sought an interview with 
 Mr. Rush, the American minister, touching Spanish American 
 affairs. " Mr. Canning asked me," says Rush, " what I thought 
 my government would say to going hand in hand with England 
 in such a policy ? " (That of preventing interference by France 
 or the continental powers.) " He did not think that concert of 
 action would become necessary, fully believing that the simple 
 fact of our two countries, being known to hold the same opinion, 
 would by its moral effect, put down the intention on the part 
 of France, if she entertained it. This belief was founded, he 
 said, upon the large share of the maritime power of the world 
 which Great Britain and the United States shared between 
 them, and the consequent influence which the knowledge of 
 their common policy on the question involving such important 
 maritime interest, present and future, could not fail to produce 
 on the rest of the world." 
 
 On the 22d of August, Canning wrote to Rush on the same 
 subject : — 
 
 " He asks if the m.oment has not arrived when the two govern- 
 ments might understand each other as to the Spanish American 
 colonies ; and if so, whether it would not be expedient for our- 
 selves, and beneficial for aU the world, that our principles ui 
 regard to them should be clearly settled and avowed ? That as 
 to England she had no disguise on the subject. 
 
 "1. She conceived the recovery of the colonies by Spain, to be 
 hopeless. 
 
 "2. That the question of their recognition as independent 
 states, was one of time and circumstances. 
 
 " 3. That England was not disposed, however, to throw any 
 impediment in the way of an arrangement between the colonies 
 and the mother country, by amicable negotiations. 
 
 "4. That she aimed at the possession of no portion of the colo- 
 nies for herself. 
 
 "5. That she could not see the transfer of them to any other 
 power with indifference. 
 
 " That if the United States acceded to such views, a declara- 
 
 Eush's Court of London, 1821. 
 
268 TOPICS IN AMEBIC AK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 tion to that efEect, on their part, concurrently with England, 
 would be the most effectual and least offensive mode of making 
 known their joint disapprobation of contrary projects ; that it 
 would at the same time put an end to all the jealousies of Spain 
 with respect to her remaining colonies, and to the agitation pre- 
 vailing in the colonies themselves, by showing that England and 
 the United States were determined not to profit by encouraging 
 it. And I am asked, in conclusion, whether I consider, whether 
 the f uU power which I have lately received from my government 
 would authorize me to enter into negotiations to sign a conven- 
 tion on the above subject ; and if not, if I would exchange with 
 him, as the organ of the British government, ministerial notes in 
 relation to it." 
 
 On the 23d of August, Canning wrote from Liverpool, saying 
 that an additional motive had occurred, since his previous note 
 was written, for wishing that the two countries would come to 
 some understanding on the Spanish- American question and be 
 at liberty to announce it to the world. The motive was, that 
 England had received notice, though not such as imposed the 
 necessity of instant action, that, as soon as the military, objects 
 in Spain were achieved, a proposal would be made for a con- 
 gress in Europe, specifically on the affairs of South America. 
 And such a proposal, however dealt with by England, might 
 lead to embarrassing complications. 
 
 Rush lost no time -in making known to his government these 
 proposals of Canning. But he had to answer to Canning's com- 
 munication, that in the absence of specific instructions in so 
 important a matter, he was not prepared to act without con- 
 sulting his government. He was not willing to pledge his 
 government to any policy which might implicate it in the feder- 
 ative system of Europe. And further, he insisted that England 
 should acknowledge the independence of the South American 
 colonies before a joint action with the United States would be 
 possible. 
 
 More specifically, Mr. Rush answered Canning on the 23d and 
 27th of August : " that the United States desired to see the 
 independence of the late Spanish provinces in America per- 
 manently maintained ; and that they would view as unjust 
 and improper any attempt on the part of the powers of Europe 
 to intrench upon that independence." 
 
THE MONKOE DOCTRINE. 269 
 
 And further, that the government of the United States 
 " would regard as alike objectionable any interference whatever 
 in the afEairs of Spanish America, unsolicited by the late prov- 
 inces themselves, and against their will ; that it would regard 
 the convening of a congress to deliberate upon their ailairs as 
 a measure uncalled for, and indicative of a policy highly un- 
 friendly to the tranquillity of the world ; that it could never 
 look with insensibility upon such an exercise of European juris- 
 diction over communities now of right exempt from it, and 
 entitled to regulate their own concerns unmolested from 
 abroad." ^ 
 
 On the 18th and 26th of September, Rush had full conferences 
 with Canning upon Spanish- American afEairs. Canning again 
 urged upon Rush the expediency and urgency of co-operative 
 action. Rush finally consented to take such action on his own 
 responsibility on the condition of the immediate recognition of 
 the Spanish- American republics by the government of England. 
 Canning could not promise to take this step ; and as he had 
 before intimated, the question was too pressing to admit delay, 
 he would therefore be under the necessity of acting alone. 
 
 Canning afterwards represented his overtures to Rush as 
 merely sounding the American minister as to his powers, etc. 
 He wrote to Sir William S, Court under date of the 31st of 
 December following : — 
 
 ' ' While I was yet hesitating what shape to give to the decla- 
 ration and protest which ultimately was conveyed in my con- 
 ference with P. de Polignac ; and while I was more doubtful as 
 to the efEect of that protest and declaration, I sounded Mr. Rush, 
 the American Minister here, as to his powers and disposition, to 
 join us in any step, which we might take, to prevent a hostile 
 enterprise on the part of the European powers against Spanish 
 America. He had no powers ; but he would have taken upon 
 himself to join with us, if we would have begun by recognizing 
 the Spanish American states. 
 
 ' ' This we could not do, and so we went on without. But I have 
 no doubt that his report to his government of this sounding 
 (which he probably represented as an overture) had a great share 
 in producing the explicit declarations of the president." 
 
 1 Bush's Court of London, 383. 
 
270 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 It would seem from this statement that Canning was playing 
 a double game ; that he was not sincere in his overtures to Rush, 
 but only wished to learn, as nearly as possible, the sentiments 
 and probable policy of the United States, in the event of Euro- 
 pean intervention in Spanish America. Convinced by his 
 interview with Rush that he could count with certainty on the 
 assistance of the United States in the last resort. Canning felt 
 emboldened to beard the continental alliance, or the " Holy 
 Alliance," as the four great powers of the continent were also 
 the chief powers of that alliance. 
 
 In the early part of October, Canning sought several inter- 
 views with Prince de Polignac (French Ambassador in London), 
 in reference to the question of Spanish America, in which the 
 views and intentions of the two governments were set forth in 
 a " minute of the conversation." Rush in his abstract of this 
 paper, November 26, 1823, says that " England declares that 
 she will recognize the independence of the colonies, in case 
 France should employ force in aid of their resubjugation : or, 
 in case Spain herself " should attempt to put a stop to the trade 
 of Britain with those colonies." Nothing is said as to what she 
 would do beyond recognizing their independence. Canning 
 took care to make known the interest which the United States 
 had in the question. A preference is expressed for the mon- 
 archical form of government in the colonies. 
 
 In behalf of France, Polignac " declares that France, like Eng- 
 land, considers the recovery of the colonies by Spain as hopeless. 
 That France would not assist Spain in attempting their recon- 
 quest, but desired to see the dispute made up by amicable 
 arrangements between the mother country and the colonies." 
 
 France like Britain claims no exclusive commercial advan- 
 tages from the colonies. " It knows not what there is to be 
 recognized in the colonies as independent ; France regarding all 
 government there as a mockery. It labors to show the neces- 
 sity of assembling a congress in which England should be a 
 part (which she declines), to bring about the benevolent end of 
 reclaiming those remote regions from their past errors, and 
 making up the dispute between them and the parent state on 
 terms satisfactory to both as the policy worthy of both." ^ 
 
 1 Rush's Court of London, 409. 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTEINE. 271 
 
 Although satisfied for the time by these assurances on the 
 part of France, Canning soon had reason to believe that the 
 French government was also playing a double game. A year 
 later he writes to Granville, then become Ambassador at Paris, 
 complaining of the duplicity of the French government. In 
 respect to Spanish-America he says : — 
 
 ' ' It was because I found that there was no relying on anything 
 that the French government said to us of their views and inten- 
 tions on that subject ; it was because I found them holding dif- 
 ferent language to different powers, that I resorted to publicity, 
 and gave to the world the conference with Prince Polignac ; a 
 disclosure which (I admit) sealed the fate of the question and 
 which must rule aU future steps in the progress of it. 
 
 " We would, we might, have understood each other on that 
 question at the outset, if France had had the openness (or the 
 courage) to declare with us against a congress. But her object was 
 to keep weU with both parties (I mean with the alliance and with 
 us) to take credit with the allies ; to wheedle us into a congress ; 
 and to wheedle us into it by promising to side with us when once 
 fairly in. Publication cut the knot of this twisted policy, and 
 from that moment it would have been nonsense to think of confi- 
 dence between France and us, as to Spanish America." 
 
 Now let us turn again to the United States, and see what 
 was there taking place during this eventful summer. 
 
 During the spring and summer of the year 1823, Mr. Adams, 
 as secretary of state, had entered into a correspondence with 
 Baron Tuyll, the Russian Minister, in respect to a dispute 
 which had arisen about the ownership of the northwest coast 
 of America. The Emperor of Russia had issued an ukase, 
 September 4, 1821, in which he claimed for Russia the North- 
 west coast of America as far south as the 51st degree of north 
 latitude. This claim was resisted by the governments of both 
 the United States and England.^ 'The spring of 1823 was oc- 
 cupied by Mr. Adams in studying the question, and in search- 
 ing for argurhents with which to disprove the right of the 
 Russian claim, but without arriving at any definite results. 
 Adams believed at that time that we had no valid right to 
 
 By separate conventions with the United States (1824) and England 
 (1825), Eiissia withdrew her claims to the coast south of latitude 54° 40'. 
 
272 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 territory north of the 49th parallel ; yet he said on the first of 
 July, " I find proof enough to put down the Russian argument, 
 but how shall we answer the Russian cannon ? " On the 17th 
 of July Adams was ready to try his newly-found arguments. 
 On that day he had an interview with Baron Tuyll, in which 
 he " told him specially that we should contest the right of 
 Russia to any territorial establishment on this continent, and 
 that we should assume distinctly the principle that the Amer- 
 ican continents are no longer subjects for any new European 
 colonial establishments." 
 
 A few days later (July 22), in writing to Middleton, American 
 minister to Russia, Adams said, " There can, perhaps, be no 
 better time for saying, frankly and explicitly, to the Russian 
 government, that the future peace of the world, and the interest 
 of Russia herself, cannot be promoted by Russian settlements 
 upon any part of the Americg,n continent. With the exception 
 of the British establishments north of the United States, the 
 remainder of both the American continents must henceforth be 
 left to the management of American hands. It cannot possibly 
 be the purpose of Russia to form extensive colonial establish- 
 ments in America. The new American republics will be as im- 
 patient of a Russian neighbor as the United States ; and the 
 claim of Russia to territorial possession, extending to the flfty- 
 flrst parallel of north latitude, is equally incompatible with 
 British pretensions." ^ 
 
 On the same day, Adams in writing to Rush, said, that the 
 exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents 
 had ceased, and therefore that portion of the Nookta Sound 
 convention (between Spain and England, 1790), ceding certain 
 rights of navigation and fishing, had been extinguished by the 
 fact of the independence of the South-American nations and of 
 Mexico. 
 
 "Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to 
 that condition, and their territories will, of course, be subject to 
 no exclusive right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to 
 them by any foreign nation. 
 
 ' ' A necessary consequence of this state of things wiU be, that 
 the American continents, henceforth, will no longer be subjects 
 
 ^ St. Pap. 5 Foreign Kelations, 445. 
 
THE MONKOB DOCTRINE. 273 
 
 of colonization. Occupied by civilized independent nations, they 
 will be accessible to Europeans and to each other on that footing 
 alone, and the Pacific Ocean in every part of it wUl remain open 
 to the navigation of all nations, in like manner with the Atlantic. 
 
 " Incidental to the condition of national independence and 
 sovereignty, the rights of anterior navigation of their rivers will 
 belong to each of the American nations within its own territories. 
 
 " The application of colonial principles of exclusion, therefore, 
 cannot be admitted by the United States as lawful upon any part 
 of the northwest coast of America, or as belonging to any 
 European nation." i 
 
 The substance of these statements of Adams formed a part 
 of the President's next annual message. 
 
 On the receipt from Rush of Canning's proposal, President 
 Monroe submitted the question to Jefferson and Madison for 
 their opinions. The following are extracts from their letters in 
 reply :— 
 
 Jefferson to Monroe. 
 
 " MoNTiCELLO, October 24, 1823. 
 
 ' ' The question presented by the letters you have sent me, is the 
 most momentous which has ever been offered to my contem- 
 plation since that of independence. That made us a nation, this 
 sets our compass, and points the course which we are to steer 
 through the ocean of time opening on us. And never could we 
 embark on it under circumstances inore auspicious. Our first 
 and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves 
 in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to 
 intermeddle with cis- Atlantic affairs. America, north and south, 
 has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly 
 her own. She should therefore have a system of her own, 
 separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is labor- 
 ing to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should 
 surely be, to make our hemisphere that of freedom. One nation, 
 most of aU, could disturb us in this pursuit ; she now offers to lead, 
 aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to her proposition, 
 we detach her from the band of despots, bring her mighty weight 
 into the scale of free government, and emancipate a continent at 
 
 1 U. S. St. Pap,. 5 Foreign Relations, 447. 
 18 
 
274 TOPICS IK AMEEICAK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 one strokB, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and dif- 
 ficulty. Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most 
 harm of any one, or all, on earth ; and with her on our side we 
 need not fear the whole world. With her, then, we should most 
 sedulously cherish a cordial friendship ; and nothing would tend 
 more to knit our affections, than to be fighting once more, side by 
 sid^, in the same cause. Not that I would purchase even her amity 
 at the price of taking part in her wars. But the war in which 
 the present propositioip might engage us, should that be its con- 
 sequence, is not her war, but ours. Its object is to introduce and 
 establish the American system, of keeping out of our land all 
 foreign powers, of never permitting those of Europe to inter- 
 meddle with the afEairs of our nations. It is to maintain our 
 own principle, not to depart from it. And if, to facilitate, we 
 can effect a division in the body of the European powers, and draw 
 over to our side its most powerful member, surely we should do 
 it. But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion, that it will pre- 
 vent instead of provoking war. With G-reat Britain withdrawn 
 from their scale, and shifted into that of our two continents, all 
 Europe combined would not undertake such a war. For how 
 would they propose to get at either enemy without superior fleets ? 
 Nor is the occasion to be slighted which this proposition offers 
 of declaring our protest against the atrocious violations of the 
 rights of nations, by the interference of any one in the internal 
 affairs of another, so flagitiously begun by Bonaparte, and now 
 continued by the equally lawless alliance, calling itself holy. 
 
 ' ' But we have flrst to ask ourselves a question. Do we wish 
 to acquire to our own confederacy any one or more of the Spanish 
 provinces ? I candidly confess that I have ever looked on Cuba 
 as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our 
 system of States. The control which, with Florida Point, this 
 island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico and the countries 
 and isthmus bordering on it, as well as all those whose waters 
 flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political well-being. 
 Yet, as I am sensible that this can never be obtained, even with 
 her own consent, but by war, and its independence, which is our 
 second interest (and especially its independence of England) , can 
 be secured without it, I have no hesitation in abandoning my first 
 wish to future chances, and accepting its independence, with 
 peace and the 'friendship of England, rather than its association 
 at the expense of war and her enmity." * * '* (7 Jefferson's 
 works, 315). 
 
THE MONROE DOCTEINE. 275 
 
 Madison to Monroe, October 30, 1823. 
 (3 Madison's Writings, 339.) 
 
 ' ' Dear Sir : I have just received from Mr. Jefferson your letter 
 to him, with the correspondence between Mr. Canning and Mr. 
 Rush, sent for his and my perusal and our opinions on the sub- 
 ject of it. 
 
 ' ' From the disclosures of Mr. Canning, it appears, as was 
 otherwise to be inferred, that the success of France against Spain 
 would be followed by an attempt of the holy allies to reduce the 
 revolutionized colonies of the latter to their former dependence. 
 
 " The professions we have made to these neighbors, our 
 sympathies with their liberties and independence, the deep in- 
 terest we have in the most friendly relations with them, and the 
 consequences threatened by a command of their resources by the 
 great powers, confederated against the rights and reforms of 
 which we have given so conspicuous and persuasive an example, 
 all unite in calling for our efforts to defeat the meditated crusade. 
 It is particularly fortunate that the policy of Great Britain, though 
 guided by calculations different from ours, has presented a co- 
 operation for an pbject the same with ours. With that co-oper- 
 ation we have nothing to fear from the rest of Europe, and with 
 it the best assurance of success to our laudable views. There 
 ought not, therefore, to be any backwardness, I think, in meeting 
 her in the way she has pi'oposed, keeping in view, of course, the 
 spirit and fornfis of the Constitution in every step taken in the 
 road to war, which must be the last step if those short of war 
 should be without avail." * * * 
 
 The first intimation that Adams gives in his diary of the 
 reception of Canning's proposals to Rush, is under the date of 
 November 7, 1823. A cabinet meeting was called to discuss 
 the matter. " There was much conversation, without coming 
 to any definite point. The object of Canning, Adams writes, 
 appears to have been to obtain some public pledge from the 
 government of the United States, ostensibly against the forc- 
 ible interference of the Holy Alliance between Spain and 
 South America; but really or especially against the acquisition 
 to the United States themselves of any part of the Spanish- 
 American possessions." 
 
 Calhoun was inclined to giving a discretionary power to 
 
276 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Rush, to join in a declaration against the interference of the 
 Holy Allies. Adams and Southard objected to this. 
 
 " The president was averse to any course which should have 
 the appearance of taking a position subordinate to that of Great 
 Britain, and suggested the idea of sending a special minister to 
 protest against the interposition of the Holy Alliance." 
 
 Adams thought it was a question for separate consideration, 
 whether we ought in any event, if invited, to attend at a con- 
 gress of the allies on this subject. 
 
 Calhoun thought we ought in no case to attend. 
 
 "The president, referring to instructions given before the 
 congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, declaring that we would, if invited, 
 attend no meeting relative to South America, of which less 
 than its entire independence should be the object, intimated 
 that a similar limitation might be assumed now." 
 
 Adams objected that the case was different then. We had 
 now recognized the Spanish-American states, therefore the same 
 limitation would be useless. The president assented to this. 
 
 "I remarked that the communications recently received from 
 the Russian minister. Baron Tuyll, afforded, as I thought, a 
 very suitable and convenient opportunity for us to take our 
 stand against the Holy Alliance, and at the same time to de- 
 cline the overture of Great Britain. It would be more candid, 
 as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to 
 Russia and France, than to come in as a cock-boat in the wake 
 of the British man-of-war. 
 
 " This idea was acquiesced in all sides, and my draft for an 
 answer to Baron Tuyll's note announcing the emperor's deter- 
 mination to refuse receiving any minister from the South-Amer- 
 ican governments was read." 
 
 " Mr. Calhoun objected to two words as sarcastic — the word 
 ' Christian ' annexed to independent nations, and the words ' of 
 peace ' added to the word minister." 
 
 " I told him, laughing, that all the point of my note was in 
 those two words, as my object was to put the Emperor in 
 the wrong in the face of the world as much as possible. 
 
 " It was thought the best method of making the profession 
 of our principles would be in answering that part of Baron 
 Tuyll's communication to me which was verbal — the intima- 
 tion of the Emperor's hope, that we should continue to observe 
 
THE MONROE DOCTKINE. 277 
 
 neutrality in the contest between Spain and South America. 
 * * * The discussion continued till four o'clock, when Mr. 
 Calhoun had an engagement, and the meeting broke up without 
 coming to any conclusion. 
 
 " I remained with the President, and observed to him that 
 the answer to be given to Baron Tuyll, the instructions to Mr. 
 Rush relative to the proposals of Mr. Canning, those to Mr. 
 Middleton at St. Petersburg, and those to the minister who 
 must be sent to France, must all be parts of a combined system 
 of policy and adapted to each other ; in which he fully con- 
 curred." 
 
 Adams proposed to tell Baron Tuyll that "receiving in 
 friendly part the expression of the Emperor's wish that the 
 United States may continue to observe the neutrality an- 
 nounced on their recognition of the South American govern- 
 ments, he wished the Baron to state to his government, in 
 return, the desire of that of the United States that the 
 Emperor, on his part, should continue to observe the same 
 neutrality. 
 
 "The discussion at the cabinet meeting took a wide 
 range. * * * 
 
 " I observed that I was rather glad of the objection of the 
 British government to the preliminary recognition, as I should 
 be sorry that we should be committed upon Canning's prop- 
 ositions, even so far as we might have been, by Mr. Rush on 
 his own responsibility. 
 
 " Calhoun wondered what could be the objection of Great 
 Britain to recognition. 
 
 " I said there were two reasons ; one, the aversion to fly 
 directly in the face of the Holy Alliance ; and, secondly, the 
 engagements of her treaties with Spain, particularly that of 
 5th July, 1814. 
 
 " Calhoun and Southard thought that Great Britain would, 
 in no event, take a stand against the Holy Alliance on South 
 American affairs unless sure of our co-operation. She could 
 not be belligerent, leaving us neutral, because it must throw 
 the whole commerce of the adverse party into our hands. It 
 was the opinion of us all that a minister must immediately be 
 sent to Prance." 
 
 November 13. — "Morning occupied in making a draft of 
 
278 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 minutes for the message of the President upon subjects under 
 the direction of the department of state." 
 
 Adams then goes to see the President, and continues: "I 
 find him yet altogether unsettled in his own mind as to the 
 answer to be given to Mr. Canning's proposals, and alarmed far 
 beyond anything that I could have conceived possible, with the 
 fear that the Holy Alliance are about to restore immediately 
 all South America to Spain. Calhoun stimulates the panic, 
 and the news that Cadiz has surrendered to the French has so 
 affected the President that he appeared entirely to despair of 
 thecauseof South America.* * * We discussed the proposals 
 of Canning, and I told him if he would decide either to accept 
 or decline them, I would draft a dispatch conformably to either 
 decision for his consideration. He said he would talk further 
 about it to-morrow." 
 
 November 15. — "The President showed Adams letters which 
 he had received from Jefferson and Madison, in answer to his 
 request for their opinions in i-egard to Canning's proposals. 
 
 Later this same day there was a cabinet meeting, at which 
 the discussion of Canning's proposal was renewed. " I soon 
 found," says Adams, " the source of the President's despond- 
 ency with regard to South American affairs. Calhoun is per- 
 fectly moon-struck by the surrender of Cadiz, and says the 
 Holy Allies, with ten thousand men, will restore all Mexico 
 and all South America to the Spanish dominion." 
 
 Adams scouted this idea, and added that if the South Ameri- 
 cans were so feeble, we should do well not to ally ourselves 
 with them. Calhoun again reverted to his idea of giving our 
 minister discretionary power to accede to all Canning's pro- 
 posals, if necessary and not otherwise. 
 
 " After much discussion," continues Adams, " I said I thought 
 we should bring the whole answer to Mr. Canning's proposals 
 to a test of right and wrong. Considering the South Ameri- 
 cans as independent nations, they themselves and no other 
 nation had the right to dispose of their condition. * * * 
 This principle will give us a clue to answer all Mr. Canning's 
 questions with candor and confidence, and I am to draft a 
 dispatch accordingly." 
 
 November 16. — Further dispatches from Rush, from which it 
 seems that " Mr. Canning's tone appears to be changed, and Mr. 
 
THE MONROE DOGTEDirE. 279 
 
 Rush writes under feelings of disappointment, and having 
 partly discovered the views of Great Britain." 
 
 November 17. — " I drafted a dispatch to R. Rush in answer 
 to all his dispatches relating to the proposals of G. Canning 
 concerning South America. 
 
 " The President thinks from the tenor of the dispatches re- 
 ceived yesterday from R. Rush that Canning had changed his 
 purpose; that he was less alarmed; that probably some in- 
 ducements, had been presented, after the triumphs of the 
 French in Spain, to quiet his apprehensions. My own opinion 
 is confirmed that the alarm was affected ; that the object was 
 to obtain by a sudden movement a premature commitment of 
 the American government against any transfer of the island of 
 Cuba to France, or the acquisition of it by ourselves ; and, fail- 
 ing in that point, he has returned to the old standard of British 
 belligerent policy." 
 
 Later in the day Mr. Addington (English Charge d' Affaires) 
 called upon Adams, and told him he had received news con- 
 firming the report that England had sent consular agents to 
 the South American governments. Adams told Addington he 
 could not imagine what could withhold Great Britain from the 
 formal recognition, when her measures all implied that it had 
 been given ; and he added that, earnestly desirous as we were 
 of co-operating with Great Britain, he saw no other basis for 
 concerted operations than that. On another day Adams ex- 
 plained to Addington, " that we could move in concert with 
 Great Britain upon South American affairs only upon the basis 
 of their acknowledge^ independence." 
 
 Same day. — Baron Tuyll came and read extracts from dis- 
 patches from Count Nesselrode to him. One of these " was an 
 exposition of principles relating to the affairs of Spain and 
 Portugal, in a tone of passionate exultation at the counter- 
 revolution in Portugal and the impending success of the French 
 army in Spain; an 'lo Triomphe' over the fallen cause of revo- 
 lution, with sturdy promises of determination to keep it down ; 
 disclaimers of all intention of making conquests ; bitter com- 
 plaints of being calumniated, and one paragraph of compunc- 
 tions, acknowledging that an apology is yet due to mankind 
 for the invasion of Spain, which it is in. the power only of 
 Ferdinand to furnish by making his people happy. 
 
280 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " This paragraph is a satire upon all the rest of the paper." 
 
 November 18. — It was reported to Adams by G. Hoy, that 
 the President appeared to be much relieved by the view he 
 (Adams) had taken of Rush's last dispatches. Adams thought 
 the President was still alarmed more than would appear to be 
 necessary. At a meeting at the President's, Calhoun said he 
 was confirmed in the view he had taken of the designs of the 
 Holy Allies upon South America. Adams said he was quite 
 confirmed in his. " The President appears to be in an extraor- 
 dinary degree of dejection. There must be something that 
 affects him besides the European news." 
 
 November 20. — "At the office, I received a note from the 
 President, proposing large alterations to my draft of instruc- 
 tions to E,. Rush upon Canning's proposals concerning South 
 American affairs. Some of the alterations were unexception- 
 able, others I wished him further to consider.* * * I stated my 
 objections to some of his proposed alterations of my draft, and 
 suggested to him the substance of a substitute which I wished 
 to offer to his projected paragraph. He agreed that I should 
 draft a substitute, and proposed a meeting of the Administra- 
 tion to-morrow. He had adopted Mr. Calhoun's idea of giving 
 Mr. Rush a discretionary power to act jointly with the British 
 government in case of any sudden emergency of danger, of 
 which they and he should judge. I am utterly averse to this ; 
 and I told him that I 'thought the instructions should be ex- 
 plicit, authorizing him distinctly to act in specified contingen- 
 cies, and requiring him in all others to refer for every impor- 
 tant measure to his government." 
 
 November 21. — At a cabinet meeting there was a long dis- 
 cussion upon the proposed instructions to Rush. Calhoun ob- 
 jected to nearly all the President's amendments, and preferred 
 Adams' substitute. " The President did not insist upon any 
 of his amendments which were not admitted by general con- 
 sent, and the final paper, though considerably varied from my 
 original draft, will be conformable to my own views. The 
 supplementary instruction I had not finished, but read the 
 part that I had prepared. 
 
 " I mentioned also my wish to prepare a paper to be deliv- 
 ered confidentially to Baron Tuyll, and the substance of which 
 I would in the first instance express to him in a verbal confer- 
 
THE MONEOB DOCTEINE. 281 
 
 ence. I would refer to the verbal communications recently 
 made by him, and to the sentiments and dispositions mani- 
 fested in the extract of a dispatch relating to Spanish affairs 
 which he lately put into my hands. My purpose would be in 
 a moderate and conciliatory manner, but with a firm and de- 
 termined spirit, to declare our dissent from the principles 
 avowed in those communications, to assert those upon which our 
 own government is founded, and while disclaiming all inten- 
 tion of attempting to propagate them by force, and all inter- 
 ference in the political affairs of Europe, to declare our ex- 
 pectation and hope that the European powers will equally 
 abstain from the attempt to spread their principles in the 
 American hemisphere, or to subjugate by force any part of 
 these continents to their will. 
 
 " The President approved of this idea ; and then taking up 
 the sketches that he had prepared for his message, read them 
 to us. Its introduction was in a tone of deep solemnity and of 
 high alarm, intimating that this country is menaced by immi- 
 nent and formidable dangers, such as would probably soon call 
 for their most vigorous energies and the closest union. It then 
 proceeded to speak of the foreign affairs, chiefly according to 
 the sketch I had given him some days since, but with occasional 
 variations. It then alluded to the recent events in Spain and 
 Portugal, speaking in terms of the most pointed reprobation 
 of the late invasion of Spain by France. It also contained a 
 broad acknowledgment of the Greeks as an independent nation 
 and a recommendation to congress to make an appropriation 
 for sending a minister to them. 
 
 "Of all this Mr. Calhoun declared his approbation. I ex- 
 pressed as freely my wish that the President would reconsider 
 the whole subject before he should determine to take that 
 course. I said the tone of the introduction I apprehended 
 would take the nation by surprise and greatly alarm them. It 
 would come upon them like a clap of thunder." Adams goes 
 on to say that the country was in a state of profound peace 
 and quiet, with no foreign complications ; that this message 
 would be a summons to arms — to arms against all Europe. It 
 would be as new as surprising in our policy. It would have 
 the air of open defiance of all Europe, and I should not be 
 surprised if the first answer to it from Spain and France, and 
 
282 TOPICS IN AMERICAN- DIPLOMACY. 
 
 even Russia, should be to break off their diplomatic inter- 
 course with- us. He did not expect that the quiet which we 
 had enjoyed for six or seven years would last much longer. 
 The aspect of things was portentous ; but if we must come 
 to an issue with Europe, let us keep it off as long as possible. 
 Let us use all possible means to carry the opinion of the nation 
 with us, and the opinion of the world. 
 
 Calhoun thought there was not the tranquillity that Adams 
 spoke of ; that there was great anxiety in the thinking part of 
 the nation ; that there was a general expectation that the Holy 
 Alliance would employ force against South America, and that 
 it would be proper that the President should sound the alarm 
 to the nation. A time was approaching when all its energies 
 would be needed, and the public mind ought to be prepared 
 for it. 
 
 " The President told us confidentially that G. W. Erving,^ 
 had written * * * that we might set it down for certain that 
 France and the allies would support Spain in the attempt to 
 recover her colonies by force." 
 
 " I observed to the President that I put very little reliance 
 on anything written by G. W. Erving." He knew nothing about 
 the matter more than was known to the world. 
 
 " Mr. Southard said little, but inclined towards my view of 
 the subject." 
 
 " The President finally said that he would draw up two 
 sketches for consideration, conformable to the two different as- 
 pects of the subject." The President and Calhoun thought 
 there was a material difference in the wars and revolutions 
 which since the year 1789 to this time have been raging in 
 Europe, and this last invasion of Spain by France ; " that this 
 was a more direct attack upon the popular principle ; and that 
 although no former message ever censured those overthrows 
 and conquests before, yet it might be very proper to censure 
 this now. The question, however, is deferred." 
 
 November 22. — Adams being with the President, urged him 
 again," to abstain from everything in his message which the 
 Holy Allies could make a pretext for construing into aggression 
 upon them." If the Holy Allies, said Adams, were determined 
 
 1 United States Minister to Spain, 1814, 1816-19. 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTKINE. 283 
 
 to make up an issue with us, it was our policy to meet, and not 
 make it. We should retreat to the wall before takmg to arms, 
 and be sure at every step to put tbem as much as possible in 
 the wrong. " I said if the Holy Alliance really intended to 
 restore by force the colonies of Spain to her dominion, it was 
 questionable to me whether we h^d not, after all, been over- 
 hasty in acknowledging the South American independence. It 
 had pledged us now to take ground which we had not felt at 
 all bound to take five years ago. At the congress of Aix-lar- 
 Chapelle the allies had discussed what they should do with 
 South America, and we had not even thought of interfering 
 with them. If they intend now to interpose by force, we 
 shall have as much as we can do to prevent them, without 
 going to bid them defiance in the heart of Europe." The 
 ground that Adams wished to take was " that of earnest re- 
 monstrance against the interference of the European powers 
 by force with South America, but to disclaim all interference 
 on our part with Europe ; to make an American cause, and 
 adhere inflexibly to that." 
 
 " The President said he had spoken of the Greeks and of the 
 Spaniards in his last year's message. I said I should not 
 object to paragraphs of a like description, in general terms 
 and pledging nothing, but I would be specially careful to avoid 
 anything which may be construed as hostility to the allies. 
 He said he would fully consider what he would say, and when 
 prepared with his draft would call a meeting of the members 
 of the administration." 
 
 November 24. — "Mr. Gallatin was here, and talked much 
 upon the topics to be touched upon in the President's message. 
 His views coincide entirely with those I have so earnestly 
 urged upon the President, excepting as to the Greeks. * * * I 
 told Gallatin that I wished he would talk to the President as 
 he had done to me, upon everything except the Greeks. " 
 
 Later, the same day, Adams called upon the President 
 and found Gallatin with him. After Gallatin had withdrawn, 
 the President read to Adams his paragraphs respecting the 
 Greeks, Spain, Portugal, and South America. "I thought 
 them," says Adams, "quite unexceptionable and drawn up 
 altogether in the spirit that I had so urgently pressed on 
 Friday and Saturday. I was highly gratified at the change, 
 
284 TOPICS EST AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 and only hope the President will adhere to his present 
 views." 
 
 November 25. — Adams proposed in cabinet meeting to send 
 to Baron Tuyll a paper he had prepared in answer to the Rus- 
 sian dispatches. He continues : " The paper itself was drawn 
 to correspond exactly with a, paragraph of the President's mes- 
 sage which he had read me yesterday, and which was entirely 
 conformable to the system of policy which I have earnestly 
 recommended for this emergency. It was also intended as a 
 firm, spirited, and yet concilatory answer to all the communi- 
 cations lately received from the Russian government, and at the 
 same time an unequivocal answer to the proposals made by 
 Canning to Rush. It was meant also to be eventually an ex- 
 position of the principles of this government, and a brief devel- 
 opment of its political system as henceforth to be maintained : 
 essentially republican — maintaining its own independence, and 
 respecting that of others ; essentially pacific — studiously avoid- 
 ing all involvement in the combinations of European politics, 
 cultivating peace and friendship with the most absolute mon- 
 archies, highly appreciating and anxiously desirous of retaining 
 that of the Emperor Alexander, but declaring that, having 
 recognized the independence of the South American states, we 
 could not see with indifference any attempt by European 
 powers by forcible interposition either to restore the Spanish 
 dominion on the American continents or to introduce monarch- 
 ical principles into those countries, or to transfer any portion 
 of the ancient or present American possessions of Spain to any 
 other European power." 
 
 The paper in question having been read, Calhoun ques- 
 tioned the advisability of delivering any such paper to the 
 Russian minister. He thought the paper contained rather an 
 ostentatious display of republican principles, which would per- 
 haps be offensive to Russia and even England, besides making up 
 perhaps too soon, an issue with the Holy Alliance. He thought 
 it would be sufficient to communicate to Baron Tuyll a copy of 
 the paragraph of the President's message to which this paper 
 was adapted. This was a communication to our own people, 
 and would not, therefore, be so likely to give offense to foreign 
 powers. Southard and West observed that Adams' paper was 
 merely an answer to what Russia and the Holy Alliance had 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 285 
 
 said to us of the virtues and glories of despotism. Callioun 
 thought my paper went further than theirs. Adams said that a 
 copy of that paragraph of the President's message might suffice 
 for an indication of our principles ; he thought it was due how- 
 ever to the honor and dignity of the nation that an explicit 
 and direct answer should be given to the communications of the 
 Russian government. Upon this idea he argues at length. 
 
 "Calhoun's objections were not supported; but Mr. Wirt 
 made a question far more important, and which I had made at 
 an earlier stage of tliese deliberations. It was whether we 
 shall be warranted in taking so broadly the ground of resist- 
 ance to the interposition of the Holy Alliance by force to restore 
 the Spanish dominion in South America. It is, and has been, 
 to me a fearful question. Wirt remarked upon the danger of 
 assuming the attitude of menace without meaning to strike, 
 and asked, if the Holy Allies should act in direct hostility against 
 South America, whether this country would oppose them by 
 war ? 
 
 " My paper and the paragraph would certainly commit us 
 as far as the Executive constitutionally could act on this 
 point ; and if we take this course, I should wish that a joint 
 resolution of the two houses of congress should be proposed 
 and adopted to the same purport." 
 
 The President did not finally decide upon the point of Cal- 
 houn's objection to the delivery of any paper to Baron Tuyll. 
 
 " Mr. Wirt objected strongly to one paragraph of my draft, 
 which, he said, was a hornet of a paragraph, and he thought 
 would be excessively offensive. 
 
 "I said it was the cream of my paper; but I am sure the 
 President will not suffer it to pass." 
 
 The President feared the republicanism of the paper might 
 indispose the British government to act in concert with us. 
 Their sympathies, he said, were with the Holy Allies ; and it 
 was only the necessities of their commerce and revenue, with 
 the pressure of their debts and taxes, which compelled them to 
 side with South American independence for the sake of South 
 American trade. If we should shock and alarm them, and the 
 Holy Allies could hold out to them anything to appease the 
 craving of their commercial and fiscal interest, they might go 
 back to the allies — as Portugal has gone back — insignificant and 
 
286 TOPICS EST AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 despised, but leaving us in the lurch, with all Europe against 
 us." 
 
 Adams replied that, nothing " we should now do would com- 
 mit us to absolute war ; that Great Britain was already com- 
 mitted more than we." Adams further said that the interest 
 of no one of the allied powers would be promoted by the restora- 
 tion of South America to Spain. That the only bait they could 
 offer Great Britain for acceding to it was Cuba, and neither 
 Spain nor the allied powers would consent to that. " My reli- 
 ance upon the co-operation of Great Britain rested' not upon 
 her principles, but her interest. My paper came in conflict 
 with no principle which she would dare to maintain. We 
 avowed republicanism, but we disdained propagandism ; we 
 asserted national independence, to which she was already fully 
 pledged. We disavowed all interference with European affairs, 
 and my whole paper was drawn up to come in conclusion pre- 
 cisely to the identical declaration of Mr. Canning himself, and 
 to express our concurrence with it. 
 
 " Mr. Southard and Mr. Wirt supported me in these remarks." 
 
 November 26. — At an adjourned meeting of the cabinet the 
 above discussion was renewed. 
 
 Adams reviewed the preceding transactions of the cabinet 
 meetings and again Objected to the draft of the President's 
 message, that it was too much in the tone of alarm ; that it 
 contained strong and pointed censure of France and the Holy 
 Allies for the invasion of Spain ; and that it recommended an 
 appropriation for a minister to Greece, and virtually recognized 
 her independence. Adams thought, that if an issue must be 
 joined with the Holy Alliance, it ought to be upon grounds 
 exclusively American; "that we should separate it from all 
 European concerns, disclaim all intention of interfering with 
 these, and make the stand altogether for an American cause; 
 and that at the same time the answer to be given to the Rus- 
 sian communications should be used as the means of answering 
 also the proposals of Mr. George Canning, and of assuming the 
 attitude to be maintained by the United States with reference 
 to the designs of the Holy Alliance upon South America." Tak- 
 ing this view of it, Adams said that all the papers now drawn 
 up were but various parts of one system ; and it appeared to 
 him that the only important question to be determmed was 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 287 
 
 that raised by Wirt, whether they ought at all to take this 
 attitude as regards South America, and in opposition to the 
 Holy Alliance. He thought this stand should be taken, but 
 with a full and serious estimate of the consequences. 
 
 Wirt said he did not think this country would support the 
 government in a war for the independence of South America. 
 Some of the people had felt a warm sympathy for the South 
 Americans, but it never had been general, and never had there 
 been a moment when the people thought of supporting them 
 by war. To menace without intending to strike was neither 
 consistent with the honor nor the dignity of the country. It 
 was possible, he said, that Canning's proposals were traps to 
 ensnare us into declarations against the Holy Allies. If we 
 were to be thus committed, the documents ought to be com- 
 municated to congress, and before the honor of the nation was 
 pledged, the sense of the country should be taken. 
 
 Calhoun supported the other view of the question. He said 
 the great object was to detach Great Britain from the Holy 
 Alliance. Great Britain could not resist them alone if we re- 
 mained neutral. The result would be that the South Ameri- 
 cans would be subdued ; and the next step of the Allies would 
 be against ourselves. By taking the stand now the Allies 
 would probably be deterred from interposition in South 
 America ; but if not we ought to sustain the ground now taken, 
 even to the extent of war. He thought the people would sus- 
 tain the government in such a measure if the exigency should 
 arise. He objected, however, to Adams' answer to the Russian 
 minister as needlessly aggravating and offensive to the Holy 
 Allies and to England. 
 
 Adams thought that if the Allies interfered in South America 
 and Mexico, it would not be to restore the authority of Spain, 
 which would never again be able to maintain her dominion. 
 Eventually the country would be divided up among the Allies. 
 Russia might take California, Peru, and Chili ; France, Mexico ; 
 Great Britain, Cuba. Then what would be our situation ? The 
 danger was at our own doors, and we could not too soon take 
 our stand to repel it. 
 
 There was another view which the President had suggested. 
 That is in the case that the Allies should attack South America, 
 and Great Britain should resist them alone. Adams thought 
 
288 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY, 
 
 this not a improbable contingency ; and he believed, in such a 
 struggle, Great Britain, on account of her command of the sea 
 would be victorious. The result would be that the colonies 
 protected by Great Britain alone would become her colonies 
 instead of those of Spain. He thought, therefore, they should 
 act promptly and decisively. 
 
 Adams again pleaded warmly in favor of his paper in answer 
 to Baron Tuyll. It was, he concluded, the answer at once to 
 Russia and Great Britain. Southard and Wirt were inclined 
 to accept the paper except in some details, but Calhoun still 
 opposed it. 
 
 The next day, November 27th, the President sent Adams a 
 note advising against the controverted paragraphs in his answer 
 to Baron Tuyll. Adams therefore very reluctantly left them 
 out of his final draft.^ 
 
 The difference of opinion shown in the cabinet upon the an- 
 swer to the Emperor of Russia and the draft of the President's 
 annual message was more -one of method than of principle. In 
 respect to the correspondence with Russia, Adams would seem 
 to have had a strong desire to pay the Emperor back in some 
 of his own coin as Calhoun put it — " an ostentatious display of 
 principles," interspersed with some of Adams' own most cutting 
 irony ; but put in such language as not to give a pretext for 
 attack. It disavowed all intention of interfering with Euro- 
 pean powers. The censure was indirect, but none the less 
 strong. 
 
 Not so the draft of the President's message. Here direct 
 censure was applied to Prance and the allies for their action in 
 Spain; and also the active interference in European affairs, 
 by advising the recognition of Greece. Here we find Adams 
 more conservative than the President and- the other members 
 of the cabinet, with the exception perhaps of Wirt. He ad- 
 vises strongly against this attitude toward Europe. He would 
 make up the issue with the Allies wholly upon American ques- 
 tions. By comparing the draft of the President's message as 
 described by Adams, with the message as published, we shall 
 see that Adams had his way in the main. As modified there 
 were merely expressions of sympathy with the Spaniards and 
 
 1 Memoirs of J. Q. Adams, VI. 204-216. 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 289 
 
 the Greeks, but no direct censure of the Allies. As to Ameri- 
 can matters, a bold and decisive stand was taken against any 
 interference by the powers of Europe on the western conti- 
 nents. 
 
 The paragraphs of the message sent to Congress, December 
 2d, 1823, which declared the principles which have gone under 
 the name of the Monroe Doctrine, were as follows : — 
 
 "1. At the proposal of the Eussian imperial government, made 
 through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power 
 and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the 
 United States at St. Petersburg, to arrange, by amicable negoti- 
 ation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on 
 the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had 
 been made by his imperial majesty to the government of Great 
 Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The government of 
 the United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of 
 manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached 
 to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate 
 the best understanding with his government. In the discussions 
 to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements 
 by which they may terminate, the occasion has been adjudged 
 proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and in- 
 terests of the United States are involved, that the American con- ■ 
 tinents, by the free and independent condition which they have 
 assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as 
 subjects for future colonization by any European powers. 
 
 "2. It was stated, at the commencement of the last session, 
 that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal, to im- 
 prove the condition of the people of those countries, and that it 
 appeared to be conducted with extra"Drdinary moderation. It 
 need scarcely be remarked that the result has been, so far, very 
 different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that 
 quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and 
 from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious 
 and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States 
 cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and 
 happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In 
 the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to them- 
 selves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport 
 with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are in- 
 vaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make 
 19 
 
290 TOPICS IN- AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 preparation for our defense. With the movements in this 
 hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately con- 
 nected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened 
 and impartial observers. The political system of the allied 
 powers is essentially difEerent in this respect from that of America. 
 This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respec- 
 tive governments. And to 'the defense of our own, which has 
 been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and 
 material, by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and 
 under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole 
 nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the 
 amicable relations existing between the United States and those 
 power§, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their 
 part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as 
 dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies 
 or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, 
 and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have de- 
 clared their independence and maintained it, and whose indepen- 
 dence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, 
 acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the pur- 
 pose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their 
 destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the 
 manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United 
 States. In the war between those new governments and Spain, 
 we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and 
 this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided 
 no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent 
 authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding 
 change on the part of the United States indispensable to their 
 security. 
 
 " The late events in Spain and Portugal -show that Europe is 
 still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be 
 adduced, than that the allied powers should have thought it 
 proper, on a principle satisfactory to themselves, to have inter- 
 posed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent 
 such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a 
 question to which all independent powers, whose governments 
 differ from theirs, are interested ; even those most remote, and 
 surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard 
 to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which 
 have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless 
 remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal con- 
 
THE MONEOE DOCTRINE. 291 
 
 cems of any of its powers ; to consider the government de facto, 
 as the legitimate, government for us ; to cultivate friendly re- 
 lations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, 
 and manly policy ; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of 
 every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to 
 these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously 
 different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend 
 their political system to any portion of either continent without 
 endangering our peace and happiness ; nor can any one believe 
 that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of 
 their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we 
 should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. 
 If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and 
 those new governments, and their distance from each other, it 
 must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the 
 true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, 
 in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course." ' 
 
 Extended quotation from the diary of J. Q. Adams has been 
 made, because it is believed that nowhere else is so well shown 
 the Monroe Doctrine in its process of formation. Here are 
 exhibited from day to day the hopes, the fears, and the wishes 
 of the men who were called to act for the nation in the emer- 
 gency which had arisen ; and we are able to discern therein the 
 motives_which actuated them in their final decision. 
 
 Although the principles of this Doctrine had originated at 
 an earlier period, and had been of slow growth, yet they were 
 now, for the first time, distinctly formulated and officially set 
 forth by the executive department of the government. And 
 here it will be readily seen that the secretary of state, Mr. 
 Adams, exercised a considerable influence in giving final shape 
 to the defclaration of those principles. 
 
 While taking a stand against the interference of the Allies in 
 South America, independent of England, the message goes 
 further, and skilfully draws the line between the two hemi- 
 spheres, thus excluding England — our would-be ally — as well as 
 the continental powers from new colonization on the western 
 continents. 
 
 In the light of present knowledge, one can hardly subs,cribe 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., 452,460; State Papers, V. .Foreign Affairs, 
 245-50. 
 
292 TOPICS OP AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 to Mr. Sumner's assertion, that " The Monroe Doctrine pro- 
 ceeded from Canning," and that " he was its inventor, promoter, 
 and champion, at least so far as it bears against European in- 
 tervention in American affairs." And again, " at last, after 
 much discussion in the cabinet at Washington, President 
 Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. Canning, and with the 
 counsel of John Quincy Adams, put forth this famous 
 doctrine." ^ 
 
 And Canning said, in 1826, in explaining the reason why he 
 did not prevent the occupation of Spain by France, " I looked 
 another way. I sought for compensation in another hemi- 
 sphere. Contemplating Spain, such as our ancestors had known 
 her, I resolved that, if France had Spain, it should not be Spain 
 ' with the Indies.' I called the New World into existence to r'e- 
 dress the balance of the OldP ^ 
 
 The historical truth would seem to be, that Canning not 
 only had little, if any, influence in the formation of the Monroe 
 Doctrine, but that he had as little in " calling the new world 
 into existence." We have seen how the Munroe Doctrine orig- 
 inated ; as to the independence of South America and Mexico, 
 what are the facts ? As late as the autumn of 1823, Mr. Can- 
 ning was willing to see the Spanish- Americans restored to the 
 dominion of Spain, if this could be done by the efforts of Spain 
 herself. But this he knew was impossible ; the colonies had 
 been, with one or two exceptions, practically independent for 
 many y6ars. The United States had acknowledged their in- 
 dependence and had established diplomatic intercourse with 
 them. The English government waited more than two years 
 before adopting a like policy.' And then the final step was 
 taken, or at least hastened by a jealousy of the United States. 
 It was feared that they would acquire an authority and a com- 
 mercial advantage by reason of their intimate relations with 
 the Spanish-Americans.* Lord Liverpool wrote to Wellington, 
 December 8, 1824, "If we allow these new states to con- 
 
 ' Prophetic voices concerning America, pp. 157, 158. 
 
 2 Canning's Speech, 12th December, 1826. 
 
 8 The 2d of July, 1824, the English government came to a determination 
 to recognize Buenos Ayres. The decision in respect to Mexico and 
 Columbia was taken in the following December. 
 
 * Stapleton's Political Life of Canning, II., 69. 
 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE. • 293 
 
 solidate their system and their policy with the United States 
 of America, it will in a few years prove fatal to our greatness, 
 if not endanger our safety." ^ 
 
 There is no desire to underrate the importance of Canning's 
 part in thwarting the designs of the " Holy Alliance ; " but 
 that was a European, rather than an American triumph. He 
 freed England from her entanglement with the European 
 Alliance, and discredited its policy in Europe ; but to do this 
 he sought and obtained the indirect aid of the United States. 
 It is not at all certain that Canning could have prevented the 
 independence of the Spanish- American states, without, at least, 
 having taken an active part against them. 
 
 The opposition in parliament gave full credit to Mr. Monroe's 
 message. Brougham said : 
 
 " The question with regard to South America is now disposed 
 of, or nearly so ; for an event has recently happened, than 
 which no event has ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, 
 and gratitude, over all the freemen of Europe ; that event which 
 is decisive on the subject, is the language held with respect to 
 Spanish America, in the speech or message of the President 
 of the United States to the congress." ^ 
 
 " When the message arrived in London," says Rush, " the 
 whole document excited great attention. Spanish-American 
 securities rose in the stock market, and the safety of the new 
 states from all European coercion was considered as no longer 
 doubtful." And, in fact, they were safe from molestation by 
 the European Alliance, and all became eventually independent 
 states. 
 
 In his next annual message, Dec. 7, 1824, President Monroe 
 again referred to Spanish- American affairs in much the same 
 tone as in his previous messages. " It is impossible," he said, 
 " for the European governments to interfere in their concerns, 
 especially in those alluded to which are vital, without affecting 
 us ; indeed, the motive which might induce such interference 
 in the present state of the war between the parties, if a war it 
 may be called, would appear to be equally applicable to us. It 
 is gratifying to know that some of the powers with whom we 
 
 1 Life of Lord Liverpool, III., 305. 
 
 2 Staplfeton, Pol . Life of Canning, II. 
 
294 ' TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 enjoy very friendly intercourse, and to whom these views have 
 been communicated, have appeared to acquiesce in them." 
 
 On the 20th of January, 1824, Clay had moved the following 
 resolution in the House of Representatives : — 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Eepresentatives of the 
 United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the 
 people of these states would not see, without serious inquietude, 
 any forcible intervention by the allied Powers of Europe, in be- 
 half of Spain, to reduce to their former subjection those parts of 
 the continent of America which have proclaimed and established 
 for themselves, respectively, independent governments, and 
 which have been solemnly recognized by the United States." 
 
 ISTo action was taken upon this resolution ; and the attempt 
 to give a permanent character to the Monroe Doctrine through 
 the action of Congress failed. It would appear that Congress, 
 considering the danger past, did not approve of adopting a 
 general policy of this kind in the absence of specific cause. 
 
 THE PANAMA CONGRESS, 1826. 
 
 A common danger and a common cause led the governments 
 of the Spanish- American republics to draw closer to one an- 
 other ; and to unite in leagues for the purpose of resisting the 
 hostile power of Spain, or of the European allies, in case it 
 should be directed against them. Colombia, at the instance of 
 Bolivar, took the lead in negotiating treaties of defensive alli- 
 ance with the other Spanish-American states. That between 
 Colombia and Chili bears the date of October 21, 1822; its 
 object may be inferred from the following stipulations : " The 
 Republic of Colombia and the State of Chili are united, bound 
 and confederated, in peace and war, to maintain with their 
 influence, and forces, by sea and land, as far as circumstances 
 permit, their independence of the Spanish nation, and of any 
 other foreign domination whatsoever, and to secure, after that 
 is. recognised, their mutual prosperity, etc." Again, the two 
 states " contract a league of close alliance and firm and constant 
 friendship for the common defense, for the security of their 
 independence and liberty, — obliging themselves to succor each 
 
THE PANAMA CONGRESS. 295 
 
 other, and to repel, in common, every attack or invasion which 
 may in any manner threaten their existence." After making 
 various more explicit stipulations, and providing for a joint 
 assembly of the representatives of the two states, Article 13 
 continues : " Both parties oblige themselves to interpose their 
 good offices with the governments of the other states of Amer- 
 ica, formerly Spanish, to enter into this compact of union, 
 league, and confederation." 
 
 Article 14. " As soon as this great and important object has 
 been attained, a general assembly of the American states shall 
 be convened, composed of their plenipotentiaries, with the 
 charge of cementing, in the most solid and stable manner, the 
 intimate relations which ought to exist between all and every 
 one of them, and which may serve as a council in the great 
 conflicts, as a rallying-point in the common dangers, as a faith- 
 ful interpreter of their public treaties when diflBculties occur, 
 and as an umpire and conciliator in their disputes and differ- 
 ences." 
 
 It is stipulated by Article 16, that the national sovereignty 
 of the individual states shall in nowise be impaired by the es- 
 tablishment of the league. 
 
 Treaties of alliance of similar import were contracted by Co- 
 lombia with Peru, July 6, 1822 ; with Guatemala, March, 15, 
 1825; with Mexico, October, 31 1823; with Buenos Ayres, June 
 10, 1823. In these last-named treaties, there is the further 
 suggestion of Panama as a convenient place of meeting for the 
 proposed congress. 
 
 The object not only of these special treaties, but also of the 
 proposed general alliance is here made plain. It is to present 
 a united front to the hostile forces of Spain in the war still 
 continuing in some of the South American states, or to those 
 of the European alliance, or any other state which might inter- 
 fere in the war in favor of Spain. 
 
 The stipulations in these treaties referring to a general con- 
 gress make no mention of the United States ; it is the " former " 
 or " ci-devant " Spanish provinces of America. The origin of 
 the idea of inviting the United States does not definitely appear. 
 Mr. Theodore Lyman ^ states that the scheme was suggested as 
 
 1 Diplomacy of the United States, II., 467. 
 
296 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 early as 1819, during the residence of the first American com- 
 missioners in South America. The commissioners make no 
 mention of it in their report. The first direct intimation of 
 this fact which seems to have come to the knowledge of the 
 government of the United States is noticed in a correspondence 
 of the secretary of state, J. Q. Adams, with certain diplomatic 
 agents of the United States in South America. In a letter 
 dated the 17th of May, 1823, to Ceesar A. Rodney, minister 
 plenipotentiary to Buenos Ayers, Mr. Adams says that he has 
 news from Mr. Forbes at Buenos Ayres, of the project of the 
 alliances between Colombia and the other Spanish-American 
 states, and also of the proposed general congress of all those 
 states. And by letters of a previous date, received from Mr. 
 Prevost, it appears that the project is still more extensive. 
 
 ' ' It embraces North as well as South America, and a formal 
 proposal to join and take the lead in it is to be made known to 
 the government of the United States." 
 
 " Intimations of the same design have been given to Mr. Todd 
 at Bogota. It will be time for this government to deliberate con- 
 cerning it when it shall be presented in a more definite and 
 specific form. At present it indicates more distinctly a purpose 
 on the part of the Colombian republic to assume a leading 
 character in this hemisphere than any practical object of utility 
 which can be discerned by us. With relation to Europe, there is 
 perceived to be only one object in which the interests and wishes 
 of the United States can be the same as those of the southern 
 American nations, and that is, that they shoidd aU be governed 
 by republican institutions, politically and commercially independ- 
 ent of Europe. For any confederation of Spanish- American 
 provinces for that end the United States would yield their 
 approbation and cordial good wishes. If more should be asked 
 of them, the proposition will be received and considered in a 
 friendly spirit, and with a due sense of its importance." i 
 
 Nothing further is heard of the matter till the spring of the 
 year 1825. Soon after Clay became secretary of state, the 
 ministers of Colombia and Mexico, at Washington, sought in- 
 formal interviews with him to ascertain whether it would be 
 
 1 U. S. St. Pap., P. R., v., 918; see also Letter of Adams to Anderson, 
 May 27, 1823, lb. 894. 
 
THE PAiTAMA CONGRESS. 297 
 
 agreeable to the government of the United States to receive 
 an invitation from the governments they represented, to send 
 delegates to the proposed congress at Panama. Upon learn- 
 ing these facts, Mr. Adams, now become President, directed 
 Mr. Clay to say : 
 
 " That of course the United States could not make themselves 
 a party to the existing war with Spain. The President believed 
 such a congress as was proposed might be highly useful in 
 settling several important disputed questions of public law, 
 and in arranging other matters of deep interest to the American 
 continent, and strengthening the friendship and amicable in- 
 tercourse between the American powers ; but, before such a 
 congress assembled, certain conditions should be complied with, 
 namely, the fixing of the subjects to be discussed at the congress, 
 the powers to be given to the commissioners, and the mode of 
 organising the congress." ^ 
 
 Accordingly some months later formal notes of invitations 
 were sent to the secretary of state by the aforesaid ministers. 
 That of Mr. Salazar, the Colombian minister, is dated the 2d of 
 November, 1825. Unable, he says, to give a minute enumeration 
 of the subjects to be discussed at the congress, he will however 
 by the instruction of his government suggest some that will 
 form useful matter for discussion. These constitute two 
 classes. 
 
 1. Matters peculiarly and exclusively concerning the bellig- 
 erents. 
 
 2. Matters between the belligerents and neutrals. The 
 United States would not be expected, he said, to take part in 
 the discussion of subjects of the first class. But a most op- 
 portune occasion would be afforded at Panama, " to the United 
 States to fix some principles of international law, the unsettled 
 state of which has caused much evil to humanity." Also, " the 
 manner in which all colonisation of European powers on the 
 American continent shall be resisted, and their interference in 
 the present contest between Spain and her former colonies pre- 
 vented, are other points of great interest." An eventual alli- 
 ance is suggested, to have effect in the case of the above-men- 
 tioned events taking place. " This is a matter of immediate 
 
 1 U. S. St., Pap., F. R., v., 835. 
 
298 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 utility to the American states that are at war with Spain, and 
 is in accordance with the repeated declarations and protests of 
 the cabinet at Washington." The means for the abolition of 
 the slave trade was another subject suggested. 
 
 What should be the basis of the relations of Hayti and " of 
 otliei- parts of our hemisphere that shall hereafter be in like 
 circumstances," was also expected to be settled at the con- 
 gress. 
 
 The representatives of Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, and Mex- 
 ico, were, it was presumed, already assembled at Panama, and 
 at work upon the preliminaries of organisation and subjects of 
 discussion.^ 
 
 The note of the Mexican minister, Mr. Obregon, dated the 
 3d of November, is of similar purport, except that the question 
 of the slave-trade and of Hayti are not mentioned. The two 
 principal questions, in Mr. Obregon's opinion, were, the " resist- 
 ance or opposition to the interference of any neutral nation in 
 the question and war of independence between the new powers 
 of the continent and Spain." And second, " The opposition to 
 colonisation in America by the European powers." ^ 
 
 Mr. Canas, envoy from the Federation of Central America, 
 or Guatemala, also extended an invitation in the name of that 
 Republic. 
 
 The objects of the proposed congress, as understood by the 
 Spanish-Americans, are fully set forth in an article in the 
 "Gaceta " de Colombia of February 27, 1825, as follows : — 
 
 "1. To form a solemn compact, a league, by which the states, 
 whose representatives are present, will be bound to unite in pros- 
 ecuting the war against their common enemy, Old Spain, or 
 against any other power, which shall assist Spain in her hostile 
 designs, or any otherwise assume the attitude of an enemy. 
 
 "2. To draw up and publish a manifesto, setting forth to the 
 world the justice of their cause, and the relations they desire to 
 hold with other Christian powers. 
 
 "3. To form a convention of navigation and commerce, appli- 
 cable both to the confederated states, and to their allies. 
 
 "4. To consider the expediency of combining the forces of the 
 republics, to free the islands of Porto Eico and Cuba from the 
 
 1 U. S. St., Pap., P. K., v., 836. 2 lb., 838. 
 
THE PANAMA CONGEESS. 299 
 
 yoke of Spain, and in such case, what contingent each ought to 
 contribute for this end. 
 
 "5. To take measures for joining in a prosecution of the war 
 at sea, and on the coasts of Spain. 
 
 "6. To determine whether these measures shall also be extended 
 to the Canary and Philippine islands. 
 
 "7. To take into consideration the means of making effectual 
 the declaration of the President of the United States, respecting 
 any ulterior design of a foreign power to colonise any portion of 
 this continent, and also the means of resisting all interference from 
 abroad with the domestic concerns of the American governments. 
 
 "8. To settle by common consent the principles of those rights 
 of nations, whioh are in their nature controvertible. 
 
 "9. To determine on what footing shall be placed the political 
 and commercial relations of those portions of our hemisphere which 
 have obtained or shall obtain their independence, but whose in- 
 dependence has not been recognized by any American or European 
 power, as was for many years the case with Hayti." ^ 
 
 Clay, in his answers to these invitations, November 30, tells 
 Salazar and Obregon that they had not, in their notes of in- 
 vitation, complied wholly with the conditions upon which the 
 President had expressed his willingness to send envoys to 
 Panama. That is, the subjects for discussion in the congress 
 were not set forth with sufficient fullness or deflniteness, and 
 that nothing was said by them as to the powers of the envoys 
 or the mode of organization of the congress. But as the want 
 of the adjustment of these preliminaries, could, at all events, 
 only be productive of some delay, the President had determined 
 to waive the objection on this score and, " should the senate of 
 the United States, now expected to assemble in a few days, 
 give their advice and consent," to at once send commissioners 
 to the congress. ^ 
 
 A few days later, in his first annual message, the 6th of 
 December, 1825, Mr. Adams, after stating the fact that the 
 United States had been invited to send envoys to the congress 
 at Panama, said: "The invitation has been accepted, and 
 ministers on the part of the United States will be commissioned 
 to attend at those deliberations and to take part in them, so 
 
 1 N". A. Review, January 1826. Also Marten's Nouveau Receuil, Vol. VI., 
 p. 791. ^ U. S. St. Pap., F. E., V., 838. 
 
300 TOPICS IN AMBKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 far as may be compatible with that neutrality, from which it is 
 neither our intention, nor the desire of the other American 
 states, that we should depart." ^ 
 
 Nothing is here said in respect of the " advice and consent " 
 of the senate ; an omission to which many of the senators took 
 decided exception ; and it was owing, doubtless, to the criticism 
 of his position in this respect, that the President, in sending 
 the names of the commissioners to the senate for their confirma- 
 tion, said, in the accompanying message, December 26, " Al- 
 though this measure was deemed to be within the constitutional 
 compete^icy of the executive, I have not thought proper to take 
 any steps in it before ascertaining that my opinion of its 
 expediency will concur with that of both houses of the legisla- 
 ture ; first, by the decision of the senate upon the nominations 
 to be laid before them ; and, secondly by the sanction of both 
 houses to the appropriations, without which it cannot be carried 
 into effect." ^ 
 
 In asserting the very doubtful prerogative of the executive 
 to institute a new and extremely important mission without 
 assent of congress, Mr. Adams raised a storm of opposition 
 against himself, and prejudiced at the very outset many minds 
 against the whole project. The constitutional point M-^as 
 discussed at great length both in and out of congress. Mr. 
 Adams afterwards admitted that his language was " positive," 
 and " gave a handle " to misconstruction — though misconstruc- 
 tion was "palpably erroneous." He even considered the 
 "humiliating" act of sending a note of explanation to the 
 senate (Memoirs, VII. 99.) The discussion of this controversy 
 belongs properly to the subject of constitutional history, rather 
 than to a history of the Panama mission. 
 
 In this message to the senate, the President explains the 
 general objects of the congress, and states the special sub- 
 jects which, in his opinion, should be discussed therein. " The 
 United States," he declares, "neither intend nor are expected to 
 take part in any deliberations of a belligerent character ; that 
 the motive of their attendance is neither to contract alliances, 
 nor to engage in any undertaking or project importing hos- 
 tility, to any other nation." 
 
 1 Statesman's Manual, I., 582. ^ u. S. St. Pap., F. R., V., 834. 
 
THE PANAMA CONGRESS. 301 
 
 The inexperience of the Southern American nations in the 
 field of diplomacy, had led them to adopt erroneous notions of 
 their duties towards other nations ; they had, in their com- 
 mercial regulations, discriminated in favor of certain states, and 
 in some cases, to the injury of the United States. By our 
 influence in the proposed congress, the President thought these 
 tendencies would be corrected. " It is believed to be of 
 infinite moment that the principles of a liberal commercial 
 intercourse should be exhibited to them, and urged with dis- 
 interested and friendly persuasion upon them." 
 
 Next, the President thought, " The consentaneous adoption 
 of principles of maritime neutrality " should form a subject of 
 considei'ation at this congress. The doctrine of " free ships, 
 free goods," and the reasonable restriction upon the extent of 
 blockades, might be better established by general agreement 
 at such a meeting than by partial treaties with each of the 
 nations separately. 
 
 Another important subject was the advisability of " an agree- 
 ment between all the parties represented at the meeting, that 
 each will guard, hy its own mean^, against the establishment of 
 any future European colony within its borders * * * This was 
 more than two years since, announced by my predecessor to 
 the world as a principle resulting from the emancipation of both 
 the American continents. It may be so developed to the new 
 southern nations that they will all feel it as an essential 
 appendage of their independence." 
 
 The President suggested also that the United States might 
 exert a beneficial influence at the meeting, in the advancement 
 of religious liberty. Most of the new states had by their con- 
 stitutions established a state church ; and there was no tolera- 
 tion of any. other than the dominant sect — the Roman Catholic. 
 " The abandonment of this last badge of religious bigotry and 
 oppression " might be effectually pressed by those who con- 
 curred in the principles of freedom of conscience. 
 
 Indirectly, the United States might have an influence upon 
 certain projects of the southern republics which might affect 
 our own interests.^ 
 
 1 The reference here is to the rumor of an expedition fitting out by Mexico 
 and Colombia for the invasion of Cuba and Porto Rico. 
 
302 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " In fine," said the President, " a decisive inducement with 
 me was to sliow our friendship for the new republics." 
 
 In a message to the house of representatives upon the same 
 subject, dated tlie 15tli of Marcli, 1826, Mr. Adams enlarges 
 upon these topics at considerable length, and places the import- 
 ance of the congress on a very high plane. " It may be," he 
 says, " that in the lapse of many centuries, no other opportunity 
 so favorable will be presented to the government of the United 
 States to subserve the benevolent purposes of Divine Provi- 
 dence, to dispose the promised blessings of the Redeemer of 
 mankind, to promote the prevalence in future ages of peace on 
 earth and goodwill to men, as will now be placed in their 
 power by participating in the deliberations of this con- 
 gress. * * * 
 
 " It looks to the amelioration of the condition of man. It is 
 congenial with that spirit which prompted the declaration of 
 our independence ; which inspired the preamble of our first 
 treaty with Prance ; which dictated our first treaty with 
 Prussia, and the instructions under which it was negotiated ; 
 which filled the hearts and fired the souls of the immortal 
 founders of our revolution." ^ 
 
 The first impression on reading these two special messages 
 of Mr. Adams on the Panama Congress is, that he had experi- 
 enced a decided change of mind since leaving the state depart- 
 ment. During the long controversy upon the question of 
 recognition, and upon the declaration of Monroe itself, Adams 
 was the conservative influence in the cabinet, counseling cau- 
 tion and delay. He was even severe in his criticism of Clay's 
 enthusiasm in favor of Spanish America ; and as late as the 
 year 1821, as we have seen (diary, March 9th), he thought the 
 United States had nothing to gain by a close alliance with 
 
 1 This effusion of Adams is quite In the strain of those of South Amer- 
 icans. The following specimen is found in the request of the government of 
 Peiai to the government of Buenos Ayres to send representatives to the con- 
 gress: — " The day of the meeting of our representatives will be an immortal 
 epoch in the diplomatic history of America. A century hence, when pos- 
 terity seeks the origin of our political institutions, they will recall the 
 treaties which have consolidated our governments ; the deliberations of the 
 Isthmus will be regarded with veneration. What will the Isthmus of 
 Corynth be, in comparison with that of Panama?" Martens: Kouveau 
 Kecueil des Traitgs,VI., 788.) 
 
THE PANAMA CONGRESS. 303 
 
 those states. In a Fourth of July oration of this same year 
 (1821), Mr. Adams said, " Whenever the standard of freedom 
 and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her 
 (America's) heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But 
 she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is 
 the well-wisher of all. She is the champion and vindicator 
 only of her own." ^ We have seen also how coolly Mr. 
 Adams received the intimation of an invitation to be represented 
 at the congress. A still later evidence of his views is asserted 
 by Mr. Ingham in the debate in the house of representatives. 
 This is in the shape of an article in the National Intelligencer, 
 in the spring of 1825, in answer to an article in a Philadelphia 
 paper favoring the proposed congress, and supposed to have 
 been written by Clay. Although the authorship of these arti- 
 cles is not absolutely certain, yet the internal evidence points 
 ■ strongly in the direction indicated by Ingham, that is, to Clay 
 and Adams. They illustrate well the two views of the ques- 
 tion as brought out in the debates of congress. The first, 
 supposed to be by Clay, terminates as follows : — 
 
 " This scheme of a general confederation of the Americans is 
 submitted to the public as a means of securing power abroad and 
 peace and happiness at home. Humanity, policy, and reason, 
 call upon us to rivet the bonds of fraternal affection, etc., and to 
 guard, with a sacred vigilance, against the rupture of a single 
 link. A confederation alone is competent to this duty. Without 
 it we submit to the ordinary fate of other nations ; jealousy, dis- 
 cord, and war, whenever any nation thinks itself strong enough 
 to wage one with impunity." 
 
 The following is the comment, supposed to be by the Presi- 
 dent, upon this article. 
 
 ' ' We have seen the purpose for which the statesmen and 
 government of Colombia are said to desire to hold a congress or 
 Amphictyonic council, as it has been called, of the American 
 governments, to which it is surmised that the United States have 
 been, or are to be invited, to become a pai-ty. We cannot permit 
 this proposition to pass without a remark, lest our silence might 
 be taken for assent to it, in any shape ; or even for indifiEerence 
 
 1 Benton's Debates, VIII., 435. 
 
304 TOPICS IN AMEEICAJSr DIPOLMACY. 
 
 in regard to it, so far as this nation is embraced in it. If the 
 public sentiment be in accord with ours on this point, we shall 
 never send a representative to any congress of nations, whose 
 decisions are to be law to this nation. Our own confederacy in- 
 sures the power and the mode of asserting our own rights, and 
 vindicating our wrongs. 
 
 ' ' By an alliance with any other nation or nations, it is obvious 
 we shall not strengthen but expose ourselves. We should lose, 
 by any such alliance, the independence which is our boast. For 
 what is independence but a name, if the questions of peace, of war, 
 etc., are to be determined for us, not by the congress of the 
 United States, but by a stupendous confederacy, in which the 
 United States has but a single vote." " It wiU be seen that we 
 consider the proposed confederation as intended to possess the 
 powers, as well as the name of the ancient Amphictyons, having 
 power to cause obedience to its decrees. It is surely not neces- 
 sary to urge arguments against a departure from that cardinal 
 principle in our foreign intercourse which distrusts and rejects 
 alliances with foreign nations for any purpose." "Every one 
 will see at a glance the vital objections there are to this govern- 
 ment's coupling its destinies with those of any other people on 
 earth. 
 
 " Nor have we sacred wars to wage, nor occasion for a Holy 
 Alliance to protect either our religious or our political rights. It 
 is no reason, because such a measure has found favor among the 
 nations of Europe, that it should be resorted to by the nations of 
 America. 
 
 " We have spoken of the proposed congress of American 
 governments as of a confederacy of those nations. If, however, 
 nothing more be meant than a conference of ministers, etc., to 
 consult upon what the interest of the whole may seem to i-equire, 
 we do not know that we should see any other objection to it, 
 than that it can be productive of nothing beneficial. If such a 
 conference were proposed, perhaps mere courtesy might induce an 
 assent to it on the part of this government, were it only to assert 
 the doctrine that, in becoming independent of the metropolitan 
 governments, the governments of America ought not, will not be 
 dependent on one another. 
 
 ' ' Against the magnificent scheme of the Philadelphia Mutius, 
 we enter our decided protest. We want not his Areopagus, any 
 more than we do the Amphictyons. For our Areopagus, we are 
 satisfied with our bench of judges ; and, for our council of 
 
THE PANAMA CONGRESS. 305 
 
 Amphictyons, we choose our congress. "We desire, in fine, to be 
 members of no confederation but that of the United States." 
 
 Six months later, we find, in Mr. Adams' messages, an ap- 
 parent change of policy. He said, however, on being reminded 
 of this fact by Mr. Forsythe, that " he did not recollect any 
 change in policy, but that there had been a great change in 
 circumstances." ^ 
 
 The circumstances which induced Washington and the early 
 statesmen to adopt the policy of avoiding all entangling alli- 
 ances, had passed away, and with them had gone the necessity 
 for the policy itself. In his message to the house of representa- 
 tives, referred to above, Mr. Adams says that he had, before 
 accepting the invitation, considered the question, " whether the 
 measure might not have a tendency to change the policy " of 
 the nation in respect to its foreign policy. And " mindful of the 
 advice given by the Father of our country, in his Farewell Ad- 
 dress, that the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
 nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with 
 them as little political connection as possible ; and faithfully 
 adhering to the spirit of that admonition, I cannot overlook the 
 reflection, that the counsel of Washington, in that instance, like 
 all the counsels of wisdom, was founded upon the circumstances 
 in which our country and the world around us, were situated 
 at the time when it was given. That the reasons assigned by 
 him for his advice, were, that Europe had a set of primary 
 interests, which to us had none, or a very remote relation, 
 etc." ^ But Washington thought, that by our union and rapid 
 growth we should soon be in a position to defy material injury 
 from external annoyance ; when we might cause our neutrality 
 to be respected, and choose peace or war, as our interests, guided 
 by justice, should counsel. 
 
 " But, compare," continues Adams, " our situation and the 
 circumstances of that time with those of the present day, and 
 what from the very words of Washington, then, would be his 
 counsels to his countrymen now? Europe has still her set of 
 primary interests with which we have little or a remote rela- 
 tion. Our distant and detached situation with reference to 
 
 1 J. Q. Adam's Diary, December 8, 1825. 2 Supra, p. 250. 
 
 20 
 
306 TOPICS ISr AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Europe remains the same. But we were then the only inde- 
 pendent nation of this hemisphere ; and we were surrounded by 
 European colonies, with the greater part of which we had no 
 more intercourse than with the inhabitants of another planet. 
 Those colonies have now been transformed into eight indepen- 
 dent nations, extending to our very borders. Seven of them 
 republics like ourselves, with whom we have an immensely 
 growing commercial, and must have, and have already impor- 
 tant political connections ; with reference to whom, our situa- 
 tion is neither distant nor detached ; whose political principles 
 and systems of government, congenial with our own, must and 
 will have an action and counter-action upon us and ours, to 
 which we cannot be indifferent if we would." 
 
 Mr. Adams would seem to have caught the glowing enthu- 
 siasm of his secretary of state in respect to the new Spanish- 
 American states. For once, he seemed to have put aside the 
 cool, impassionate reasoning of the experienced diplomat to 
 assume the r&le of a somewhat visionary statesman. As John 
 Holmes said in the senate, " My life for it, this is no scheme of 
 the president — he is a cool, deliberating, calculating, penetrat- 
 ing, discriminating, reasoning sort of politician. It is a toy 
 yielded to the secretary of state. The president has no strong 
 partiality for the Spanish-Americans." 
 
 It is probable, however, that Mr. Adams' proposal fell far 
 short of that of Clay. There is no evidence that he ever in- 
 tended or wished to have the United States join a general con- 
 federacy of American states or to be pledged in any way to take 
 up arms in defense of any of them. He doubtless contemplated 
 gaining a diplomatic point over Canning, and perhaps Europe 
 in general, in respect of certain rules of maritime law ; and to 
 procure for the United States favorable standing in regard to 
 commerce and navigation. 
 
 It will be observed, moreover, that Adams' construction of the 
 objects of the proposed congress differs materially from that of 
 the governments of the new states. For these the meeting was 
 to be primarily and chiefly for belligerent purposes ; to devise 
 measures offensive and defensive in the war then waging with 
 Spain, or in any future war with European powers. Now, 
 although the United States were not expected to take any part 
 or even to discuss the present war, they were, it would seem. 
 
THE PANAMA CONGEESS. SOT 
 
 expected to co-operate with the other powers represented at the 
 congress in measures of resistance in possible future wars. 
 That is, in wars to oppose the interference of the " Holy Allies " 
 in the affairs of the Spanish- American republics ; and to resist 
 attempts of European powers to establish colonies on American 
 soil. In other words it was expected that the United States 
 would be prepared to " redeem the pledge " supposed to have 
 been given by President Monroe in his message of December 2, 
 1823. 
 
 The President's special message to the Senate of December 
 26, 1825, nominating Richard C. Anderson and Jojin Sergeant, 
 as envoys to the Panama Congress, was, two days later, referred 
 to the Committee of Foreign Relations. On the 16th of Janu- 
 ary, 1826, Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, as chairman of the 
 committee, made a long report adverse to the views of the 
 President in every respect, and concluded with the following 
 resolution ^ : — 
 
 " Resolved, that it is not expedient at this time, for the United 
 States to send any ministers to the congress of American nations 
 assembled at Panama." 
 
 The first objection of the committee was that " such a mis- 
 sion threatened a wide departure from our time-honored 
 policy of avoiding all entangling alliances. Fervently as we 
 had sympathized with these infant republics, whose indepen- 
 dence we were the first to recognize, we had maintained an 
 exact neutrality and forborne to take an active part in their 
 struggle, notwithstanding our irritation with, Spain was great. 
 What new necessity had arisen to prompt us to establish new 
 relations in violation of that policy ? For avow neutrality as 
 we might, the conference would draw this country insensibly 
 from the safe ground. * * * As to the objects proposed, not 
 by the Spanish republics but by our President in his message, 
 there was nothing to show that they would be admitted in the 
 congress as fit matters of discussion ; nor were these indepen- 
 dent states likely to adopt in concert, and without compulsion, 
 principles affecting their separate commerce, religion, and in- 
 
 1 The other members of the committee were Tazwell of Virginia, Galllard 
 of South Carolina, Mills of Massachusetts, and White of Tennessee. 
 
308 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ternal concerns, which treaties after the usual diplomatic forms, 
 might not procure far more readily and with less ofEense to 
 jealous powers across the seas. The very situation of Cuba 
 and Porto Rico was an inducement to the United States not 
 to change the attitude of impartial spectator, by which we re- 
 served ourselves for a more serious emergency. In fine, the 
 idea of European encroachment or colonization no longer 
 existed ; no common subject now remained of sufficient magni- 
 tude to require a movement so novel and so startling to the 
 other hemisphere as the assembling of a congress of all the 
 American republics ; and should such an exigency hereafter 
 occur, the United States, the oldest and most experienced 
 republic of them all, would probably take the initiative and 
 send out invitations consistent with their own friendship and 
 respect, and upon terms the most fair and liberal."^ 
 
 The debate in the senate upon the resolution of the Com- 
 mitee of Foreign Relations continued during nearly two. 
 months, the party opposed to the administration interposing 
 all obstacles which party tactics could suggest. The subject 
 of the Panama Congress was seized upon by the opponents of 
 Adams and Clay as their first point of attack, and marks the 
 division of parties upon new lines. The leaders of the opposi- 
 tion in the Senate were Benton, Berrien, Branch, Hayne, 
 King, Macon, Randolph, Tazwell, Van Buren, and "Woodbury. 
 But when the vote on the resolution was finally taken, March 
 14, 1826, it was determined in the negative by a majority of 
 five. Then a vote on the nomination of Messrs. Anderson and 
 Sergeant was immediately taken, and carried in the affirmative, 
 in the case of Anderson, 27 to 17, and in that of Sergeant, 26 
 to 18. 
 
 The next day, March 15, the President sent a special mes- 
 sage to the House of Representatives, accompanied by the 
 papers upon the subject, and recommended the appropriation 
 of money for the expenses of the mission. On the 25th, the 
 Committee of Foreign Relations, to whom the message had 
 been referred, reported through its chairman, Mr. Crownin- 
 
 1 Schouler's History of the United States, III., 362. See report in full in 
 Sen. Ex., Dec, 19th Cong., 1st. Sess. No. 34. Also, " International Amer- 
 ican Conference, IV., 53. 
 
THE PANAMA CONGEESS. 309 
 
 shield, ill favor of the appropriation; and submitted the follow- 
 ing resolution : — 
 
 ' ' Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to 
 appropriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the 
 United States to send ministers to the Congress of Panama." 
 
 A bill providing for the necessary appropriations was on the 
 same day (March 25) reported by the committee of ways and 
 means. 
 
 The resolution was taken up in the committee of the whole 
 on the 4th of April. The debate began on an amendment 
 offered by M'Lane, of Delaware, proposing that " such minis- 
 ters should in no way make any compact or engagement with 
 the Spanish- American states, in regard either to any threat- 
 ened intervention or any future colonization by the European 
 powers on the American continents." Among those who 
 advocated this amendment, were M'Lane, Rives, Hamilton, 
 Buchanan, Hemphill, Ingham, Forsyth, Archer, and Cambre- 
 ling, all of whom were opposed to the administration. On 
 the other hand, the friends of the administration — Webster, 
 Everett, Buckner, Johnson, Wurtz, Thompson, and others, — 
 opposed the amendment as being an infringement of the con- 
 stitutional duties of the President. On the 20th of April the 
 amendment was carried, 99 to 95 ; whereupon the majority 
 of the supporters of the original resolution abandoned it as 
 amended, and the vote on it being taken the next day (April 
 21), it was lost — 54 ayes, 142 noes. 
 
 The bill reported by the committee of ways and means was 
 then taken up ;" and after the failure of M'DufBie's amendment 
 to strike out the enacting clause, passed (April 22) by a vote 
 of 134 to 60. 
 
 The senate concurred in this bill with but three dissenting 
 votes, and it became a law May 24th, 1826. 
 
 From the first the mission was opposed in both houses 
 largely on party grounds. But there was one other reason ad- 
 vanced, that should not be passed without notice. One of the 
 subjects of discussion proposed in the letters of invitation was 
 the question of the recognition of the independence of Hayti • 
 but Hayti was in the hands of negro revolutionists, and the 
 
310 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACP. 
 
 proposition was therefore very repugnant to the feelings of 
 Southern men. Hayne said in the Senate (March 14), " While 
 connected with slavery, can we consent to treat with other 
 nations, and least of all ought we to touch this question of the 
 independence of Hayti in conjunction with revolutionary 
 governments, whose, own history affords an example scarcely 
 less fatal to our purpose? Those governments have pro- 
 claimed the principles of liberty and equality, and have 
 marched to victory under the banner of ' universal emancipa- 
 tion.' You find men of color at the head of their armies, 
 in their legislative halls, and in their executive departments." ^ 
 And Hamilton, of South Carolina, said in the House, " I should 
 avow what I believe to be the sentiments of the Southern 
 people on this question ; and this is, that Haytien independ- 
 ence is not to be tolerated in any form. * * * A people will 
 not stop to discuss the nice metaphysics of a federative sys- 
 tem when havoc and destruction menace them in their own 
 doors." 
 
 The opposition to slavery which had been early proclaimed 
 in the Spanish- American republics had moreover aroused the 
 fears of the slave-holders in the United States. 
 
 There were others, however, — impartial men — who saw a 
 danger in any close alliance with the Spanish- American States. 
 Mr. Theodore Lyman, writing at this time said : — 
 
 ' ' In the vindications of the Panama mission we have read 
 (many prepared with great ability) , it has appeared to us, that 
 there was throughout an inherent defect in the application of the 
 principle upon which their reasoning depended. Their authors 
 have seemed to consider, there was an essential difference between 
 a confederacy of European States and one of America. We con- 
 fess, we perceive none. The governments of the old continent 
 unite for the consolidation of the throne, — those of the new for 
 the defence of the repubUc. The motives and objects of these 
 respective alliances are different, but for this country to become 
 a member either of one or the other is equally dangerous in its 
 consequences, equally a violation of the principles of the con- 
 stitution, and equally a departure from the policy and practice 
 of the government." * ' 
 
 ^ Benton's Debates, VIII., 427. 
 
 2 Diplomacy of the United States, 11., 489. 
 
THE PANAMA CONGRESS. 311 
 
 The instructions of Clay to the envoys, dated May 8th 
 1826, are very full, embracing all possible questions of dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 " The assembling of a congress at Panama," it is declared, 
 " composed of diplomatic representatives from independent 
 American nations will form a new epoch in human affairs." 
 
 The commissioners were to press the object of " devising 
 means to preserve peace in future among the American nations 
 themselves, and with the rest of the world ; " 'i to bring up the 
 arrears of civilization, as applied to the ocean, to the same for- 
 ward point which it has attained on land. * * * And to bring 
 forward the proposition to abolish war against private property 
 and non-combatants upon the ocean;" "a definition of 
 blockade ; " " the mutual regulation of commerce and naviga- 
 tion ; " " to propose a joint declaration of the several American 
 states, each, however, acting for and binding only itself, that 
 within the limits of their respective territories no new European 
 colony will hereafter be allowed to be established ; " to dissuade 
 the republics of Mexico and Colombia from attempting the con- 
 quest of Cuba and Porto Rico. The question of an interoceanic 
 canal was to be discussed ; and if " the work should ever be ex- 
 ecuted so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from ocean to 
 ocean, the benefits of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated 
 to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe 
 upon the payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls." 
 In the opinion of the President, Hayti was not yet in a position 
 to be recognized as independent. The propriety of free tolera- 
 tion of religion. was to be pressed upon the other American 
 states. 
 
 On account of the delay caused by the protracted debates in 
 congress, the envoys of the United States did not take part in 
 the Panama Congress. Mr. Anderson, our minister to Colombia, 
 died before reaching the place of meeting, and Mr. Sergeant did 
 not leave the United States. 
 
 The representatives of Colombia, Central America, Peru, and 
 Mexico met at Panama on the 22d of June, 1826. Chili, 
 Brazil, and Buenos Ayres were not represented, although their 
 governments approved of the movement. England and the 
 Netherlands sent Mr. E. Dawkins and Colonel Van Veer re- 
 spectively to watch the proceedings. 
 
312 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 After holding ten meetings, the congress agreed to "a treaty 
 of perpetual union, league, and confederation" between the 
 republics represented, and providing for the adhesion to it of 
 other American states within the space of one year. The treaty 
 was a defensive and offensive alliance for the primary purpose of 
 mutually guaranteeing the integrity of the new states, and 
 was therefore an alliance of which the United States could have 
 had no interest in becoming a party. And, indeed, of the 
 Spanish- American states, Colombia alone ratified the treaty. 
 Bolivar, the originator of the congress, was dissatisfied with 
 the outcome; and the political disturbances of the years 
 succeeding that of 1826 prevented a renewal of the project. 
 
 Before separating, the congress had provided for a meeting 
 the next year at Tacubaya, near the city of Mexico ; 
 and this time the envoys of the United States, Mr. Ser- 
 geant and Mr. Poinsett — appointed in place of Mr. Anderson — 
 were on hand ; but the delegates from the Spanish- American 
 states did not appear. Thus ended the first attempt to form 
 an alliance of American states. The Monroe Doctrine was 
 forgotten for the time ; and the Spanish- Americans were left 
 to work out their destiny in their own way, and to acquire by 
 long training m the school of experience the capacity for self- 
 government which they lacked at that time.^ 
 
 AMERICAN CONGRESSES, 1847—1882. 
 
 Although the Panama Congress failed to accomplish any of 
 the objects for which it had been assembled, yet the Spanish- 
 Americans did not relinquish the idea of a general union of 
 their states. And a brief notice of the subsequent attempts 
 toward that end will be given here. 
 
 1. ^ The Congress of Lima, 1847. The Republics of Bolivia, 
 
 1 Tlie documents and details of the Panama Congress are given in full in 
 the 4th volume (Historical Appendix) of the proceedings of the Inter- 
 national American Conference. See also: Lyman's Diplomacy of the 
 United States, II., 467; American Beview and Whig Journal, January, 
 1846; A W. Toung: American Statesman, 352; Am. State Pap., VI., 
 834-910; Benton's Debates, VIIL; Benton's View,!.; Webster's Works, 
 III., 178; Niles's Register. 
 
AMEKICAN CONGKBSSES. 313 
 
 Chili, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru met by theLr repre- 
 sentatives at Lima, 1847, for the purpose of "maintaining 
 their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and 
 of entering into such other compacts as might be conducive to 
 promote their common welfare." The result of their labors 
 were a treaty of confederation, a treaty of commerce and 
 navigation, a consular convention, and a postal treaty. But 
 these treaties, like those of Panama, became dead letters. 
 
 2. The Continental Treaty o/1856. This was a treaty entered 
 into at Santiago, in 1856, by the Republics of Peru, Chili, and 
 Ecuador, for the purpose of cementing a substantial imion, etc., 
 and promoting moral and material progress. Other states 
 were to be invited to join the league. It never became law. 
 It shows a spirit of hostility to the United States, it is said, on 
 account of the Walker expeditions of those days. 
 
 This growing fear of the United States appears in a com- 
 munication of the government of Costa Rica to that of Colom- 
 bia, in 1862. " There are parties there [in the United States] 
 whose doctrines can be fatal for our not yet well-established 
 nationalities, and we must neither forget the lessons of the past 
 nor lose sight of the fact that the cessation of the vandalic 
 filibustering expedition of 1855 and the following to 1860 was 
 due to the intervention, although tardily carried into effect, 
 on the part of Europe. 
 
 " Under this aspect of the question, if our Republics could 
 have the guaranty that they have nothing to fear from the 
 United States of North America, it is indubitable that no other 
 nation could be more useful and favorable to us. Under the 
 shelter of her powerful eagles, under the influence of her wise 
 institutions, and under the spur of her astonishing progress, 
 our newly-born nationalities should receive the impulse which 
 they now need. * * * 
 
 " In view of the above considerations, the idea has occurred 
 to my government that a new compact might be draughted by 
 which the United States should bind themselves solemnly to 
 respect, and cause others to respect, the independence, sover- 
 eignty, and territorial integrity of the sister Republics of this 
 continent ; not to annex to their territory, either by purchase 
 or by any other means, any part of the territory of the said 
 Republics." 
 
314 TOPICS IN AJCEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 3. The Congress of Lima, 1864. At this congress, which 
 met upon the invitation of Peru, the following States were 
 represented : Bolivia, Chili, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, 
 Peru, the Argentine Republic, and Venezuela. The object, ac- 
 cording to the letter of invitation, was to form a Latin American 
 Union, and to " organize into only one family " the different 
 Republics which had been Spanish. 
 
 Colombia, in accepting the invitation, expressed "the opinion 
 that the United States ought not to be invited, because their 
 policy is adverse to all kinds of alliances, and because the 
 natural preponderance which a flrst-class power, as they are, 
 has to exercise in the deliberations, might embarrass the action 
 of the congress." 
 
 The congress met on the 14th of November, 1864, the anni- 
 versary of the birth of Bolivar ; but the results of its labors 
 do not appear to have had any more permanent effects than 
 those of previous congresses. 
 
 4. Theproposed Congress of Panama, 1881. The object of this 
 congress, of which Colombia was the prime mover, was to make 
 a treaty for the settlement of international disputes by arbitra- 
 tion. All the independent Spanish- American states except 
 Hayti replied to the invitation of Colombia ; and for the most 
 part the acceptance was enthusiastic. The Argentine Republic, 
 however, replied that her government did not believe that 
 arbitration alone was an adequate means for the settlement of 
 Spanish-American controversies. 
 
 The congress was not held, as intended, owing to the war 
 which at this time broke out between Chili on the one side 
 and Peru and Bolivia on the other. 
 
 5. Theproposed Congress at Washington, 1882. This was a 
 conception of Mr. Blaine's, while Secretary of State in 1881. 
 The following circular letter on the subject explains the reasons 
 for taking it up : — 
 
 '1 Depaktmbnt of State, 
 
 " Washington, November 29, 1881. 
 
 " Sir: The attitude of the United States with respect to the 
 
 question of general peace on the American continent is well 
 
 known through its persistent efforts for years past to avert the 
 
 evils of warfare, or, these efforts failing, to bring positive con- 
 
AMERICAN CONGRESSES. 315 
 
 flicts to an end through pacific counsels or the advocacy of im- 
 partial arbitration. '* 
 
 " This attitude has been consistently maintained, and always 
 with such fairness as to leave no room for imputing to our 
 government any motive except the humane and disinterested 
 one of saving kindred states of the American continent from 
 the burdens of war. The position of the United States as the 
 leading power in the New World might well give to its govern- 
 ment a claim to authoritative utterance for the purpose of 
 quieting discord among its neighbors, with all of whom the 
 most friendly relations exist. Nevertheless, the good offices of 
 this government are not and have not at any time been ten- 
 dered with a show of dictation or compulsion, but only as ex- 
 hibiting the solicitous goodwill of a common friend. 
 
 " For some years past a growing disposition has been mani- 
 fested by certain states of Central and South America to refer 
 disputes affecting grave questions of international relationship 
 and boundaries to arbitration rather than to the sword. * * * 
 
 " The existence of this growing tendency convinces the Presi- 
 dent that the time is ripe for a proposal that shall enhst the 
 good- will and active co-operation of all the states of the West- 
 ern Hemisphere, both north and south, in the interest of 
 humanity and for the common weal of nations. * * * 
 
 " Impressed by these views, the President extends to all the 
 independent countries of North and South America an earnest 
 invitation to participate in a general congress, to be held in the 
 city of Washington on the 24th day of November, 1882, for the 
 purpose of considering and discussing the methods of prevent- 
 ing war between the nations of America." * * * 
 
 Of the South American states. Chili, Colombia, the Argen- 
 tine Republic, Peru, Hayti and San Domingo made no reply ; 
 Nicaraugua and Bolivia answered that they would take the 
 matter into consideration ; Costa Rica wished to wait for the 
 action of Colombia ; the others accepted the invitation. 
 
 Owing to the international complications in South America, 
 the proposed congress of 1882 was indefinitely postponed. 
 The letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to the ministers of the United 
 States in those countries, withdrawing the invitations, dated 
 August 1, 1882, is in part as follows : — 
 
316 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " * * * At the time that proposal was put forth the President 
 expressed the fervid hope that by the date fixed for the meeting 
 of the congress the questions now dividing some of the republics 
 of the southern continent would have disappeared, and that the 
 representatives of the several commonwealths could meet with 
 freedom to discuss the future aspects of the question [preservation 
 of peace on the continent], unaflEected by any existing national 
 difficulties. 
 
 " The President, however, now directs me to instruct you to in- 
 form the Government of * * * that inasmuch as that peaceful 
 condition of the South American republics, which was con- 
 templated as essential to a profitable and harmonious assembling 
 of the, congress, does not exist, and he having besides on the 18th 
 day of April, 1882, submitted the proposition to Congress with- 
 out evoking an expression of its views on the subject, and no 
 provision having been made by it for such a congress, he is con- 
 strained to postpone the projected meeting until some future day. 
 ■* * * You will communicate this dispatch to the minister for 
 foreign relations of * * * at an early day by reading it to him, 
 and, if he shall so desire, leaving with him a copy of it." i 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1890. 
 
 Beginning with the year 1880, various legislation was pro- 
 posed in congress looking to a closer commercial and political 
 union with the Latin American states. On January 21, 1880, 
 the Hon. David Davis introduced in the Senate, by request of 
 Mr. Hinton Rowen Helper, a " bill for the encouragement of 
 closer commercial relationship between the United States and 
 the Republics of Mexico, Central America, the Empire of Brazil, 
 and the several Republics of South America." The proposition 
 was to call a congress of American States, to consider the 
 question of an international railway. 
 
 On the 24th of April, 1882, Senator Cockrell, of Missouri, at 
 the suggestion of Mr. Helper, introduced a bill for a similar 
 
 ^ The attitude of the government of the United States in respect to the 
 war between Chili and Peru, and in respect to certain boundary disputes 
 between Spanish- American States, had engendered a strong feeling of resent- 
 ment against the United States in many of those States. On the subject of 
 these Congresses, See, International American Conference, IV., 202-289. 
 
THE INTEENATIONAIi AMERICAN COJTPEEENCE. 317 
 
 purpose, which provided for a commission to visit South 
 America. Senator Morgan, of Alabama, introduced a like bill 
 the same day, particularly aimed at the construction of an in- 
 ternational railroad. 
 
 Similar bills were introduced in the House of Representatives 
 at this time, and were referred to the Committee on Foreign 
 Affairs. The Committee reported, June 20, adversely, and no 
 further action was taken. But the same or similar bills were 
 introduced in both Houses the following year (1883). One of 
 these, offered in the House by Mr. Townshend, of Illinois, pro- 
 posed the establishment of a " customs union of America." 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1884, Mr. Cockrell re-introduced, in the 
 Senate, his bill of 1882, which was favorably reported by the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations ; and a similar bill in the House 
 received a favorable report from the like Committee in that 
 body. The substance of these bills became a law in the form 
 of an amendment to the act making appropriations for the 
 consular and diplomatic service for the fiscal year ending June 
 80, 1885. 
 
 Under the authority of this act the President appointed a 
 commission, consisting of George H. Sharpe, of New York; 
 Solon O. Thacher, of Kansas ; and Thomas C. Reynolds, of 
 Missouri, with William Eleroy Curtis as secretary, to visit the 
 several countries of Central and South America, to ascertain 
 the best modes of securing more intimate international and 
 commercial relations. Mr. Sharpe having resigned, in March, 
 1885, W. E. Curtis was appointed commissioner to succeed 
 him. *rhe reports of this commission are to be found in H. R. 
 Ex. Doc. 226, Forty-eighth Congress, second session, and H. R. 
 Ex. Doc. 50, Forty-ninth Congress, first session. The reports 
 recommended that an invitation be extended by the United 
 States to the several other governments of America to join at 
 Washington in a conference to promote commercial intercourse 
 and to prepare some plan of arbitration. 
 
 In 1886, bills proposing a customs union, to promote arbi- 
 tration, to construct an international railway, and for a com- 
 mon silver coin, were introduced and adversely reported upon 
 in both houses. Finally, however, Mr. McCreary, of Kentucky, 
 reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
 House (April 15, 1886) a bill authorizing the President to 
 
318 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 arrange a conference for the purpose of promoting arbitration 
 and encouraging reciprocal commercial relations between 
 American States. This bill was accompanied by a long report 
 setting forth the probable advantages of the proposed conference ' 
 in opening new markets for our products, and in facilitating 
 the amicable settlement of disputes. 
 
 A minority report opposing the proposed conference was 
 submitted by Mr. Perry Belmont. 
 
 On the 6th of May, Senator Frye reported from the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Relations a bill, as a substitute for several 
 similar measures which had been referred to that committee. 
 " to promote the political Progress and commercial prosperity 
 of the American nations." This bill proposed a conference 
 of American nations at "Washington ; and the subjects to be 
 considered are for the first time set forth in detail. It 
 passed the Senate June 17, 1886, but no action was taken 
 on it in the House. Various other measures were pro- 
 posed thereafter, but it was not till 1888 that final action was 
 taken. On the 4th of January, 1888, Mr. McCreary re-intro- 
 duced his bill in the House, and on the 29th of February it was 
 passed. When it reached the Senate, Mr. Frye reported his 
 own bill (March 21) as a substitute, which -v^^as passed the 
 next day. A conference committee having been appointed by 
 the two Houses, the report which it submitted passed the 
 House but was rejected by the Senate (April 25). On the 
 27th of April a new conference was ordered, and an agreement 
 having been reached, the bill was finally passed by both Houses 
 on the 10th of May, 1888.^ 
 
 This act requested and authorized the President of the 
 United States to invite the several governments of the Spanish- 
 American Republics and Brazil to join the United States in a 
 conference to be held at Washington, in the year 1889, for the 
 purpose of discussing some plan of arbitration for the settle- 
 ment of disagreements and disputes that may hereafter arise 
 between them, and for considering questions relating to the 
 improvement of business intercourse and means of direct com- 
 munication between said countries, and to encourage such 
 
 ^ The history of the legislative action on this subject is given as consider- 
 ahle length in the 4th volume of the proceedings of the International Ameri- 
 can Conference, 293-375. 
 
TI-I3 INTEENATIOJTAL AMERICAN CONFEEBNCE. 319 
 
 reciprocal commercial relations as will be beneficial to all and 
 secure more extensive markets for the products of each of said 
 countries. 
 
 Section 2. In forwarding the invitations the President 
 shall set forth that the conference is called to consider : — 
 
 (1) Measures to promote peace and prosperity. 
 
 (2) An American Customs Union, etc. 
 
 (3) Regular and frequent communication between the parties 
 of the several American states. 
 
 (4) A uniform system of customs regulations, etc. 
 
 (5) The adoption of a uniform system of weights and meas- 
 ures, and laws to protect the patent-rights, copyrights, and 
 trade-marks of citizens of either country in the other, and for 
 the extradition of criminals. 
 
 (6) The adoption of a common silver coin. 
 
 (7) A definite plan of arbitration of all questions, disputes, 
 and differences, etc. 
 
 (8) To consider such other subjects relating to the welfare of 
 the several States represented, etc. 
 
 The sum of seventy-five thousand dollars was appropriated 
 for the incidental expenses. 
 
 The President, with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 was to appoint ten delegates to the Conference who should 
 serve without compensation. 
 
 In pursuance of the provisions of this act, invitations were 
 sent by Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to the governments of 
 the several American States. Favorable replies were received, 
 and the Conference held its first meeting, in the Diplomatic 
 Chamber of the Department of State, Washington, D. C, at 
 noon, on the 2d of October, 1889. After listening to an ad- 
 dress of welcome by Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, the Con- 
 ference completed its organization in so far as to elect Mr. 
 Blaine President, and appoint a committee on committees. 
 Then accepting the invitation of the President of the United 
 States to make an excursion through the country, the mem- 
 bers did not reassemble till the 5th of December. On the 7th, 
 Mr. Zegarra, of Peru, and Mr. Romero, of Mexico were elected 
 Vice-presidents. 
 
 The delegates of the United States were ; John B. Hender- 
 son, Cornelius N. Bliss, Clement Studebaker, T. Jefferson 
 
320 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPOLMACY. 
 
 Coolidge, William Henry Trescot, Andrew Carnegie, Morris M. 
 Estee, John F. Hanson, Henry G. Davis, and Charles R. Flint. 
 
 The States represented were : Hayti, Nicaragua, Peru, Guate- 
 mala, Uruguay, Colombia, Argentine Republic, Costa Rica, 
 Paraguay, Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Bolivia, United States, 
 Venezuela, Chili, Salvador, and Ecuador. 
 
 The secretaries for the Conference were : H. Remsen White- 
 house, Fidel G. Pierra (till February 14, 1890), and Jos6 Ig- 
 nacio Rodriguez (succeeding Mr. Pierra). 
 
 The following standing committees were appointed, Decem- 
 ber 7 :— 
 
 1. Executive Committee. 
 
 2. On Customs Union. 
 
 3. On Communication on the Atlantic. 
 
 4. On Communication on the Pacific. 
 
 5. On Communication on the Gulf of Mexico and the Carib- 
 bean Sea. 
 
 6. On Railway Communication. 
 
 7. On Customs Regulations. 
 
 8. On Port Dues. 
 
 ■ 9. On Weights and Measures. 
 
 10. On Sanitary Regulations. 
 
 11. On Patents and Trade-marks. 
 
 12. On Extradition. 
 
 13. On Monetary Convention. 
 
 14. On Banking. 
 
 15. On International Law. 
 
 16. On General Welfare, to report a plan of arbitration, etc. 
 The reports of these various committees were subjected to 
 
 more or less extended debate, and in most cases approved. 
 Thus, the report of the committee on weights and measures 
 as amended and adopted was as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, that the International American Conference rec- 
 ommends the adoption of the metrical decimal system to the 
 nations here represented, which have not already accepted it." 
 {Records of the Conference, I., 77-92.) 
 
 So the report in favor of an Inter-continental Railway was 
 
 ^adopted. This proposed the appointment of a commission 
 
 composed of a body of engineers, of whom each nation should 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE. 321 
 
 appoint three, to ascertain the possible routes, to determine 
 their true length, to estimate the cost of each, and to compare 
 their respective advantages. The railroad, if built, should be 
 " declared forever neutral." {Ih., 93-102.) 
 
 The committees on communication on the Atlantic, the 
 Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico, reported in favor of subsidizing 
 one or more steamship lines in each case, and the reports were 
 unanimously adopted. Regular mail and telegraphic com- 
 munication was also recommended. {lb., 264-342.) 
 
 On the report of the committee on an International American 
 Monetary Union, a very long and interesting debate was had. 
 The recommendation as finally adopted was as follows : — 
 
 " (1) That an International American Monetary Union be 
 established. 
 
 ' ' (2) That as a basis for this union an international coin or 
 coins be issued which shall be uniform in weight and fineness, 
 and which may be used in aU the countries represented in this 
 Conference. 
 
 ' ' (3) That to give full effect to this recommendation there shall 
 meet in Washington a commission" to consider the question, etc. 
 (lb., II., 624-838.) 
 
 The Report on an International American bank as adopted 
 unanimously was as follows : — 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That the conference recommends to the govern- 
 ments here represented the granting of liberal concessions to 
 facilitate inter-American banking, and especially such as may 
 be necessary for the estabhshment of an International if.va.eviQ,an 
 Bank, with branches, or agencies, in the several countries represented 
 in this Conference." {lb., 829-876.) 
 
 An interesting discussion took place on the report on the 
 free navigation of rivers, which resulted in the adoption of the 
 following recommendations, the United States and Nicaragua 
 voting in the negative : — 
 
 ' ' (1) That rivers which separate several states, or which bathe 
 their territory, shall be open to the free navigation of the 
 merchant marine or ships of war of riparian nations. 
 
 " (2) That this declaration shall not affect the jurisdiction nor 
 21 
 
322 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 the sovereignty of any of the riparian nations either in time of 
 peace or war." (16., 939-953.) 
 
 The most interesting part of these reports and discussions 
 are those in respect of a Customs Union, and of Arbitration. 
 
 The committee on a Customs Union was unanimous in the 
 opinion that an American Customs Union, or Zollverein, was 
 not as yet practicable, but many members and particularly the 
 delegates of the United States, believed that a customs union 
 in the sense of free trade between the American nations, was 
 acceptable in principle, " because all measures looking to the 
 freedom of commerce must necessarily increase the trade and 
 the development of the material resources of the countries 
 accepting that system, and it would, in all probability, bring 
 about as favorable results as those obtained by free trade 
 among the different states of this Union." The majority, in- 
 stead of reporting on the customs union, simply recommended 
 the concluding of "partial reciprocity treaties," taking into 
 consideration " the special situation, conditions, and interests 
 of each countrj'-, with a view to the promotion of the common 
 welfare of all." 
 
 The minority, composed of the delegate of the Argentine 
 Republic, Mr. Pena, and the delegate of Chile, Mr. Alfonso, 
 submitted the following brief report : — 
 
 '■'■ Besolved, That the proposition of a Customs Union between 
 the nations of America be rejected." 
 
 Mr. Peiia, in support of the minority report, delivered a very 
 able speech, in which he deprecated the attempt to introduce a 
 system of commercial exclusiveness in the American continents, 
 and took occasion to criticise severely the tariff system of the 
 United States. In closing he said : " Affection and love for 
 America are not wanting in me. I do not lack confidence in or 
 gratitude towards Europe. * * * Let the century of Amer- 
 ica, as the twentieth century is already called, behold our trade 
 with all the nations of the earth free, witnessing the noble 
 deed of untrammeled labor, in which it has been truly said God 
 measures the ground, equalizes the weapons, and apportions 
 the light. 
 
 " Let America be for mankind ! " 
 
 Much of the discussion which followed was in criticism or de- 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE. 32S 
 
 fense of the tariff systems of the United States and other 
 American States. The report of the majority prevailed, which 
 indeed was of no great importance, as it left the question of 
 reciprocity treaties to the initiation of the several States of 
 America.! 
 
 Arbitration. — After a long debate upon the report on arbi- 
 tration, the Conference adopted the following recommendations : 
 
 "The delegates from North, Central, and South America in 
 congress assem.bled : 
 
 ' ' Believing that war is the most cruel, the most fruitless, and 
 the most dangerous expedient for the settlement of international 
 differences ; 
 
 ' ' Eecognizing that the growth of the moral principles which 
 govern political societies has created an earnest desire in favor 
 of the amicable adjustment of such differences ; 
 
 ' ' Animated by the conviction of the great moral and material 
 benefits that peace offers to mankind, and trusting that the ex- 
 isting conditions of the respective nations are especially propi- 
 tious for the adoption of arbitration as a substitute for armed 
 struggles ; 
 
 ' ' Convinced by reason of their friendly and cordial meeting in 
 the present Conference that the American Eepublics, controlled 
 alike by the principles, duties, and responsibilities of popular 
 government, and bound together by vast and increasing mutual 
 interests, can, within the sphere of their own action, maintain 
 the peace of the continent, and the good-will of all its inhabi- 
 tants ; 
 
 " And considering it their duty to lend their assent to the lofty 
 principles of peace which the most enlightened public sentiment 
 of the world approves ; 
 
 ' ' Do solemnly recommend all the Governments by which they 
 are accredited to conclude a uniform treaty of arbitration in the 
 articles following : 
 
 Article I. 
 
 " The republics of North, Central, and South America hereby 
 adopt arbitration as a principle of American international law 
 for the settlement of the differences, disputes, or controversies 
 that may arise between two or more of them." 
 
 1 International American Conference, I. 103-264. 
 
324 TOPICS EST AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 "Arbitration shall be obligatory in all controversies concerning 
 diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories, in- 
 demnities, the right of navigation, and the validity, construction, 
 and enforcement of treaties." 
 
 Article III. 
 " Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases other than 
 those mentioned in the foregoing article, -whatever may be their 
 origin, nature, or object, with the single exception mentioned in 
 the next following article." 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 "The sole questions excepted from the provisions of the pre- 
 ceding articles are those which, in the judgment of any one of 
 the nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its inde- 
 pendence. In which case for such nation arbitration shall be 
 optional; but it shall be obligatory upon the adversary power." 
 
 The remaining articles (V.-XIX.) relate to the choice of arbi- 
 trators and umpires, and to questions of minor detail. The 
 adoption of the fourth article shows a serious defect in the 
 proposed system. It would seem that the delegates had not 
 full confidence in the efficiency of arbitration. The Conference, 
 moreover, was not unanimous in the adoption of this plan ; . 
 the delegates from Chile and Mexico, while favoring the prin- 
 ciple of arbitration, were opposed to the proposed treaty. 
 
 In the paper submitted by the delegates of Chile, Mr. Al- 
 fonso and Mr. Varas, they say that the recommendation of the 
 committee " would produce, if carried into effect, more diffi- 
 culties, and more pernicious results, than those which it pro- 
 poses to obviate or avoid." 
 
 " The method suggested by the committee for the preserva- 
 tion of perpetual peace * * * is not, indeed, a novelty. 
 From immemorial times it has been the subject of study, and 
 more or less successful combinations, by writers on public law ; 
 and to-day it continues to be one of the principal bases of the 
 study of international law. 
 
 "The Spanish -American nations, * * * have attempted 
 on six different occasions, since 1826, to give form and applica- 
 tion to that generous aspiration which prevails in the civilized 
 
THE INTEKNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE. 325 
 
 world; but their reiterated efforts, although formulated in 
 terms less absolute or restrictive than those suggested by the 
 Committee of General Welfare, have ended in complete failure, 
 when subjected to the test of practice, and to the unexpected 
 resistance of human passions and interests. 
 
 « * * # Arbitration being recognized, as it is, as a princi- 
 ple of international law, cannot, by any means, become a 
 guaranty of peace if its application does not correspond to its 
 nature. 
 
 " Its origin is the voluntary and free assent of the nations 
 which find themselves in disagreement to trust to a tliird party 
 the ascertainment and adjudication of their rights and interests ; 
 and its efficiency depends upon the respect, also voluntary, to 
 be paid to its decisions, whatever be the obligations and sacri- 
 fices which it may impose. If arbitration is obligatory its own 
 nature is thereby antagonized, and the moment it is forced 
 upon the nations its decisions will lose their efficiency and the 
 goodness of the principle itself will become discredited. * * * 
 
 " We the delegates of Chile, are unwilling to entertain the 
 illusion that any conflict which may directly affect the dignity 
 or the honor of a nation shall ever be submitted to the decision 
 of a third party." 
 
 The paper of the Chilean delegates is given in full in the 
 records of the Conference, vol. ii., pp. 972-986 ; and the answer 
 of Mr. Cruz, of Guatemala, pp. 988-1001. The subject in full 
 is in the same volume, pp. 954-1083. 
 
 A supplementary report on the right of conquest was made 
 and discussed ; and the following recommendation made : 
 
 "First. That the principle of conquest shall not, during the 
 continuance of the treaty of arbitration (20 years), be recognized 
 as admissible under American public law. 
 
 "Second. That all cessions of territory made during the con- 
 tinuance of the treaty of arbitration shall be void if made under 
 threats of war or in the presence of an armed force. 
 
 ' ' Third. Any nation from which such cessions shall be exacted, 
 may demand that the validity of the cessions so made shaU be 
 submitted to arbitration. 
 
 " Fourth. Any renunciation of the right to arbitration, made 
 under the conditions named in the second section, shall be nuU 
 and void." 
 
326 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 
 
 The Chilean delegates abstained from voting on this proposi- 
 tion, as on that of arbitration. The delegates of the United 
 States at first opposed the absolute limitation of the right of 
 conquest; but finally voted for it on the condition that it 
 should have effect only during the existence of the treaty of 
 arbitration, which was to run for twenty years ; and thereafter 
 till the nations should withdraw from it.^ 
 
 International Library. — Before separating the Conference 
 adopted unanimously the following resolution : — 
 
 " Resolved. That there be established at such location in the 
 city of Washington as the Government of the United States may 
 designate, to commemorate the meeting of the International 
 American Conference, a Latin- American Memorial Library, to be 
 formed by contributions from all the Governments represented 
 in this Conference, wherein shall be collected all the historical, 
 geographical, and literary works, maps, manuscripts, and official 
 documents relating to the history and civilization of America, 
 such library to be solemnly dedicated on the day on which the 
 United States celebrates the Fourth Centennial of the discovery 
 of America." By an amendment to the resolution, the name was 
 to be the " Library of Columbus." 
 
 The Conference adjourned on the 19th of April, 1890. As in 
 the case of so many previous American Congresses, the rec- 
 ommendations of this one have for the most part come to 
 naught. 
 
 INTEROCEANIC CANAL. 
 
 Soon after the establishment of the independence of the 
 Spanish-American Republics, the United States, as well as 
 other States, European and American, were occupied with 
 schemes for the construction of a ship canal across the isthmus 
 which connects the two American Continents. It formed one 
 of the proposed subjects of discussion at the Panama Congress 
 of 1826. Clay, in his instructions to the commissioners to that 
 Congress, said: 
 
 1 Records of the Conference, II. 1122-1152. And the whofe question of 
 Arbitration, lb., 954-1152. 
 
INTBROCEANIC CANAL. 327 
 
 ' ' A cut or canal for purposes of navigation somewhere through 
 the isthmus that connects the two Americas, to unite the Pacific 
 and Atlantic Oceans, will form a proper subject of consideration 
 at the Congress. 
 
 " * * * In the present limited state of our information as to the 
 practicability and the probable expense of the object, it would 
 not be wise to do more than to make some preliminary arrange- 
 ments. The best routes will be most likely found in the territory 
 of Mexico or that of the Central Republic. The latter Republic 
 made to this Government, on the 8th day of February of last 
 year, in a note to which Mr. Canaz, its minister here, addressed 
 to this Department, a liberal offer, manifesting high and honor- 
 able confidence in the United States.' ***];£ ^he work should 
 ever be executed so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from 
 ocean to ocean, the benefits of it ought not to be exclusively ap- 
 propriated to any one nation, but should be extended to aU parts 
 of the globe upon the payment of a just compensation or reason- 
 able tolls. What is most desirable at present is to possess the 
 data necessary to form a correct judgment of the practicability 
 and the probable expense of the undertaking on the routes which 
 ofEer the greatest facilities. 
 
 ' ' Measures may have been already executed or be in progress 
 to acquire the requisite knowledge. You will inquire particularly 
 as to what has been done or may have been designed by Spain or 
 either of the new States, and obtain all other information that 
 may be within your reach, to solve this interesting problem." 
 
 In 1828, Bolivar, President of the Republic of New Granada, 
 gave to Lloyd and Falcmar a commission with a view to con- 
 struct a roadway between the two oceans. The next year, the 
 King of the Netherlands, in behalf of a private company, made 
 arrangements with Central America for the cutting of a canal, 
 " to be opened on the same terms to all nations." 
 
 On the 5th of March, 1835, the Senate of the United States 
 adopted a resolution requesting the President ta open negotia- 
 tions with other nations, and particularly with the govern- 
 ments of Central America and New Granada, with the view of 
 protecting by treaty stipulations, either individuals or com- 
 panies who should undertake to open communication between 
 
 1 House Eeports, 30th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 145, p. 244. 
 
328 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 the Atlantic and Pacific oceans ; and insuring " the free and 
 equal navigation of the canal by all nations." Similar reso- 
 lutions were adopted by Congress in 1839. Charles Biddle 
 and John L. Stephens were successively commissioned agents by 
 Presidents Jackson and Van Buren between the years 1836 and 
 1839, but with no permanent results. Stephens reported in 
 favor of the Nicaragua route. ^ On the 8th of January, 1845, the 
 government of Nicaragua gave Prince Louis Napoleon Bona- 
 parte, then a prisoner in the fortress of Ham, power to organize 
 a company for the construction of a new route for the commerce 
 of the world to be called " Le Canale Napoleon de Nicaragua." 
 After the escape of Louis Napoleon from Ham, in the follow- 
 ing May, a pamphlet was published at London under his name, 
 entitled " The Canal of Nicaragua, or a Project for the Junc- 
 tion of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by means of a Canal." 
 
 In concluding a new treaty with New Granada (since 1862, 
 the United States of Colombia), December 12, 1846, the gov- 
 ernment of the United States succeeded in introducing an ar- 
 ticle (the 35th) giving effect to the previous resolutions of 
 Congress.^ 
 
 Although England had taken no active part in the projects 
 for the construction of a Central American canal, "she was not 
 an uninterested spectator of what was taking place there. In 
 1841, the English Government sent a ship of war to San Juan 
 del Norte, at the mouth of the San Juan river, to announce 
 the protection of England over the lands of the Mosqiiito King, 
 her ally, and to erect the Mosquito flag. In 1847, the Nicara- 
 guans were driven away from San Juan del Norte, and the 
 name of the town was changed to Grey Town.^ In giving in- 
 structions to Mr. Hise, soon after this event Mr. Buchanan, 
 Secretary of State, said : 
 
 ' ' The object of Great Britain in this seizure is evident from the 
 policy which she has uniformly pursued throughout her history, 
 
 1 H. K. 30th Cong., 2d Sess., No. 145. Squier's Nicaragua; John L. 
 Stephens : Incidents of Travel in Central America. 
 
 2 Supra, p. 183. 
 
 ^ British Accounts and Papers, Vol. 65, Mosquito Correspondence ; Ex. 
 Doc. No. 75, Vol. X., 31st Cong., 1st Sess. pp. 1-91, 118 ; Senate Ex. Doc. 
 No. 194, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 111. 
 
INTEROCEANIC CANAL. 329 
 
 of seizing upon every available commercial point ia the world 
 whenever circumstances have placed it in her power. Her pur- 
 pose probably is to obtain control of the route for a railroad or 
 canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceane by way of Lake 
 Nicaragua. * * * The government of the United States has not 
 yet determined what course it will pursue in regard to the en- 
 croachments of the British Government." * * * 
 
 ' ' The independence as well as the interests of the nations on 
 this continent require that they should maintain an American 
 system of policy entirely distinct from that which prevails in 
 Europe. To suffer any interference on the part of the European 
 Governments with the domestic concerns of the American Eepub- 
 lics, and to permit them to establish new colonies upon this con- 
 tinent, would be to jeopard their independence and ruin their 
 interests. These truths ought everywhere throughout this con- 
 tinent to be impressed upon the public mind; but what can the 
 United States do to resist such European interference whilst the 
 Spanish-American Republics continue to weaken themselves by 
 divisions and civil war, and deprive themselves of doing anything 
 for their own protection." ' 
 
 The acquisition of California by the United States, in 1848, 
 and the subsequent discovery of gold in that territory gave an 
 increased interest to the projects for constructing a water-way 
 through the Central American Isthmus. In this year, 1848, 
 Aspinwall, Stephens and others obtained from the government 
 of New Granada the concession of the way for a railway across 
 the Isthmus of Panama. This road was finished and opened to 
 traffic in 1855. On the 27th day of August, 1849, Cornelius 
 Vanderbilt, Joseph L. White and others formed at New York 
 a company called The American, Atlantic and Pacific Com- 
 pany, to whom the government of Nicaragua granted the right 
 to construct a ship canal across the territory of that State." 
 
 At about the same time — June 21, 1849 — Mr. Hise, who had 
 been sent to Central America as Charg^ d' Affaires, concluded 
 a treaty with Nicaragua, but without the authority of his 
 
 1 Wliarton's Digest of Intematiotial Law, I. 287-288. 
 
 2 Correspondence relating to proposed Interoceanic Canal, p. 195. This 
 volume of correspondence published by the government in 1885, is a re- 
 print of Senate Ex. Docs. No. 112, 46th Cong., 2d Sess.; No. 194, 47th 
 Cong., 1st Sess., and No. 26, 48th Cong., 1st Sess. 
 
330 TOPICS iisr ameeican diplomacy. 
 
 government, by which the United States were to exercise ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction over any route through the territory of 
 that State.^ 
 
 The Hise treaty was not acceptable to President Taylor, and 
 was not submitted to the Senate ; though it was held for some 
 time as a means of influencing the policy of England. 
 
 At this time the Nicaragua route was thought to be the most 
 feasible one for a ship canal ; but an obstacle now presented 
 itself in the fact that the mouth of the San Juan river, and 
 hence the eastern terminus of the canal, was under the domin- 
 ion of England. England had, moreover, a settlement on the 
 mainland further to the north, called the Belize, or British Hon- 
 duras, and she claimed the Bay Islands, situated in the Bay of 
 Honduras as dependencies of Belize. , 
 
 The government of the United States, alarmed at this pre- 
 ponderance of British influence in Central America, cast about 
 for the means of counteracting it. To oust England from her 
 strong position by force was felt to be much too grave an 
 undertaking, even were the United States disposed to attempt 
 it. But the American statesmen of that day were, as a rule, 
 only intent on securing a free transit across the isthmus not 
 under the exclusive control of any European nation. They re- 
 solved, therefore, Upon a peaceful and conciliatory policy ; if 
 England could not be got rid of, yet she might consent to act 
 in conjunction with the United States in guaranteeing the 
 proposed isthmus transit. Under instructions from Mr. Clay- 
 ton, Mr. W. C. Rives, who was on his way to Paris, had an in- 
 terview with Lord Palmerston, in which Mr. Rives said to him 
 with reference to the British claim of jurisdiction over the 
 Mosquitos : — 
 
 " That the United States had no disposition to intermeddle in 
 any pragmatical spirit, or with views in the slightest degree un- 
 friendly to Great Britain, with that question, but they were neces- 
 sarily parties to it in their own right; that citizens of the United 
 States had entered into a contract (the Hise treaty) with the 
 State of Nicaragua to open, on certain conditions, a communica- 
 tion between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by the river San 
 Juan and the Nicaragua Lake ; that the Government of the 
 
 1 CoiTespondence relating to proposed Interoceanic Canal, p. 94. 
 
INTBROCEANIC CANAL. 331 
 
 United States, after the most careful investigation of the subject, 
 had come undoubtingly to the conclusion that upon both legal 
 and historical grounds, the State of Nicaragua was the true ter- 
 ritorial sovereign of the river San Juan as weU as of the Nicaragua 
 Lake, and that it was, therefore, bound to give its countenance 
 and support, by all proper and reasonable means, to rights law- 
 fully derived by their citizens under a grant from that sovereign; 
 that the United States sought no exclusive privilege or prefer- 
 ential right of any kind in regard to the proposed communication, 
 and their sincere wish, if it should be found practicable, was to 
 see it dedicated to the common use of all nations on the most 
 liberal terms, and a footing of perfect equality for all, securing it 
 beforehand, by proper stipulations against unreasonable and op- 
 pressive exactions for the use of it, either from the States through 
 whose territories it should pass, or the individuals or companies 
 who might be authorized to construct it ; that the United States 
 would not, if they could, obtain any exclusive right or privilege 
 in a great highway, which naturally belonged to all mankind, 
 for they well knew that the possession of any such privilege 
 would expose them to inevitable jealousies and probable contro- 
 versies which would make it infinitely more costly than advan- 
 tageous; that while they aimed at no exclusive privilege for 
 themselves they could never consent to see so important a com- 
 munication fall under the exclusive control of any other great 
 commercial power ; that we were far from imputing to Her Bri- 
 tannic Majesty's G-overnment any views of that kind, but Mos- 
 quito possession at the mouth of the San Juan could be considered 
 in no other light than British possession, and his lordship would 
 readUy comprehend that such a state of things, so long as it was 
 continued, must necessarily give rise to dissatisfaction and dis- 
 trust on the part of other commercial powers. Would it not, 
 then, be wise, I said to Lord Palmerston, that Great Britain and 
 the United States should come to a frank and manly understand- 
 ing with each other and unite their influence for the accomplish- 
 ment of an object of the highest importance to both of them as 
 weU as the rest of the world, instead of hazarding the final loss of 
 so great an object by jarring and divided councils." > * * * 
 
 In giving instructions to Abbott Lawrence, the new minister 
 . to England, Mr. Clayton said, October 20, 1849 : 
 
 1 Rives to Clayton, September 25, 1849, correspondence in relation to the 
 proposed canal, p. 11. 
 
332 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " If, however, the British Government shall reject these over- 
 tures on our part, and shall refuse to co-operate with us in the 
 generous and philanthi-opic scheme of rendering the interoceanic 
 communication by the way of the port and river San Juan, free 
 to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves jus- 
 tified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and 
 despite her opposition or hostility. 
 
 " With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with the 
 State of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and 
 the stipulations of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord 
 Palmerston. 
 
 ' ' You will inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded 
 without a power or instructions from this government ; that the 
 President had no knowledge of its existence or of the intention to 
 form it until it was presented to him by Mr. Hise, our late charge 
 d'affaires to Guatemala, about the first of September last ; and 
 that consequently we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no 
 step for that purpose if we can, by arrangements with the British 
 Government, place our interest upon a just and satisfactory 
 foundation. But if our efforts for this end should be abortive, the 
 President will not hesitate to submit this or some other treaty 
 which may be concluded by the present charge d'affaires to Guate- 
 mala to the Senate of the United States for their advice and con- 
 sent, with a view to its ratification, and if that enlightened body 
 should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction, and 
 will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in 
 good faith, a determination in which he may confidently count 
 upon the good wiU of the people of the United States." ' * * * 
 
 The English government was invited, through Mr. Law- 
 rence, to join the United States in the protectorate of the Pan- 
 ama route, as set forth in the 35th article of the treaty of 1846 
 with New Granada; and also to enter into a treaty with 
 Nicaragua similar to that negotiated by Mr. Hise which was 
 then in the hands of the President. The condition attached to 
 this proposal was, however, that the Mosquito protectorate 
 should be withdrawn by England. In the event of this pro- 
 posal not being accepted, it was further intimated, probably as 
 a mild threat, that the Hise treaty would be submitted to the 
 Senate for its approbation. The subsequent negotiations m 
 
 1 Eives to Clayton, September 25, 1849, p. 12. 
 
INTEKOCEANIC CANAL. 333 
 
 regard to this question were transferred to Washington, and 
 carried on by Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State, and Sir Henry 
 Lytton-Bulwer, the English minister at "Washington. The re- 
 sult was a direct treaty between the two parties, signed April 
 19, 1850, and since known as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.^ 
 
 At the time of the execution of this treaty, England claimed, 
 as we have seen, dominion over (1) the Mosquito coast, (2) British 
 Honduras, (3) the Bay Islands. Before the final exchange of rati- 
 fications of the treaty, Sir H. L. Bulwer filed a paper at the State 
 Department at Washington declaring that " Her Majesty does 
 not undertand the engagements of that convention to apply to 
 Her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, or to its dependencies." 
 
 Mr. Clayton answered, in a note of July 4, acknowledging 
 that he "understood British Honduras was not embraced in 
 the treaty of the 19th day of April last, but at the same time 
 declining to afSrm or deny the British title in their settlement 
 or its alleged dependencies." He said further, " The consent 
 of the Senate was not required, and the treaty was ratified as 
 it stood when it was made." 
 
 Before answering Sir H. L. Bulwer on this point, Mr. Clayton 
 had had the following correspondence with the chairman of 
 the Senate Committee of foreign Kelations : 
 
 "July 4, 1850. 
 "Dear Sir, — I am this morning writing to Sir H. L. Bulwer, 
 and while about to decline altering the treaty at the time of ex- 
 changing ratifications, I wish to leave no room for a charge of 
 duplicity against our government, such as that we now pretend 
 that Central America in the treaty includes British Honduras. 
 
 " I shall therefore say to him, in effect, that such construction 
 was not in the contemplation of the negotiators or the Senate at 
 the time of the confirmation. May I have your permission to add 
 that the true understanding was explained by you, as Chairman 
 of Foreign Eelations, to the Senate, before the vote was taken on 
 the treaty ? I think it due to frankness on our part. 
 
 "Very truly yours, 
 " John M. Clayton. 
 "To Hon. W. E. King, U. S. Senate.'" 
 
 "July 4, 1850. 
 " My dear Sir, — The Senate perfectly understood that the treaty 
 1 Supra, p. 86. 
 
334 TOPICS IK AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 did not include British Honduras. Frankness becomes our 
 government, but you should, be careful not to use any expression 
 which would seem to recognize the right of England to any por- 
 tion of Honduras. 
 
 " Faithfully your obedient servant, 
 
 "W. R King. 
 
 " To Hon. John M. Clayton, Secretary of State." 
 
 That British Honduras was not included in the stipulations 
 of the treaty was not disputed at that day. An ofQcial exposi- 
 tion of the treaty appeared in the " N"ational Intelligencer," on 
 the 8th of July, in which it was asserted that " the British title 
 to the Belize the treaty does not in any manner recognize ; nor 
 does it deny it, or meddle with it. That settlement remains, 
 in that particular, as it stood previously to the treaty." And 
 President Fillmore said in a communication to Congress on the 
 14th of July, that " the British title to British Honduras stands 
 precisely as it stood before the treaty." ^ 
 
 England then renounced her dominion over Greytown, but 
 continued to exercise a protectorate over the Mosquito Indians ; 
 and shortly after the ratification of the treaty, proceeded to 
 erect the Bay Islands into a separate colony. This, the United 
 States contended, was a direct violation of the stipulations of 
 the treaty ; and immediately thereupon a controversy arose in 
 respect of its interpretation. The British government took the 
 position that the first article related only to future acts, and 
 did not embrace places in their possession at the time the treaty 
 was made. This construction was rejected by the United 
 States ; they were willing to admit the British construction in 
 the case of the Belize, provided the boundary should be satis- 
 factorily settled ; but as to the Mosquito coast and the Bay 
 Islands, such construction would defeat the very object of the 
 treaty. 
 
 Secretary Marcy, in a despatch to Borland, December 30, 
 1853, said : 
 
 "In relation to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty,* * * I have 
 only to remark that this government considers it a subsisting con- 
 
 1 Seward's Works, I., 384, 385. 
 
INTEROCEANIC CANAL. 335 
 
 tract, and feels bound to observe its stipulations so far as by fair 
 construction they impose obligations upon it.* * * 
 
 " So far as respects your mission, you will regard it as meaning 
 what the American negotiator intended when he entered into it, 
 and what the Senate must have understood it to mean when it 
 was ratified, viz. : that by it Great Britain came under engage- 
 ments to the United States to recede from her asserted protector- 
 ate of the Mosquito Indians, and to cease to exercise dominion or 
 control in any part of Central America. If she had any colonial 
 possessions therein at the date of the treaty, she was bound to 
 abandon them, and equally bound to abstain from colonial acqui- 
 sitions in that region.* * * 
 
 " It is believed that Great Britain has a qualified right over a 
 tract of country called the Belize, from which she is not ousted 
 by this treaty, because no part of that tract, when restricted to 
 its proper limits, is within the bounds of Central America." i * * * 
 
 In a letter to Marcy, June 7, 1853, Buchanan wrote : 
 
 ' ' Bad as the treaty (the Clayton and Bulwer treaty) is, the 
 President cannot annul it. This would be beyond his power, and 
 the attempt would startle the whole world. In one respect it may 
 be employed to great advantage. The question of the Colony of 
 the Bay of Islands is the dangerous question. It affects the na- 
 tional honor. From all the consideration I can give the subject, 
 the establishment of this colony is a clear violation of the Clayton 
 and Bulwer treaty. Under it we can insist upon the withdrawal 
 of Great Britain from the Bay of Islands. Without it we could 
 only interpose the Monroe Doctrine against this colony, which has 
 never yet been sanctioned by Congress, though as an individual 
 citizen of the United States, I would fight for it to-morrow, so far 
 as all North America is concerned, and would do my best to main- 
 tain it throughout South America."^ 
 
 Buchanan thought that " Mr. Clayton and Mr. Webster have 
 involved our relations with England in serious difficulties by 
 departing from the Monroe Doctrine." * 
 
 One of the chief objects of Buchanan's mission to England, 
 
 1 Correspondence, etc., p. 247. The term Central America is here used in 
 a political sense, meaning the territory comprised in the former Central 
 American Confederacy, but now broken up into five independent republics. 
 
 2 Curtis' Buchanan, II., 82. » lb., p. 73. 
 
336 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in 1853, was to settle the Central American question, but he 
 was unable to accomplish anything. An attempt was made, 
 in 1856 to settle the matter by a new treaty — known as the 
 Clarendon -Dallas treaty, — but it failed of ratification on the 
 part of England by reason of an amendment added to it by the 
 Senate, by which the Bay Islands were given absolutely to the 
 Republic of Honduras. England had claimed these islands, 
 but with hardly a semblance of reason, as dependencies of the 
 Belize. 
 
 On the failure of the Clarendon-Dallas treaty, there remained 
 two possibe modes of proceeding ; namely, by reference to arbi- 
 tration, or by the absolute abrogation of the treaty of 1850; 
 In the opinion of the United States, said Mr. Cass, the subject 
 did not admit of reference to arbitration. And as to the abroga- 
 tion of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the United States would 
 consent to this only on condition of making some other settle- 
 ment of the question. For, in the event of abrogation, England 
 insisted on resuming her former protensions in Central 
 America. Mr. Clayton said, "The abrogation of the treaty re- 
 stores the British protectorate with renewed vigor ; and, unless 
 immediately after it shall be annulled we shall be prepared 
 to attack her in Central America, she will reassert her title 
 so effectually that in one year the whole isthmus will be under 
 her influence." ^ In the meantime England sent out, in 1857, 
 a commission — Sir William Gore Auslej — to negotiate treaties 
 with the Central-American states, which should be in accord- 
 ance with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and perhaps satisfy the 
 American construction of the treaty. Mr. Cass assured the 
 English government that the United States would be satisfied 
 if the proposed treaties should adjust the disputes in regard to 
 the Mosquito protectorate, the Bay Islands, and the boundary 
 of Belize, " in accordance with the general tenor of the American 
 interpretation of the treaty." This plan proved successful. 
 Treaties were concluded (1) with Guatemala in 1859,by which the 
 boundaries of Belize were determined ; (2) with Honduras, in the 
 same year, by which the Bay Islands were given up to that 
 state ; (3) with Nicaragua in 1860 (also by that with Honduras), 
 by which the British protectorate over the Mosquitos was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 1 Appendix to Cong. Globe, 18.55-56, p. 441. 
 
INTEEOCEANIC CANAL. 337 
 
 It will be seen that the principles involved in these treaties 
 coincide almost exactly with the American construction, and 
 with the Senate amendments to the Clarendon-Dallas treaty. 
 England conceded in 1860 what she flatly refused in 1856. The 
 United States thus gained all they had contended for. Mr. 
 Buchanan said in his annual message of December, 1860, " The 
 discordant construction of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty between 
 the two governments has resulted in a final settlement entirely 
 satisfactory to this government." Mr. Buchanan afterwaids 
 wrote, that, at the close of " his administration, no European 
 colony existed on the American continent, except such as had 
 been established before the Monroe Doctrine was announced or 
 had been formed out of territory then belonging to a European 
 power." 1 
 
 Thus, in 1860, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was restored to its 
 full original authority. But the primary object for which it 
 was made — the construction of a canal — still remained unac- 
 complished. The American, Atlantic and Pacific Company had 
 caused a careful survey of the Nicaragua route to be made in 
 1851 by Col. O. W. Childs; and had organized the "Accessory 
 Transit Company " for the conveyance of passengers across the 
 isthmus by way of the San Juan river and Lake Nicaragua. 
 Work on the canal, however, was not begun; and for this 
 reason, ostensibly, but really on account of the Walker fiUi- 
 bustering expedition to Central America, the government of 
 Nicaragua revoked the charter of the Canal Company ; and in 
 1858 granted a concession to Felix Belly of Paris and a com- 
 pany to be organized by him. 
 
 In a letter to Lamar, July 25, 1858, Mr. Cass, Secretary of 
 State, criticises the summary proceedings of Nicaragua in 
 annulling the privileges of the American Company, and objects 
 to some of the privileges granted to Belly.^ 
 
 The breaking out of the Civil War in 1861 arrested further 
 action with reference to an isthmian canal on the part of 
 Americans. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty continued, neverthe- 
 less, to be considered as binding the two States. In a despatch 
 to Mr. Adams, in 1866, Mr. Seward said that, " supposing the 
 
 1 Buchanan's Administration, p. 284. 
 
 2 Correspondence relating to proposed canal, p. 281. And see lb., p^ 250, 
 for the decree annulling the American charter. 
 
 22 
 
338 TOPICS IN AMBRICAK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 canal should never be built, it may be a question whether the 
 I'enunciatory clauses of the treaty are to have perpetual obliga- 
 tions. Technically speaking, this question might be decided 
 in the negative. Still, so long as it should remain a question, 
 it would not comport with good faith for either party to do 
 anything which might be deemed contrary to even the spirit 
 of the treaty." (Correspondence, etc., p. 304.) 
 
 So, Mr. Fish, in a despatch of April 26, 1872, to Mr. Schenck, 
 in regard to a rumor of British encroachment upon the terri- 
 tory of Guatemala, said : " You will then (if the rumor prove 
 to be true) formally remonstrate against any trespass by 
 British subjects, with the connivance of their government upon 
 the territory of Guatemala, as an infringement of the Clayton- 
 Bulwer treaty, which will be very unacceptable in this country." 
 (Correspondence, etc., p. 312.) 
 
 Again, on March 4, 1880, Mr. Evarts, writing to Mr. Logan, 
 then minister to Central America, in regard to a rumor that 
 England was about to acquire the Bay Islands by purchase, 
 said, " It seems unquestionable that the Clay ton-Bulwer treaty 
 precludes the acquisition of those islands by Great Britain." 
 (Wharton's Digest, II., 209.) 
 
 During the civil war, Mr. Seward refrained from asserting 
 any exclusive authority in Central America ; but after the close 
 of that war, and after the French had been forced out of 
 Mexico, he would seem to have taken a higher tone in this re- 
 spect. " The United States," he said, " would not permit a pub- 
 lic enemy of the American continent the use or advantages of 
 a work executed by nations of the new world." In concluding 
 a treaty ' with Nicaragua, in 1867, however, there is no attempt 
 to acquire exclusive control of any future canal. But in a new 
 treaty negotiated with Colombia (forjnerly New Granada), in 
 1869, almost absolute control of any canal at Panama was re- 
 served to the United States.^ This treaty was ratified neither 
 by Colombia nor by the Senate of the United States. A 
 similar treaty negotiated with Colombia the next year by Mr. 
 Fish met a like fate.' 
 
 During the years from 1872 to 1880, almost every possible 
 route across the Central- American Isthmus was carefully sur- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 197. ^ Correspondence relating to proposed canal, p. 36. 
 
 « lb., p. 40. 
 
IMTEEOCEANIC CAiTAL. 339 
 
 veyed by officers and engineers of the United States Navy; 
 but nothing was done towards the actual construction of a 
 canal. In the meantime, Lieutenant Lucien Napoleon Bona- 
 parte Wyse, and others, had explored the Panama route, and 
 Oil the 18th of May, 1878, obtained from the Colombia govern- 
 ment a charter for the company which he represented, of 
 which General Turr was president, granting the exclusive 
 privilege of excavating a maritime canal between the Atlantic 
 and Pacific Oceans across the territory of that State." ^ 
 
 By the stipulations of this contract, or treaty, the proposed 
 canal was to be absolutely neutral and open to the vessels of 
 all nations on an equal footing, with the one exception of ships 
 of war of nations not joining in the guaranty of the neutrality 
 of the canal and the sovereignty of Colombia over this part of 
 the isthmus. 
 
 A contract for the purchase of the Panama railroad was also 
 procured by Mr. Wyse on the 24th of February, 1879. 
 
 In order to give the necessary 6clat to the enterprise, M. 
 Ferdinand de Lesseps was induced to assume the leadership in 
 it. A Congress composed of 135 delegates was called to 
 consider the question of the canal, and met at Paris in May, 
 1879. The United States were here represented by eleven 
 delegates, among whom were Admiral Ammen, Mr. Menocal 
 and Commander Selfridge, the first two being sent by the 
 government. These three men were probably the best living 
 authorities respecting the isthmus routes. But the whole mat- 
 ter had been settled beforehand by the interested parties, so 
 that the opinion of Ammen and Menocal was hardly 
 listened to ; and -the majority of the Congress adopted the 
 visionary scheme of Wyse and his fellow explorer, Reclus, 
 which was to cut a sea-level canal between Colon and Panama. 
 The subsequent history of this scheme is too well-known to 
 need recounting here. 
 
 The experience gained by this attempt has proved con- 
 clusively the correctness of the opinions of the American en- 
 gineers, that a sea-level canal at Panama was quite impracti- 
 cable. The undertaking was blindly begun and blindly persisted 
 
 1 L. N. B. Wyse; Le Canal de Panama, p. 371. 
 
340 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in, until the sum of 1270,000,000 was recklessly sunk in the 
 enterprise, and without accomplishing any material results. 
 
 The government of the United States now took alarm, and 
 was impressed with the necessity of asserting its authority in 
 respect of the project. In both Houses of Congress resolutions 
 were introduced reaffirming the principles of the Monroe Doc- 
 trine, and declaring that the United States must exercise such 
 control over any interoceanic canal as their safety and prosper- 
 ity demanded. President Hayes, in a special message of March 
 8, 1880, said :— 
 
 " That the policy of this country is a canal under American 
 control. The United States cannot consent to the surrender of 
 this control to any European power, or to any combination of 
 European powers.* * ♦ An interoceanic canal across the Ameri- 
 can Isthmus will essentially change the geographical relations 
 between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States, and 
 between the United States and the rest of the world. It will be 
 the great ocean thoroughfare between our Atlantic and our Pacific 
 shores, and virtually a part of the coast line of the United 
 States. Our merely commercial interest in it is greater than that 
 of all other countries, while its relations to our power and pros- 
 perity as a nation, to our means of defense, our unity, peace, and 
 safety, are matters of paramount concern to the people of the 
 United States. No other great power would, under similar cir- 
 cumstances, fail to assert a rightful control over a work so closely 
 and vitally affecting its interest and welfare." ^ 
 
 Mr. Evarts protested against the action of Colombia, in grant- 
 ing a concession to a French company, and proposed to the 
 Colombian minister. General Santo Domingo Vila, a new treaty, 
 supplementary to that of 1846, by the terms of which'" all con- 
 cessions and privileges granted or to be granted by the United 
 States of Colombia with the view of assuring the construction 
 of an interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama are and 
 shall be subject to the rights acquired by the United States of 
 America by virtue of the guarantee given by them in the thirty- 
 fifth article of the Treaty of 1846," and that no concessions 
 should be granted by Colombia without the consent of the 
 
 ^Correspondence, etc., p. 312. 
 
INTBEOCEANIC CANAL. 341 
 
 United States. And, further, that the United States should be 
 permitted to establish and occupy any fortifications at the 
 entrance of the canal which should be deemed necessary. 
 General Vila replied, in effect, on the 10th of February, 1881, 
 that to accept the proposals of Mr. Evarts would be a serious 
 blow to the independence of Colombia as a sovereign State, and 
 that he could not accept the idea, even as a simple basis of dis- 
 cussion. A convention, in a modified form, negotiated imme- 
 diately afterwards by Mr. Trescot and General Vila (February 
 17), was rejected by the Colombian Senate.^ 
 
 It was left, however, to the successors of Mr. Evarts in the 
 State department to sustain by argument the position of the 
 United States in respect to the canal and the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty. In a despatch to Mr. J. K. Lowell, minister at London, 
 dated June 24, 1881, Mr. Blaine called attention to the treaty of 
 guarantee of 1846 between Colombia and the United States, 
 and said that, " in the judgment of the President, this guarantee, 
 given by the United States of America, does not require rein- 
 forcement, or accession, or assent from any other power." No 
 mention was made in this despatch of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ; 
 but in a subsequent despatch to Mr. Lowell, of the 19th of 
 November, 1881, Mr. Blaine discussed that treaty at great length. 
 " This convention," he declared, " was made more than thirty 
 years ago under exceptional and extraordinary conditions which 
 have long since ceased to exist, — conditions which, at best, were 
 temporary in their nature, and which can never be reproduced." 
 The remarkable development of the United States since that 
 time, Mr. Blaine believed has created new duties upon this 
 government, the complete discharge of which requires some 
 essential modifications of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. For al- 
 though the military power of the United States is witliout 
 limit, and, in any conflict on the American continent, altogether 
 irresistible, this treaty commands the government not to use 
 a single regiment of troops to protect its interests in connection 
 with the interoceanic canal, but to surrender the transit to the 
 guardianship and control of the British navy. To counter- 
 balance the preponderance of the British navy, we should be 
 permitted to fortify and control the canal in order to protect 
 
 '■ Wyse : Canal de Panama, p. 282. , 
 
342 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 OUT Pacific coast in tlie event of war. And a comparison is 
 made witli England's Indian possessions and the Suez canal. 
 As to a general neutralization of the canal "■ on paper," Mr. 
 Blaine believed it would not suffice to preserve its neutrality 
 in time of hostilities. " The first sound of cannon, in a general 
 European war, would, in all probability, annul the treaty of 
 neutrality." The only exclusive mode of preserving the neu- 
 trality of the canal is to " place it under the control of that 
 government least likely to be engaged in war, and able, in any 
 and every event, to enforce the guardianship which she shall 
 assume." Besides, it was contended, we have by right and 
 long-established claim priority on the American continent. 
 
 For these reasons Mr. Blaine proposed a modification of the 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty, so as to permit the United States to 
 fortify the canal, while retaining the prohibition regarding the 
 acquisition of territory in Central America. The eighth article, 
 by which the two governments agree to protect the routes by 
 way of Tehuantepec or Panama, should be considered ob- 
 solete ; while that looking to the establishment of a free port 
 at either end of the canal, and a neutralized portion of sea, 
 should be allowed to stand. 
 
 Mr. Prelinghuysen, who succeeded Mr. Blaine in the State 
 Department in December, 1881, reiterated the arguments of his 
 predecessors as to the necessity of the American control of the 
 canal ; and went still further, in his attempt to prove that the 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty was null and void by the acts of Eng- 
 land, or, at least, was voidable at the pleasure of the United 
 States. The primary object of the treaty, said Mr. Frelinghuy- 
 sen, was the construction of a canal by the Mcaragua route, 
 and the dispossession of England of her settlements in Central 
 America. But neither of these objects was accomplished ; the 
 canal was not made, and England continued to occupy British 
 Honduras. If " Great Britain has violated, and continues to 
 violate that provision, the treaty is, of course, voidable at the 
 pleasure of the United States." Again, the parties to the treaty 
 "anticipated that a canal by the Nicaragua route was to be at 
 once commenced, * * * and finished with all possible speed by 
 American and British capital under the impulse of the joint 
 protectorate." And it was further the opinion of Mr. Freling- 
 huysen that the agreement had reference to the concession of 
 
INTEROCEANIC CANAL. 343 
 
 the state of Nicaragua to the American company organized in 
 1849, and to no other. He then intimated that the British 
 capital was not forthcoming ; ^.nd the concession was with- 
 drawn, and therefore the treaty became voidable. The sixth 
 article, which contemplated the extension of the agreement to 
 other nations, should be considered as lapsed by reason of the 
 failure to construct the canal to which it referred, and also be- 
 cause no joint protectorate for any canal across the isthmus is 
 required. As to the eighth article, which extends the provis- 
 ions of the treaty to the Panama and Tehuantepec routes, Mr. 
 Frelinghuysen said our protectorate over Panama, by the treaty 
 of Colombia of 1846, was exclusive in its character while it ex- 
 existed, which treaty obliges the United States to afford the 
 sole protectorate of any transit across Panama. But at all 
 events, the fact that England has concurred in the protectorate 
 of the railway on this route by the United States has relieved 
 the last-named goverhment from any obligations to permit her 
 to join in the guarantee. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen found another reason for annulling the 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty in the fact that in 1850, when the 
 treaty was made, the United States were poor in money ; they 
 could not furnish the necessary capital to construct the canal, 
 and were willing, therefore, in order to secure such capital, to 
 surrender some of their exclusive privileges. But that now the 
 people of the United States had abundance of surplus capital 
 for such enterprises, and had no need to call upon foreign 
 capitalists. 
 
 Finally, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was said to be in conflict 
 with the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 These arguments of Blaine, Frelinghuysen, and others, touch- 
 ing the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, may be reduced to three general 
 propositions ; namely, first, that the treaty is void or voidable 
 by reason of the failure of England to carry out her part of the 
 agreement ; second, that the change of conditions since 1850 
 has worked a virtual abrogation, or, at least, an essential 
 modification of the treaty ; and third, that the treaty is in con- 
 flict with the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. All these posi- 
 tions were denied by Lord Granville, English foreign secretary ; 
 and they have been more recently criticised by Mr. T. J. Law- 
 I'cnce, in his volume of Essays on International Law. 
 
344 TOPICS IS AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 The correspondence between the two governments with ref- 
 erence to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was dropped in 1882, and 
 has not been resumed. 
 
 On the first of December, 1884, Mr. Frelinghuysen negotiated 
 a treaty with Nicaragua, by the provisions of which a canal 
 was to be built by the United States, and to be owned jointly 
 by the two States, and the United States were to " protect " the 
 integrity of the territory of Nicaragua. A strip of territory 
 two and one-half English miles in vrtdth, along the canal, and a 
 strip of the same width around the southern end of the lake 
 were to be set aside and owned by the contracting parties. 
 
 When Mr. Cleveland became President, this treaty was still 
 before the Senate unratified ; and early in his administration, 
 he withdrew it from the Senate, for further consideration, and 
 it was not resubmitted to that body. 
 
 In his first annual message to Congress, December 8, 1885, 
 President Cleveland said in respect to this subject : 
 
 ' ' My immediate predecessor caused to be negotiated with Nic- 
 aragua a treaty for the construction, by and at the sole cost of 
 the United States, of a canal through Nicaragua territory, and 
 laid it before the Senate. Pending the action of that body there- 
 on, I withdrew the treaty for re-examination. Attentive consid- 
 eration of its provisions leads me to withhold it from re-submis- 
 sion to the Senate. 
 
 " Maintaining, as I do, the tenets of a line of precedents from 
 Washington's day, which proscribe entangling alliances with for- 
 eign States, I do not favor a policy of acquisition of new and dis- 
 tant territory or the incorporation of remote interests with our 
 own. 
 
 " The laws of progress are vital and organic, and we must be 
 conscious of that irresistible tide of commercial expansion which, 
 as the concomitant of our active civilization, day by day, is being 
 urged onward by those increasing facilities of production, trans- 
 portation, and communication to which steam and electricity 
 have given birth ; but our duty in the present instructs us to 
 address ourselves mainly to the development of the vast resources 
 of the great area committed to our charge, and to the cultivation 
 of the arts of peace within our own borders, though jealously alert 
 in preventing the American hemisphere from being involved in 
 the political problems and complications of distant governments. 
 Therefore, I am unable to recommend propositions involving par- 
 
IKTEEOCEANIC CANAL. 345 
 
 amount privileges of ownership or right outside of our own terri- 
 tory, when coupled with absolute and unlimited engagements to 
 defend the territorial integrity of the State where such interests 
 lie. While the general project of connecting the two oceans by 
 means of a canal, is to be encouraged, I am of opinion that any 
 scheme to that end to be considered with favor should be free 
 from the features alluded to. * * * 
 
 ' ' Whatever highway may be constructed across the barrier 
 dividing the two greatest maritime areas of the world, must be 
 for the world's benefit, a trust for mankind, to be removed from 
 the chance of domination by any single power, nor become a 
 point of invitation for hostilities or a prize for warlike ambition. 
 An engagement combining the construction, ownership, and oper- 
 ation of such a work by this government, with an offensive and 
 defensive alliance for its protection, with the foreign State whose 
 responsibilities and rights we would share, is, in my judgment, 
 inconsistent with such dedication to universal and neutral use, 
 and would, moreover, entail measures for its realization beyond 
 the scope of our national polity or present means. 
 
 ' ' The lapse of years has abundantly confirmed the wisdom and 
 foresight of those earlier administrations which, long before the 
 conditions of maritime intercourse were changed and enlarged 
 by the progress of the age, proclaimed the vital need of iuter- 
 oceanic transit across the American Isthmus, and consecrated it 
 in advance to the common use of mankind, by their positive 
 declarations and through the formal obligation of treaties. 
 Toward such realization, the efforts of my administration will be 
 applied, ever having in mind the principles on which it must 
 rest, and which were declared in no uncertain tones by Mr. Cass, 
 who, while Secretary of State, in 1858, announced that ' what 
 the United States want in Central America, next to the happiness 
 of its people, is the security and neutrality of the interoceanic 
 routes which lead through it.' * * * 
 
 " These suggestions [as to transcontinental railways] may serve 
 to emphasize what I have already said on the score of the neces- 
 sity of a neutralization of any interoceanic transit ; and this can 
 only be accomplished by making the uses of the route open to aU 
 nations and subject to the ambitious and warlike necessities of 
 none."i 
 
 Before this treaty was negotiated, a movement had been set 
 1 Foreign Kelations, 1885, p. v. 
 
346 TOPICS IK AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 on foot to construct a canal through Nicaragua through private 
 enterprise. As early as 1880 an association was formed, com- 
 posed of leading men, mostly of New York, and a concession 
 was obtained from the government of Nicaragua ; but owing to 
 opposition and delays, the concession finally lapsed in 1884. 
 On the failure of the treaty, mentioned above, this canal asso- 
 ciation was revived. On the 20th of October, 1886, a meeting 
 of prominent men was held, and an organization was formally 
 completed on the 3d of December. Mr. A. G. Menocal, who 
 had been the active agent in the affairs of the former associa- 
 tion, was again dispatched to Nicaragua, and succeeded in ob- 
 taining a new concession, which was ratified by the govern- 
 ment of that State on the 24th of April, 1887. 
 
 On the 10th. of January, 1888, Senator Edmunds introduced 
 a bill in the Senate for the incorporation of the Maritime Canal 
 Company of Nicaragua ; it was not till the 20th of I'ebruary, 
 1889, however, that it passed both Houses and became a law. 
 The association had, in the meantime, caused to be incorporated 
 a Construction Company, under whose direction the final sur- 
 veys and the preliminary work were carried on. 
 
 On the 10th of January, 1891, a bill was introduced in the 
 Senate by Senator Sherman, empowering the United States to 
 guarantee the principal and interest at four per cent, per annum, 
 of an issue of 1100,000,000 of canal company bonds to be issued 
 for construction purposes. The President of the United States 
 was empowered by the bill to name six of the directors of the 
 company, and $70,000,000 of the capital stock of the company 
 was to be placed in the custody of the Secretary of Treasury, 
 as a pledge and security for the repayment to the United States 
 of any amounts advanced in pursuance of the guarantee. The 
 duty was to be conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 to vote" upon the stock at his discretion, and an option was re- 
 served to the United States to purchase the same at any time 
 before the maturity of the bonds. This bill, although debated, 
 did not come up for final action ; and in January, 1894, Sena- 
 tor Morgan introduced a similar bill. 
 
 Since the failure of the Panama project,and scandal connected 
 therewith, and perhaps also on account of a more or less wide- 
 spread distrust in this country of " stock-jobbing " schemes, it 
 has been diflQcult to inspire confidence in this Panama, company 
 
YUCATAN. 347 
 
 sufficient to induce investors to take its bonds. Hence we have 
 these pressing appeals to the government of the United States 
 to shoulder the burden of the undertaking. It is set forth as 
 the patriotic duty of Americans to construct the canal in order 
 to prevent its falling into the hands of Europeans. 
 
 It wUl be noted that, during the period from 1825 to 1880, 
 American Statesmen of all parties were for the most part 
 intent only on procuring the construction of an isthmian canal 
 which should be free to all the world, and neutralized by the 
 joint guarantee of all ; but since then, with the exception of 
 Mr. Cleveland's administration, the government of the United 
 States has constantly insisted upon the exclusive control of such 
 canal by the United States. We shall see that this is but one 
 part in a greater American system which appears generally in 
 our foreign policy .^ 
 
 YUCATAN, 1848. 
 
 In 1848, the white population of Yucatan, a province of 
 Mexico, called upon the United States for aid against the 
 Indians, who were waging war against them ; and offered, if 
 aid should be granted, to transfer the dominion of the peninsula 
 to the United States. It was stated that similar appeals had 
 been made to the Spanish and English governments. 
 
 In a special message on the 29th of April, 1848, President 
 Polk said : — 
 
 ^ See, on the subject of the Isthmian Canal and the the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty: " Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Inter-oceanic Canal, 
 the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and the Monroe Doctrine," being a reprint of 
 Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 112, 46th Cong. 2d sess; No. 194, 47th Cong., 1st sess.; 
 and No. 26, 48th Cong., 1st sess. ; " The Panama Canal," by J. C. Eodrig- 
 ues, L. L. B. 1885; "Le Canal de Panama," by Lucien N. B. Wyse, 1886; 
 Wharton's Digest of International Law, II., pp. 184-244; J. F. Rhodes' 
 
 "History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850," p. 199; 
 Tucker's " Monroe Doctrine ;" Cinq Aus k Panama, par Wolf red Nelson, 
 1890; Curtis' Buchanan, II., TO et seq.; Seward's Works, I., 385, V., 5, 33; 
 
 " The Inter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua," published by the Canal Construc- 
 tion Company, 1891; Debate in the Senate^ 1856, Cong. Globe, 1st sess. 
 bith Cong. 
 
348 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " While it is not my purpose to reconunend the adoption of 
 any measure with a view to the acquisition of the ' dominion and 
 sovereignty ' over Yucatan, yet, according to our established pol- 
 icy, we could not consent to a transfer of this ' dominion and sov- 
 ereignty' to either Spain, Great Britain, or any other European 
 power. In the language of President Monroe, in his message of 
 December, 1833, ' we should consider any attempt on their part 
 to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dan- 
 gerous to our peace and safety.' In my annual message of Dec- 
 ember, 1845, I declared that near a quarter of a century ago the - 
 principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the annual 
 message of one of my predecessors, that the American continents, 
 * * * are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 
 colonization by any European power. This principle will apply 
 with greatly increased force, should any European power attempt 
 to establish any neV colony in North America. In the existing 
 circumstances of the world, the present is deemed a proper occa- 
 sion to reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe, 
 and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound 
 policy." 
 
 As a member of the House of Representatives, in 1826, Mr. 
 Polk had been one of the most strenuous opponents of the 
 Panartia Mission. " We are," he then said, " about to depart 
 from our ancient and plain republican simplicity, and to be- 
 come a great and splendid government ; new projects are set 
 on foot ; we are called upon by the President to change the 
 whole policy of the country, as adopted by o)ir fathers, and 
 so happily pursued by their posterity down to the present 
 period." 
 
 In 1845, Mr. Polk, as President, inaugurated a war of con- 
 quest; and at the date of his message (quoted above), the 
 United States had just wrested from their southern neighbor 
 the provinces of California and New Mexico. And now he 
 proposed to proceed in this policy, and annex Yucatan. 
 
 A bill to enable the President to take temporary military 
 possession of that province was introduced in the Senate ; but 
 before any definite conclusion had been come to, news was 
 received that the whites and Indians of Yucatan had settled 
 their differences by treaty. 
 
 The most noteworthy feature of the debate in this Yucatan 
 
CUBA. 349 
 
 bill was the speech of Calhoun in opposition, May 15, 1848.^ 
 As a member of Monroe's Cabinet in 1823, he related his rec- 
 ollections of the circumstances under which the " declaration " 
 was made, and stated his opinion of its meaning and scope. 
 His idea was that the famous declaration was made under cir- 
 cumstances peculiar to that time, and that there was no inten- 
 tion of settling a policy for all future generations. " They 
 were but declarations — nothing more ; declarations announcing 
 in a friendly manner to the powers of the world that we should 
 regard certain acts of interposition of the allied powers as 
 dangerous to our peace and safety. * * * We are not to have 
 quoted on us, on every occasion, general declarations to which 
 any and every meaning may be attached. There are cases of 
 interposition where I would resort to the hazard of war with 
 all its calamities. Am I asked for one? I will answer. I 
 designate the case of Cuba." * * * 
 
 CUBA. 
 
 At the time of the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 
 1823, Spain had virtually lost all her colonies on the continent of 
 America, but there still remained to her the important islands 
 of Cuba and Porto Rico ; it was a question, however, whether, 
 in her weakened condition, she would be able to retairf them 
 in the war of aggression, commenced against her by France 
 in the spring of 1823. A rumor had indeed reached the United 
 States that France intended to take possession of Cuba. This 
 island lies very near our southern coast and commands the 
 entrance to the Gulf of Mexico ; it was natural therefore that 
 the United States should feel a lively interest in its fate. On 
 the 28th of April, 1823, Mr. J. Q. Adams, Secretary of State, 
 wrote to Mr. Nelson, United States minister in Spain, 
 that : — 
 
 ' ' In the war between France and Spain, now commencing, 
 other interests, peculiarly ours, will in all probability be deeply 
 involved. Whatever may be the issue of this war as between 
 those two European powers, it may be taken for granted that the 
 dominion of Spain upon the American continents, north and 
 
 1 4 Calhoun's works, 455; Wliarton's Digest, I., 283. 
 
350 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 south, is irrevocably gone. Bat the islands of Cuba and Porto 
 Eico still remain nominally, and so far really, dependent upon her, 
 that she yet possesses the power of transferring her own dominion 
 over them, together with the possession of them, to others. These 
 islands, from their local position, are natural appendages to the 
 North American continent, and one of them (Cuba) almost in 
 sight of our shores, from a multitude of considerations has be- 
 come an object of transcendent importance to the commercial 
 and political interests of our Union. Its commanding position, 
 with reference to the G-ulf of Mexico and the West India seas ; 
 the character of its population ; its situation midway between 
 our southern coast and the island of San Domingo ; its safe and 
 capacious harbor of Havana, fronting a long line of our shores 
 destitute of the same advantage ; the nature of its productions 
 and of its wants, furnishing the supplies and needing the returns 
 of a commerce immensely profitable and mutually beneficial, give 
 it an importance in the sum of our national interests with which 
 that of no other foreign territory can be compared, and little in- 
 ferior to that which binds the different members of this Union 
 together." * * * 
 
 Mr. Adams thought that Cuba would, in the course of events, 
 be annexed to the United States, but he believed that we were 
 not yet prepared for the adoption of a policy of annexing terri- 
 tory Ueyond sea.^ 
 
 The government of the United States felt no immediate con- 
 cern so long as the island remained in the possession of Spain ; 
 but that it should never come under the dominion of any other 
 European power has been the fixed policy of this country from 
 that day to the present time. 
 
 On the 17th of October, 1825, Mr. Clay was directed by the 
 President (Mr. Adams) to announce to European governments, 
 by instructions to our ministers, " that the United States, for 
 themselves, desired no change in the political condition of 
 Cuba ; that they were satisfied that it should remain open as 
 it now is, to their commerce, and that they could not with in- 
 difference see it passing from Spain to any (other) European 
 power." And in instructions to Mr. Brown, minister to Prance, 
 October 25, 1825, Mr. Clay wrote, "you will now add that we 
 could not consent to the occupation of those islands (Cuba and 
 
 1 Wharton's Digest, I., p. 361. 
 
CCJBA. 351 
 
 Porto Rico) by any other European power than Spain under 
 any contingency whatever." * 
 
 This policy with reference to Cuba was reiterated the next 
 year, as well as in the following administrations of Jackson, 
 Van Buren, and Tyler. In the meantime, however, the de- 
 velopment of the contest between the North and the South in 
 respect to slavery had given a new impetus to the desire on the 
 part of the slave-holding states for the extension of slave-terri- 
 tory; and after the annexation of Texas and the conquests 
 made from Mexico, Mr. Polk entered upon active measures for 
 the acquisition of the island of Cuba. 
 
 " On the 17th of June, 1848, Buchanan had charged Saunders 
 [minister to Spain] in the name of the President to introduce the 
 matter to the Spanish government, and had authorized him to go 
 as high in his offer as $100,000,000. * * * 
 
 ' ' It will be recollected that at one time the warmest patriots 
 and the most sharp-sighted statesmen of the Union had shared 
 these views. But how greatly had the aspect of affairs been al- 
 tered since then by the development of the slavery question. 
 Assuredly neither Polk nor Buchanan was determined solely by 
 the wish to strengthen and support the tottering power of the 
 slaveholders, but it was equally certain that in pursuing the plan 
 this motive would come into more and more essential prominence. 
 And even were this not the case, the annexation of Cuba would, 
 as a matter of fact, be chiefly beneficial to them. In the north, 
 therefore, the project would be sure to meet with violent opposi- 
 tion, even in circles where the brilliant prize looked most daz- 
 zlingly tempting. As long as the island remained unendangered 
 in the possession of so weak a power as Spain, it could not be ex- 
 pected with any certainty that the north, irrespective of the sla- 
 very question, could on mature deliberation be won over to the 
 project. Any one who had thoughtfully followed the develop- 
 ment of the planter States would have been obliged to recognize, 
 also, that the natural riches of Cuba and the importance of its 
 position for trade and for the control of the surrounding waters, 
 however highly estimated, would be more than counterbalanced 
 by the disadvantages which would result to the Union from the 
 fact that it w£is a tropical island with a Spanish and colored popu- 
 lation. '"* 
 
 1 Wharton's Digest, p. mi. 
 
 2 Von Hoist : History of the United States, 1846-1850, p: 441 . 
 
352 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 The proposition for the cession of Cuba, was rejected by the 
 Spanish government. In instructions to our minister to Spain, 
 August 2, 1849, Mr. Clayton said, " as to the purchase of Cuba 
 from Spain, we do not desire to renew the proposition made by 
 the late administration on this subject. It is understood that 
 the proposition made by our late minister at Madrid, under 
 instructions from this Department, or from the late President 
 of the United States, was considered by the Spanish ministry 
 as a national indignity, and that the sentiment of the ministry 
 was responded to by the Cortes." ^ 
 
 During the years 1849 to 1851, inclusive, three expeditions 
 were successively fitted out in the United States, under the 
 command of N"arciso Lopez, for the purpose of liberating Cuba. 
 These filibustering expeditions of Lopez as in the case of those 
 of Walker to Central America, elicited the warm sympathy of 
 a large class of the slave-holding South ; but they were not 
 favored at the North.^ 
 
 On account of these attempts upon Cuba, supposed to be 
 favored by the government of the United States, England and 
 France, in order to check such movements, proposed in 1852, 
 a tripartite agreement with reference to ihat island, by those 
 two powers and the United States. This arrangement was to 
 take the form of a treaty, the first article of which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' ' The high contracting parties hereby severally and collectively 
 disclaim, both now and for hereafter, all intention to obtain pos- 
 session of the island of Cuba ; and they respectively bind them- 
 selves to discountenance all attempt to that effect on the part of 
 any power or individuals whatever. 
 
 "The high contracting parties declare, severally and collect- 
 ively, that they will not obtain or maintain, for themselves, or 
 for any one of themselves, any exclusive control over the said 
 island, nor assume nor exercise any dominion over the same." 
 
 The government of the United States refused to enter into 
 the proposed agreement, for the reason, in the first place, that 
 " the policy of the United States has uniformly been to avoid 
 
 1 Wharton's Digest, p. 373. 
 
 2 J. F. Rhodes : History of the United States, I., 316-321. 
 
CUBA. 353 
 
 as far as possible alliances or agreements with other states, and 
 to keep itself free from national obligations, except such as 
 affect directly the interests of the United States themselves." 
 Moreover, it was doubtful whether the constitution of the 
 United States authorized the treaty-making power to impose 
 a permanent disability upon the government. Although the 
 President did not covet the acquisition of Cuba for the United 
 States, he at the same time considered the condition of that 
 island as mainly an American question. The proposed con- 
 vention proceeded on a different principle ; it assumed that the 
 United States had no other or greater interest in the question 
 than France or England, whereas it was necessary only to cast 
 one's eye on the map to see how remote were the relations of 
 Europe, and how intimate those of the United States with this 
 island.^ 
 
 In his third annual message, 1852, in speaking of the pro- 
 posed tripartite convention. President Fillmore said : 
 
 " This invitation has been respectfully declined, for reasons 
 which would occupy too much space in this communication to 
 state in detail, but which led me to think that the proposed 
 measure would be of doubtful constitutionality, impolitic, and un- 
 availing. I have, however, in common with several of my prede- 
 cessors, directed the ministers of France and England to be as- 
 sured that the United States entertain no designs against Cuba, 
 but that, on the contrary, I should regard its incorporation into 
 the Union at the present time as fraught with serious peril. 
 
 ' ' Were this island comparatively destitute of inhabitants, or 
 occupied by a kindred race, I should regard it, if voluntarily con- 
 ceded by Spain, as a most desirable acquisition ; but under exist- 
 ing circumstances I should look upon its incorporation into our 
 Union as a very hazardous measure. It would bring into the 
 confederacy a population of a different national stock, speaking 
 a different language, and not likely to harmonize with the other 
 members. It would probably affect in a prejudical manner the 
 industrial interests of the South; and it might revive those con- 
 flicts of opinion which lately shook the Union to its center, and 
 which have been so happily compromised." ^ 
 
 1 Wharton's Digest, p. 562. Letters of Everett, Secretary of State, to Mr. 
 Sartiges, December 1, 1852, and to Lord John Kussell, September 17, 1853. 
 
 2 Wharton's Digest, p. 378. 
 
 23 
 
354 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 1 
 
 These conservative views of Pillrnore formed apparently no 
 part of the policy of the succeeding administration of Franklin 
 Pierce. Buchanan wrote to the President-elect, December 11, 
 1852, " should you desire to acquire Cuba, the choice of suitable 
 ministers to Spain, Naples, England, and France will be very 
 important." As if in accordance with this advice, Buchanan, 
 who had offered a hundred millions for Cuba, in 1848, was 
 appointed minister to England, Pierre Sould of Louisiana, who 
 had publicly lauded the expedition of Lopez, was appointed to 
 Spain ; and John Y. Mason, of Virginia, a man of the radical 
 slavery school, was sent to France. Marcy, the new Secretary 
 of State, believed that Cuba could be peaceably and honorably 
 acquired ; but was opposed to violent measures to that end.' 
 Soule, by his rash proceedings at Madrid, came very near em- 
 broiling the two countries in a war, but did not succeed in fur- 
 thering the plan of the acquisition of Cuba. 
 
 In 1854, took place at New Orleans a revival of the filibus- 
 tering projects of Lopez, this time under the lead of Quitman, 
 a former governor of Mississippi. 
 
 The Southern Democrats, too, were clamoring for war at this 
 time, urging the Black Warrior affair as a pretext. Marcy, 
 however, backed by the unanimous sentiment of the North, 
 was opposed to war, and carried the day in the cabinet. A 
 proclamation against the Filibusters was issued, and Quitman 
 was subsequently arrested and forced to give bonds that he 
 would observe the neutrality laws.'' 
 
 Under instructions of the administration, the three minis- 
 ters, Buchanan, Mason and Soule met at Ostend, October 8, 
 1854 (and later adjourned to Aix-la-Chapelle), for the purpose 
 of comparing opinions and adopting measures "for perfect 
 concert of action in aid of the negotiations at Madrid," with 
 reference to the acquisition of Cuba. 
 
 On the 18th of October a paper was signed by the three 
 ministers, and addressed to Marcy, which is known as the 
 Ostend Manifesto. It began by setting forth the advantages 
 which would accrue to the United States by the possession of 
 Cuba, and the unceasing danger which menaced us, while it 
 
 1 Ehodes : History of the United States, I., 393-396, and II., 10-38. 
 ''i^.H., 27-38. 
 
CUBA. ■ 355 
 
 remained in the hands of a foreign power. The interest of 
 Spain, moreover, it was asserted, would also " be greatly and 
 essentially promoted," by the sale of the island to the United 
 States. 
 
 It was suggested that Spain might employ two-thirds of the 
 purchase money ($120,000,000) in the construction of a system 
 of railroads, and with the remaining forty millions, she might 
 " create a sinking fund which would 'gradually relieve her from 
 the overwhelming debt now paralyzing her energies." Besides, 
 there was a possibility that Cuba might be wrested from Spain 
 by a successful revolution. 
 
 " But if Spain, dead to the voice of her own interest, and actu- 
 ated by stubborn pride and a false sense of honor, should refuse 
 to sell Cuba to the United States, then the question will arise, 
 what ought to be the course of the American government under 
 such circumstances ? Self-preservation is the first law of nature, 
 with States as well as with individuals. All nations have, at dif- 
 ferent periods, acted upon this maxim. Although it has been 
 made the pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as in the par- 
 tition of Poland and other similar cases which history records, 
 yet the principle itself, though often abused, has always been 
 recognized. 
 
 " The United States have never acquired a foot of territory ex- 
 cept by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, upon the free 
 and voluntary application of the people of that independent State, 
 who desired to blend their destinies with our own. 
 
 ' ' Even our acquisitions from Mexico are no exception to this 
 rule, because, although we might have claimed them by the right 
 of conquest in a just war, yet we purchased them for what was 
 then considered by both parties a full and ample equivalent. 
 
 ' ' Our past history forbids that we should acquire the island of 
 Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the great 
 law of self-preservation. We must, in any event, preserve our 
 own conscious rectitude and our own self-respect. 
 
 ' ' Whilst pursuing this course we can afford to disregard the 
 censures of the world, to which we have been so often and so un- 
 justly exposed. 
 
 " After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond 
 its present value, and this shall have been refused, it will then be 
 time to consider the question, does Cuba, in the possession of 
 
356 TOPICS IN AMBRICAJ«r DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Spain, seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of 
 our cherished Union ? 
 
 "Should this question be answered in the aflQrmative, then, by 
 every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it 
 from Spain if we possess the power; and this upon the very same 
 principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the 
 burning house of his neighbor if there were no other means of 
 preventing the flames from, destroying his own home. 
 
 ' ' Under such circumstances we ought neither to count the cost 
 nor regard the odds which Spain might enlist against us. We 
 forbear to enter into the question, whether the present condition 
 of the island would justify such a measure ? We should, how- 
 ever, be recreant to our duty, be unworthy of our gallant fore- 
 fathers, and commit base treason against our posterity, should we 
 permit Cuba to be Africanized and become a second St. Domingo, 
 with all its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the 
 flames to extend to our own neighboring shores, seriously to en- 
 danger or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union. 
 
 " We fear that the course and current of events are rapidly 
 tending towards such a catastrophe. We, however, hope for 
 the best, though we ought certainly to be prepared for the 
 worst.'" * * * 
 
 This manifesto was disapproved by the President, and 
 Marcy wrote to Soule that the government had not intended 
 to assume any such policy toward Spain. 
 
 As President, Buchanan continued to urge the acquisition of 
 Cuba. In his second annual message, he restated the oft- 
 repeated reasons in favor of this measure, and added a new 
 one, namely, that " if this were accomplished, the last relic of 
 the African slave trade would instantly disappear." The 
 same recommendation was renewed in his subsequent messages, 
 of 1859 and 1860." 
 
 Immediately after the first of these messages was received 
 in the Senate (1858), "Slidell reported a bill from the com- 
 mittee on foreign relations to appropriate thirty million 
 dollars for the purpose requested by the President ; " but it 
 aroused such bitter opposition from Northern senators that it 
 
 1 House Ex. Doc. 33d Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. X., pp. 127-136 ; Rhodes : 
 History of the United States, II., 38-44 ; Curtis' Buchanan, II., 136-141. 
 ' Wharton's Digest, pp. 381-383. 
 
SAN DOMINGO. 357 
 
 was finally withdrawn. The next year, January 24, 1859, 
 Slidell submitted a report on the acquisition of Cuba. 
 
 "Every one, except apparently the President, knew that 
 their [Southern Democrats] restless longing for Cuba was 
 prompted by the desire to extend their political powers and 
 offset the new free States that were coming into the Union." ^ 
 
 With the abolition of slavery in the United States, these 
 reasons for the annexation of Cuba or other Spanish- American 
 territory ceased to exist, and although there has since been 
 much correspondence with Spain in respect of Cuban affairs, 
 active projects for the acquisition of the island have not been, 
 revived by the government of the United States.^ 
 
 SAN DOMINGO. 
 
 Although Seward had, before the war, objected to the an- 
 nexation of .territory in the interest of slavery, yet, after that 
 war and the abolishment of slavery in the United States, he 
 entered upon a general policy of extending the dominion of the 
 country over the North American continent. 
 
 " Mr. Seward's policy of extending the jurisdiction of the 
 United States over the North American continent received a sig- 
 nal illustration in the acquisition of Alaska. Believing that a 
 further step in that direction could be wisely taken, he entered 
 into negotiations in January, 1866, with the Danish minister, 
 General Eaasloff, f<>r the purchase of the islands of St. Thomas 
 and St. John in the West Indies. * * * 
 
 ' ' Mr. Seward likewise favored the annexation of San Domingo 
 and Hayti to the United States. He was convinced that the time 
 had arrived when such a proceeding would receive the consent of 
 the people interested, and also give satisfactiofi to all foreign 
 nations. 
 
 " In his desire to obtain a foothold for his government in the 
 West Indies, as well for defense in time of war as for the inter- 
 
 1 Rhodes: History of the United States, II., 350-354. 
 
 ' The correspondence with reference to Cuha, since the close of the civ" 
 war, may be found in 1 Wharton's Digest, pp. 384-411, and in the annual 
 volumes on Foreign Relations. 
 
358 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ests of commerce in time of peace, he early in 1868 laid before the 
 Committee of Foreign Relations, in the Senate, an offer he had 
 received, from San Domingo, of the sale of the Bay of Samana, 
 one of the finest harbors in the world. He strongly advocated 
 the purchase, and took some important steps toward securing it." ' 
 
 Seward's policy, as above stated, was adopted by General 
 Grant, when he became President, in 1869. In July of that 
 year, General O. E. Babcock was sent to San Domingo to 
 inquire into the condition and resources of that island. From 
 the tenor of his instructions from Secretary Fish, the negotia- 
 tion of a treaty was not at that time anticipated ; but the result 
 of the mission was, however, " a treaty of annexation of the 
 republic of Dominica, and a convention for the lease of the 
 bay and peninsula of Samana — separately negotiated, and both 
 concluded on the 29th of November, 1869." ^ 
 
 This treaty was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 28 to 28. 
 In his second annual message, December 5, 1870, President 
 Grant, referring to the treaty said : — 
 
 ' ' During the last session of Congress a treaty for the annexation 
 of the Republic of San Domingo to the United States failed to re- 
 ceive the requisite two-thirds vote of the Senate. I was thoroughly 
 convinced then that the best interests of this country, commer- 
 cially and materially, demanded its ratification. Time has only 
 confirmed me in this view. I now firmly believe that the mo- 
 ment it is known that the United States have entirely abandoned 
 the project of accepting, as a part of its territory, the Island of 
 San Domingo, a free port will be negotiated for by European na- 
 tions in the Bay of Samana. A large commercial city will spring 
 up, to which we will be tributary without receiving corresponding 
 benefits, and then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great 
 a prize. The government of San Domingo has voluntarily sought 
 this annexation. * * * 
 
 " The acquisition of San Domingo is desirable because of its 
 geographical position. It commands the entrance to the Carib- 
 bean Sea and the Isthmus transit of commerce. It possesses the 
 richest soil, best and most capacious habors, most salubrious 
 climate, and the most valuable products of the forest, mine, 
 and soil of any of the West India Islands. Its possession by 
 us will in a few years build up a coastwise commerce of im- 
 
 1 5 Seward's Works, 28. ^ Blaine : Twenty Years in Congress, I., 458. 
 
SAN DOMINGO. 359 
 
 tnense magnitude, which will go far toward restoring to us 
 our lost merchant marine. It will give to us those articles 
 which we consume so largely and do not produce, thus equalizing 
 our exports and imports. In case of foreign war it will give us 
 command of all the islands referred to, and thus prevent an 
 enemy from ever again possessing himself of rendezvous upon our 
 very coast. At present our coast trade between the States border- 
 ing on the Atlantic and those bordering on the G-ulf of Mexico is 
 cut into by the Bahamas and the Antilles. Twice we must, as it 
 were, pass through foreign countries to get, by sea, from Georgia 
 to the west coast of Florida. 
 
 ' ' San Domingo with a stable government, under which her im- 
 mense resources can be developed, wUl give remunerative wages 
 to tens of thousands of laborers not now upon the island. This 
 labor will take advantage of every available means of transporta- 
 tion to abandon the adjacent islands and seek the blessings of 
 freedom and its sequence — each inhabitant receiving the reward 
 of his own labor. Porto Rico and Cuba will have to abolish 
 slavery, as a measure of self-preservation, to retain their laborers. 
 
 ' ' San Domingo will become a large consumer of the products 
 of northern farms and manufactories. The cheap rate at which 
 her citizens can be furnished with food, tools, and machinery wUl 
 make it necessary that contiguous islands should have the same 
 advantages, in order to compete in the production of sugar, coffee, 
 tobacco, tropical fruits, etc. This will open to us a still wider 
 market for our products. * * * 
 
 ' ' The acquisition of San Domingo is an adherence to the ' Mon- 
 roe doctrine ' ; it is a measure of national protection ; it is assert- 
 ing our just claim to a controlling influence over the great com- 
 mercial traffic soon to flow from west to east, by way of the Isth- 
 mus of Darien ; it is to build up our merchant marine ; it is to fur- 
 nish new markets for the products of our farms, shops, and manu- 
 factories ; it is to make slavery insupportable in Cuba and Porto 
 Eico at once, and ultimately so in Brazil ; * * * and it is, in fine, a 
 rapid stride toward that greatness which the intelligence, indus- 
 try, and enterprise of the citizens of the United States entitle 
 this country to assume among nations." * * * 
 
 President Grant proceeds to urge upon Congress the advisa- 
 bility of providing by resolution or otherwise for the early an- 
 nexation of the island.^ ^ 
 
 1 Foreign Relations, 1870, p. 6. 
 
360 ^ TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 « The subject," says Mr. Blaine, " at once led to discussion 
 in both branches of Congress, in which the hostihty to the 
 scheme on the part of some leading men assumed the tone of 
 personal exasperation towards General Grant. So intense was 
 the opposition, that the President's friends in the Senate did 
 not deem it prudent even to discuss the measure which he rec- 
 ommended. As the best that could be done, Mr; Morton, of 
 Indiana, introduced a resolution empowering the President to 
 appoint three commissioners to proceed to San Domingo and 
 make certain inquiries into the political condition of the island, 
 and also into its agricultural and commercial value." The 
 resolution was hotly opposed, but finally passed the Senate ; but 
 the House refused to concur, " except with a proviso that nothing 
 in this resolution should be held, understood, or construed 
 as committing Congress to the policy of annexing San Domingo. 
 The Senate concurred in the condition thus attached, and the 
 President approved it." The commissioners selected were 
 Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, Andrew D. White, of New York, 
 and Samuel G. Howe, of Massachusetts, who, after a thorough 
 examination in the island, reported in favor of the policy rec- 
 ommended by the President. This report, however, did not 
 convince Congress. " It was evident that neither the Senate 
 nor House could be induced to approve the scheme, and the 
 administration was necessarily compelled to abandon it. But 
 defeat did not change General Grant's view of the question. 
 In his last annual message (December, 1876), nearly six years 
 after the controversy had closed, he recurred to the subject, to 
 record once inore his approval of it.'" 
 
 1 Blaine: Twenty Years in Congress, II., 465; 1 Wharton's Digest, p. 414. 
 
 In the case of the Danish Islands, Mr. Seward succeeded, in 1867, in per- 
 suading Denmark to cede the islands of St. John and St. Thomas for the 
 Slim of $7,.500,O0O. In January, 1868, the cession was approved by the peo- 
 ple of the islands ; and the treaty was approved by the Danish government 
 on the 30th of June of that year. The Senate of the United States, how- 
 ever, refused its assent to the treaty, and the whole negotiation failed. (5 
 Seward's Works, 29; 1 Wharton's Digest, p. 416. 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 361 
 
 THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 
 
 Since 1850 the question of the annexation of the Hawaiian 
 Islands to the United States has been under discussion from 
 time to time. 
 
 Mainly through the exertions of American missionaries, who 
 arrived in the islands in 1820, the people had been civilized and 
 Christianized, their language reduced to a written form, and 
 their political institutions reformed and regulated. In 1842 an 
 embassy composed of William Richards and Tinioteo Haalilio 
 was despatched from the islands to the United States and 
 European countries for the purpose of securing the recognition 
 of the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and of nego- 
 tiating treaties of amity and commerce. In answer to their 
 request in these respects Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, re- 
 plied on the 19th of December, 1842, that : — 
 
 " * * * The United States have regarded the existing authorities 
 in the Sandwich Islands as a G-overnment suited to the condition 
 of the people, and resting on their own choice ;^and the President 
 is of opinion that the interests of all the commercial nations re- 
 quire that that Government should not be interfered with by 
 foreign powers. Of the vessels which visit the islands, it is 
 known that a great majority belong to the United States. The 
 United States, therefore, are more interested in the fate of 
 the islands, and of their Government, than ^ny other nation can 
 be ; and this consideration induces the President to be quite will- 
 ing to declare, as the sense of the Government of the United 
 States, that the Government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be 
 respected ; that no power ought either to take possession of the 
 islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization, and that 
 no power ought to seek for any undue control over the existing 
 Government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in matters 
 of commerce. 
 
 ' ' Entertaining these sentiments, the President does not see any 
 present necessity for the negotiation of a formal treaty, or the 
 appointment or reception of diplomatic characters. A consul or 
 agent will continue to reside in the islands. * * * " 
 
362 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Similar language with reference to Hawaii was used by Prei- 
 ident Tyler, in a special message to Congress of December 30, 
 
 1842. Congress subsequently appropriated money for the sup- 
 port- of a consul at Honolulu, who would seem to have pos- 
 sessed diplomatic functions. The Hawaiian agents, proceeding 
 to England and France, procured also from the governments 
 of those States the recognition of the independence of 
 Hawaii. 
 
 In the mean time Captain Paulet, of the British ship Carys- 
 fort, had seized the islands in the Queen's name, in February, 
 
 1843. In July of the same year, Rear-Admiral Thomas, R.N., 
 arrived at Honolulu, and restored the dominion of the islands to 
 their King, Kamehameha III., and the English government dis- 
 avowed also the act of Captain Paulet. 
 
 After the acquisition of California, in 1848, the government 
 of the United States began to take a more lively interest in 
 affairs in the Pacific Ocean ; and on the 20th of December, 1849, 
 a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation, and for the 
 extradition of criminals was concluded with the Hawaiian 
 Islands. This treaty is still in force, except in so far as it has 
 been modified by subsequent treaties. 
 
 With France the islands had had serious trouble, at first, in 
 1839, on account of the persecution of French Catholic mission- 
 aries, by the Hawaiian government, and later, in respect of the 
 interpretation of treaties with France. In 1849 the public 
 property of the Hawaiian government was seized by order of 
 the French admiral in those waters, and, although soon restored, 
 the controversy remained unsettled. The government o-f the 
 United States tendered its good offices for the adjustment of 
 the difficulty, but without effect; and in 1851 the government 
 of Hawaii executed a deed of cession of the islands to the United 
 State, providing that the kingdom should be held by them until 
 a satisfactory settlement of the dispute with France, and failing 
 that the cession should be made permanent. Mr. Webster, 
 Secretary of State, ordered the deed of cession to be returned 
 to the Hawaiian government, but wrote, on the 14th of July, 
 1851, that, " The Navy Department will receive instructions to 
 place and to keep the naval armament of the United States in 
 the Pacific Ocean in such a state of strength and preparation 
 as shall be requisite for the preservation of the honor and 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 363 
 
 dignity of the United States and the safety of the government 
 of the Hawaiian Islands." 
 
 In the following administration, of President Pierce, an active 
 effort was made for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. 
 In a despatch to Mason, United States Minister in Paris, Marcy 
 wrote on the 16th of December, 1853, that the representatives 
 of England and France at Honolulu had " used all their influ- 
 ence to repress the rising sentiment of annexation to this 
 country." These two States, he said, would be very unwilling, 
 to see these islands become a territory of the United States, but 
 he was in doubt how far they would go in preventing their 
 transfer to this country ; and Mason was to sound the govern- 
 ment of France on this point. The next year, 1854, a treatj^ of 
 annexation was negotiated with the Hawaiian government; 
 but before it was ratified, the king, Kamehameha III. died (De- 
 cember 15, 1854), and his successor opposed the policy of annex- 
 ation. The government of the United States also objected to 
 certain clauses of the treaty. Mr. Marcy said, January 31st, 
 1855: 
 
 " The draft of a treaty you (David L. Gregg, Minister to 
 Hawaii) have forwarded to the Department has been considered 
 by the President, and he directs me to say that he cannot ap- 
 prove of some of the articles. * * * There are in his mind 
 strong objections to the immediate incorporation of the 
 islands in their present condition into the Union as an inde- 
 pendent State. It was expected that the Hawaiian govern- 
 ment Avould be willing to offer the islands to the United States 
 as a territory, and to leave the question in relation to their be- 
 coming a State to the determination of this Government, un- 
 embarrassed by stipulations on that point. * * * 
 
 « There are other objections to the draft which you have sent 
 to the Department, though less formidable than that which the 
 second article presents. The amount [$300,000] to be paid in 
 annuities, etc., according to the draft is much larger than was 
 contemplated." * * * 
 
 Nothing further was done towards annexation at this time ; 
 but on the 20th of July, 1855, a treaty of reciprocity was con- 
 cluded at Washington by Mr. Marcy and Judge Lee, the csm- 
 missioner of the King of Hawaii. This treaty failed for want of 
 ratification by the Senate. 
 
364 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Mr. Seward would seem to have considered the propriety of 
 reviving Marcy's reciprocity treaty. In answer to a call of the 
 Senate for the correspondence upon this subject, Seward replied, 
 February 5, 1864. 
 
 That "application has been made for a revival of a similar 
 treaty which was negotiated here during the administration of 
 President Pierce, but which was not approved by the Senate. 
 After due consideration, however, especially in connection with 
 the probable effect of such a measure on the public revenue at this 
 juncture, it has not been deemed advisable further to entertain 
 the subject. It is not deemed expedient at present to communi- 
 cate the correspondence called for by the resolution." 
 
 On October 9, 1863, James McBride, United States Minister 
 at Honolulu, had written to Seward, that American influence, 
 in the Hawaiian Islands was declining, and that of Great 
 Britain was taking its place. American interests, he said, pre- 
 dominated over all others combined, not less than four-fifths of 
 the islands being American, and he thought " it would be a 
 flagrant injustice to American citizens, after they have labored 
 for the good of these islands for the past forty years, after they 
 have brought these people out of barbarism and taught them 
 civilization, science, and religion ; in a word made them an in- 
 telligent and Christian nation, and have done all that has been 
 done in the development of the resources of the country, and 
 given it a world-wide popularity, to be either driven out or so 
 treated and harassed as to make it necessary for their interests 
 to sacrifice their property and leave." 
 
 Edward McCook, who succeeded McBride, appeared to take 
 a different view of affairs in Hawaii. He wrote to Seward, 
 September 3, 1866, in part as follows : — 
 
 " Before my arrival here I was led to believe that this Govern- 
 ment displayed a marked hostility towards the Government and 
 citizens of the United States. * * * I am perfectly satisfied that 
 no such f eeUng does exist. Many of the American residents have 
 rendered themselves obnoxious to the King and his cabuiet by 
 personal abuse of the ministers and unwarranted interference in 
 the political affairs of the Kingdom. The natural result of this 
 has been dislike, freely expressed, on both sides. * * * Another 
 
THE HAWAHAN ISLANDS. 365 
 
 class of Americans, the missionaries, have controlled the political 
 affairs of the country since 1820. They are dissatisfied because 
 within the last few years they have lost their hold upon the 
 Government and its ofl&ces. The first class of Americans are gen- 
 erally disappointed adventurers, the second class are religionists, 
 who, having once exercised supreme power in church and state, 
 feel all the bitterness of disappointment at seeing their political 
 power pass into other hands and knowing that the native popula- 
 tion is beginning to listen to a religion preached from other 
 pulpits than their own. The American missionaries have un- 
 doubtedly labored faithfully ; but it is their own fault, if, after 
 forty years' experience as keepers of the conscience to the nations 
 and their princes, they permit themselves to be driven from the 
 field by an adroit English priest, whose church is a mere political 
 machine, and who possesses neither the intelligence nor the vir- 
 tue of his more experienced and Puritanical brother mission- 
 aries. * * * 
 
 ' ' There is still another class — the planters of the country. They 
 are nearly all Americans, both in nationality and in sympathy ; 
 they are the better class of the residents of the islands, possess 
 its substantial wealth, control its resources, and annually ship 
 20,000,000 pounds of sugar to the Pacific coast of the United 
 States. Their pecuniary interests, their political sympathies, 
 their business relations, and their personal attachments are all 
 with the United States and its citizens." 
 
 Mr. McCook goes on to describe the advantages to the United 
 States of the possession of the Hawaiian Islands, and expresses 
 the belief that the people would be unanimously in favor of 
 annexation. Mr. Seward answers in a guarded manner, telling 
 McCook, " you are at liberty to sound the proper authority on 
 the larger subject mentioned in your note and ascertain probable 
 conditions. You may confidentially receive overtures and com- 
 municate the same to me." 
 
 Besides this " lager subject " of Seward's (annexation), negotia- 
 tions were going on with reference to a reciprocity treaty ; but 
 as the United States had sent a ship of war, the Lackawanna, 
 to Honolulu, the government of Hawaii refused to further con- 
 sider the question while this vessel remained- in port.. On the 
 30th of July the Lackawanna departed, and the reciprocity treaty 
 was completed and ratified by the Hawaiian government, an 
 
366 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 extra session of the legislature having been called for that pur- 
 pose. On September 12, 1867, Seward writes to MeCook with 
 reference to this subject : — 
 
 "Circumstances have transpired here which induce a belief 
 that a strong interest, based upon a desire for annexation of the 
 Sand wichi Islands will be active in opposing a ratification of the 
 reciprocity treaty. It will be argued that the reciprocity will 
 tend to hinder and defeat an early annexation, to which the 
 people of the Sandwich Islands are supposed to be now strongly 
 inclined. * * * It is proper that you should know, for your own 
 information, that a lawf til and peaceful annexation of the islands 
 to the United States, with the consent of the people of the Sand- 
 wich Islands, is deemed desirable by this Government ; and that 
 if the policy of annexation should really conflict with the policy 
 of reciprocity, annexation is in every case to be preferred." 
 
 It will be noted that this was' the same year in which Seward 
 succeeded in carrying through the scheme for the purchase of 
 Alaska, though with strong opposition in Congress. He seems 
 to have been mistaken in his opinion as to the sentiment of the 
 American people in respect of the annexation of Hawaii. On 
 July 5, 1868, he wrote to Mr. Spaulding : — 
 
 " Your letter of the 14th of April has been received and care- 
 fully read. The information which you give of the excitement 
 which is prevailing in Honolulu in regard to the annexation of 
 the Sandwich Islands is very interesting. You suggest a system 
 of proceeding here with reference to that object which could not 
 possibly, at the present time, obtain the sanction of any depart- 
 ment of this government. 
 
 ' ' Without going into an explanation of the causes for the con- 
 dition of national sentiment which temporarily exists, it is enough 
 to say that the public attention sensibly continues to be fastened 
 upon the domestic questions which have grown out of the late 
 civil war. The public mind refuses to dismiss these questions 
 even so far as to entertain the higher but more remote questions 
 of national extension and aggrandizement. The periodical Pres- 
 idential and Congressional elections are approaching. Each of the 
 political parties seems to suppose that economy and retrench- 
 ment will be the prevailing considerations in that election and 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 367 
 
 the leaders of each party therefore seem to shrink from every 
 suggestion which may involve any new national enterprise, and 
 especially any foreign one. How long sentiments of this sort 
 will continue to control the proceedings of the Government is un- 
 certain, but, in the meantime, it will be well for you not to allow 
 extravagant expectations of sympathy between the United States 
 and the friends of annexation in the islands to influence your 
 own conduct. You will continue, however, to write me upon 
 the subject freely as you have hitherto done." 
 
 In his annual message of December 9, 1868, President John- 
 son said : — 
 
 " I am aware that upon the question of further extending our 
 possessions it is apprehended by some that our political system 
 cannot successfully be applied to an area more extended than our 
 continent ; but the conviction is rapidly gaining ground in the 
 American mind that, with the increased facilities for intercom- 
 munication between all portions of the earth, the principles of 
 free government, as embraced in our Constitution, if faithfully 
 maintained and carried out, would prove of sufficient strength 
 and breadth to comprehend within their sphere and influence the 
 civilized nations of the world. 
 
 ' ' The attention of the Senate and of Congress is again respect- 
 fully invited to the treaty for the establishment of commercial 
 reciprocity with the Hawaiian Kingdom, entered into last year, 
 and already ratified by that Government. The attitude of the 
 United States towards these islands is not very different from 
 that in which they stand towards the West Indies. It is known 
 and felt by the Hawaiian Government and people that their Gov- 
 ernment and institutions are feeble and precarious ; that the 
 United States,being so near a neighbor, would be unwflling to see 
 the islands pass under foreign control. Their prosperity is con- 
 tinually disturbed by expectations and alarms of unfriendly 
 political proceedings, as well from the United States as from 
 other foreign powers. A reciprocity treaty, while it could not 
 materially diminish the revenues of the United States, would be a 
 guaranty of the good wUl and forbearance of all nations until the 
 people of the islands shall of themselves, at no distant day, 
 voluntarily apply for admission into the Union. 
 
 The reciprocity treaty had been submitted to the Senate in 
 
368 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 July, 1867, and in spite of executive urgency was not finally 
 acted upon till June 1, 1870, when it was rejected. 
 
 The executive branch of the government, during the adminis- 
 trations of Johnson and Grant, was in favor of a closer union 
 with Hawaii — either annexation or reciprocity, — and continued 
 to keep diplomatic agents at Honolulu who were strongly of 
 the same view. Z. S. Spaulding, in charge of the legation in 
 1869, wrote, on the 14th of April, to his father, a member of 
 Congress : — 
 
 " Our latest advices, by the Idaho, seemed to convey the idea 
 that the reciprocity treaty was dead beyond hope, and the e£Eect 
 is beginning to be felt and seen. Men who have kept silent for 
 months guarding their words and actions, have openly expressed 
 themselves of late as being in favor of annexation, and begun to 
 talk of forming an organization or party with that end in view. 
 
 " What they want is to know that they will be backed up by 
 the United States and its representatives here in all proper 
 measures taken by them to secure a change in the political senti- 
 ment of the islands and their annexation at the earliest possible 
 period." 
 
 Mr. Spaulding, thought that, if the reciprocity treaty failed, 
 " the planters must have relief by annexation." And to secure 
 this he suggested that the United States intervene, with a 
 strong hand, in favor of the annexation party. The presence 
 of the Lackawanna, which had returned to Hawaiian waters, 
 was objected to by the government of the islands, and Mr. 
 Spaulding thought that incident might be made the ground of 
 active intervention. 
 
 The next minister sent to the Hawaiian Islands was Henry 
 A. Peirce ; who wrote to Secretary Fish under date of February 
 25, 1871, suggesting the importance of annexation, and restat- 
 ing all the arguments in its favor. President Grant submitted 
 this paper to the Senate and asked its views thereon. " Im- 
 pressed," says Mr. Peirce, " with the importance of the subject 
 now presented for consideration, I beg leave to suggest the in- 
 quiry whether the period has not arrived making it proper, 
 wise, and sagacious for the United States Government to again 
 consider the project of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the 
 territory of the republic. That such is to be the political 
 
THE HAAVAIIAN ISLANDS. 369 
 
 destiny of this archipelago seems a foregone conclusion in the 
 opinion of all who have given attention to the subject in this 
 country, the United States, England, France, and Germany." 
 
 Mr. Peirce thought that a majority of the aborigines, Creoles, 
 and naturalized foreigners were in favor of annexation ; and 
 the probable death of the King (Kamehameha V.) within a 
 short time would be a "propitious occasion," to inaugurate 
 measures for that purpose. 
 
 The Senate, which had recently rejected the treaty for the 
 annexation of San Domingo, appears not to have been con- 
 vinced by this argument in favor of the same policy in respect 
 of Hawaii. 
 
 In instructions of March 25, 1873, Secretary Fish returns to 
 the subject : — 
 
 " The position of the Sandwich Islands as an outpost fronting 
 and commanding the whole of our possessions on the Pacific 
 Ocean, gives to the future of those islands a peculiar interest to 
 the Government and people of the United States. It is very 
 clear that this Government cannot be expected to assent to their 
 transfer from their present control to that of any powerful mari- 
 time or commercial nation. Such transfer to a maritime power 
 would threaten a military surveillance in the Pacific similar to 
 that which Bermuda has afforded in the Atlantic — the latter has 
 been submitted to from necessity, inasmuch as it was congenital 
 with our Government — but we desire no additional similar out- 
 posts in the hands of those who may at some future time use 
 them to our disadvantage. 
 
 " The condition of the Government of Hawaii and its evident 
 tendency to decay and dissolution force upon us the earnest con- 
 sideration of its future — possibly its near future. 
 
 ' ' There seems to be a strong desire on the part of many per- 
 sons in the islands, representing large interests and great wealth, 
 to become annexed to the United States. And while there are, 
 as I have already said, many and influential persons in this 
 country who question the policy of any insular acquisitions, per- 
 haps even of any extension of territorial limits, there are also 
 those of influence and of wise foresight who see a future that 
 must extend the jurisdiction and the limits of this nation, and 
 that will require a resting spot in the mid-ocean, between the 
 Pacific coast and the vast domains of Asia, which are now open- 
 ing to commerce and Christian civilization." 
 24 
 
370 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 On the 11th of December, 1872, Kamehameha V. died, leav- 
 ing no heirs and without having appointed a successor ; the 
 legislature thereupon elected as King, William C. Lunalilo, a 
 man who, it was thought, would be more favorable to the inter- 
 ests of Americans. Minister Peirce wrote, on February 7, 
 1873, that a strong movement was on foot to induce Lunalilo 
 to visit Washington and endeavor to form a reciprocity 
 treaty with the United States ; and if that should fail, " it 
 is hoped the occasion will be availed of for entering into 
 negotiations for the annexation of these islands to the United 
 States." 
 
 Three days later Mr. Peirce again writes on the subject of 
 reciprocity. Speaking of the decline of the islands in popula- 
 tion, in agriculture, and commerce, he says, " the panacea for the 
 cure of these evils (in the opinion of the planters and merchants) 
 is to be had by effecting a reciprocity treaty with the United 
 States. This notwithstanding repeated failures heretofore in 
 similar attempts to obtain one. Success therein is now hoped 
 for by offering to the United States a quid pro quo, the cession 
 of the sovereignty and proprietorship of the spacious, land- 
 locked, easily-defended harbor or estuary known as Ewa or 
 Pearl River, in this island, ten miles distant from Honolulu, and 
 also to include the territory surrounding it, say ten miles square 
 in all." Again, on the 17th of February, Peirce, strongly urges 
 annexation or reciprocity. 
 
 Before arrangements were completed for the King's visit to 
 the United States, he began to decline in health, and died on 
 February 3, 1874, no successor to the throne having been ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Of the two aspirants to the throne — David Kalakaua, and 
 Queen Emma, wife of Kamehameha IV., the first named was 
 elected. The adherents of Queen Emma incited an insurrection 
 in Honolulu, which was only suppressed by the landing of an 
 armed force from the United States ships of war Ttiscarara 
 and Portsmouth, and the English ship Tenedos. 
 
 Kalakaua had been opposed to the foreign influence ; but he 
 now favored a reciprocity treaty with the United States, and, 
 in the autumn of 1874, visited the United States in person. 
 Accordingly a treaty was concluded at Washington, January 
 
THE HAWAUAK ISLANDS. 371 
 
 30, 1875, and this time it was ratified by both governments, and 
 proclaimed June 3, 1875. ^ 
 
 It will be noticed that nothing is said in the treaty in respect 
 of the granting of a naval station. at Pearl Harbor; and the 
 correspondence gives no reason for this omission. The privi- 
 leges granted to the United States were not to be enjoyed by 
 any other nation. This provision has caused much controversy 
 between Hawaii and certain other States that have commercial 
 treaties with her containing the " most-favored-nation clause." 
 The United States, however, continued to insist upon this stip- 
 ulation, as Mr. Blaine said, " as the very essence of the treaty." 
 
 This treaty was the turning point in the industrial and polit- 
 ical history of the Hawaiian Islands. For them the important 
 provision — and probably that which the planters had so stren- 
 uously advocated — was the admission of their sugar into the 
 United States free of duty. Since 1861, the import duty on 
 raw sugar in the United States had been three cents per pound 
 — reduced to two cents in 1870 ; the advantage to the sugar 
 industry in the islands under this treaty was therefore very 
 obvious, and may account for the feverish anxiety of a certain 
 class in respect to the reciprocity question. For a time, too, 
 the treaty put to rest the agitation in favor of annexation; 
 indeed, until the McKinley Act removed the duty from sugar, 
 there seems to have beeii no active movement in that direc- 
 tion. 
 
 But, as was anticipated, the treaty brought about closer 
 commercial relations between the two countries, and tended to 
 strengthen the feeling of those who desired annexation to look 
 upon Hawaii as practically a part of our territorial possessions. 
 
 In a despatch to James M. Comly, our minister at Honolulu, 
 December 1, 1881, Mr. Blaine said :^ 
 
 " * * * In thirty years the United States has acquired a legitim- 
 ately dominant influence in the North Pacific, which it can never 
 consent to see decreased by the intrusion therein of any element 
 of influence hostile to its own. The situation of the Hawaiian 
 Islands, giving them the strategic control of the North Pacific, 
 brings their possession within the range of questions of purely 
 American policy, as much so as that of the Isthmus itself [that 
 
 1 Supra, p. 165. 
 
372 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 the proposed Panama Canal was to be regarded " as a purely- 
 American water-way to be treated as part of our own coast line"]. 
 Hence the necessity, as recognized in our existing treaty rela- 
 tions, of drawing the ties of intimate relationship between us and 
 the Hawaiian Islands so as to make them practically a part of the 
 American system without derogation of their absolute independ- 
 ence. The reciprocity treaty of 1875 has made of Hawaii the 
 sugar-raising field of the Pacific slope, and gives to our manu- 
 facturers therein the same freedom as in California and Oregon. 
 That treaty gave to Hawaii its first great impetus 'in trade, and 
 developed that activity of production which has attracted the 
 eager attention of European powers, anxious to share in the 
 prosperity and advantages which the United States have created 
 in mid ocean. * * * 
 
 "Hawaii, although much farther from the Calif ornian coast 
 than is Cuba from the Floridian peninsula, holds in the western 
 sea much the same position as Cuba in the Atlantic. It is the 
 key to the maritime dominion of the Pacific States, as Cuba is 
 the key to the Gulf trade. The material position of Hawaii is 
 not desired by the United States anymore than was that of Cuba. 
 But under no circumstances can the United States permit any 
 change in the territorial control of either which would cut it 
 adrift from the American system, whereto they both indispens- 
 ably belong." 
 
 In a confidential despatch of the same date, Mr. Blaine said : — 
 
 ' ' In my formal instruction of this date I have reviewed the 
 general question of the relationship between the United States 
 and the Hawaiian Islands, and the position of the latter, both as 
 an integral of the American system and as the key to the com- 
 merce of the North Pacific. As that instruction was written for 
 communication to the Hawaiian secretary of state, I touched but 
 lightly on the essential question of the gradual and seemingly 
 inevitable decadence and extinction of the native race and its re- 
 placement by another, to which the powers of government would 
 necessarily descend. 
 
 " * * * I have shown in a previous instruction how entirely 
 Hawaii is a part of the productive and commercial system of the 
 American States. So far as the staple growths and imports of the 
 islands go, the reciprocity treaty makes them practically 
 members of an American ZoUverein, an outlying district of the 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 373 
 
 State of California. So far as political structure and independ- 
 ence of action are concerned, Hawaii is as remote from our con- 
 trol as China. This contradiction is only explicable by assuming 
 what is the fact, that thirty years ago, having the choice between 
 material annexation and commercial assimilation of the islands, 
 the United States chose the less responsible alternative. The 
 soundness of the choice, however, entirely depends on the per- 
 petuity of the rule of the native race as an independent govern- 
 ment, and that imperiled, the whole framework of our relations 
 to Hawaii is changed, if not destroyed. * * * 
 
 ' ' There is little doubt that were the Hawaiian Islands, by an- 
 nexation or district protection, a part of the territory of the 
 Union, their fertile resources for the growth of rice and sugar 
 would not only be controlled by American capital, but so profit- 
 able a field of labor would attract intelligent workers thither 
 from the United States. * * * 
 
 "I desire, therefore, that you will give this subject due atten- 
 tion. An examination and report will be valuable if showing the 
 proportion of occupied rice and sugar lands to the unoccupied 
 and undeveloped territory. * * * It will also be well for you 
 in conversation with the leading men of Hawaii to turn their 
 thoughts discreetly in the direction of inviting American colon- 
 ization there. * * * " 
 
 By the convention of 1884, the duration of the treaty of 
 1875 was extended, though no notice of abrogation had been 
 made ; and an additional provision (Article II.), granting a coal- 
 ing and repair station in Pearl River harbor. Exchange of rati- 
 fications were not made till November 9, 1887.^ 
 
 In 1887 a new constitution was forced upon Kalakaua by the 
 foreign party, under which the king was shorn of some of the 
 powers he had exercised under the constitution of 1864. 
 
 In 1889 (July 30) a revolution was attempted under the lead 
 of R. W. Wilcox, which was suppressed by the Hawaiian gov- 
 ernment ; though the marines of the U. S. S. Adams were landed 
 for the " protection of the people and property interests." 
 
 In 1890, the McKinley Act removed the duty on raw sugar 
 imported into the United States ; and, it appears, that a re- 
 newal of the agitation in favor of annexation of the islands to 
 the United States began very soon thereafter. Even before 
 
 i^Supra, p. 169. 
 
374 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 this time, it began to be feared in the islands that legislation 
 might at any time take place in the United States hostile to 
 the sugar interests of Hawaii. It was known that the sugar 
 planters of the United States had been opposed to the extension 
 of the reciprocity treaty in 1884 ; and after 1894, the treaty 
 would be again subject to abrogation on twelve months' notice 
 by either party. In a statement of the Hawaiian Cabinet, Oc- 
 tober 4, 1889, it was said : — ■ 
 
 ' ' The history of our staple products during the past thirteen 
 years has demonstrated how essential to our commercial pros- 
 perity are the advantages secured to us by the existing treaty. 
 
 " The development of our export trade from $2,241,041 in 1876 
 to $11,707,598 in 1888, during the life of that treaty, with its at- 
 tendant advantages to all our citizens and residents. * * * 
 
 "By the terms of the existing reciprocity treaty with the 
 United States, notice of termination within one year thereafter 
 may be given in five years from now. 
 
 " The interval between 1883 and 1887, during which time the 
 treaty was subject to termination upon a year's notice, illustrated 
 the evil effects to our commercial well-being of a dependence from 
 year to year for the continuance of our treaty relations upon the 
 uncertain humor of the American Congress. 
 
 ' ' The uncertainty involved has an unsettling effect upon capi- 
 tal and is detrimental to the making of large permanent invest- 
 ments, many of which now contemplated requiring heavy pre- 
 liminary expenses." 
 
 For these reasons it was proposed to negotiate a new treaty, 
 which should be permanent, and which should guarantee to 
 the Hawaiian planters the same privileges in respect of duties 
 and bounties enjoyed by American sugar producers. The Mc- 
 Kinley Act showed that the fears of the planters were well 
 founded. 
 
 Mr. John L. Stevens, the new minister to Hawaii, arrived at 
 Honolulu, September 30, 1889, and soon began to take a deep 
 interest in the political affairs of the Kingdom. 
 
 On the 20th of March, 1890, he wrote, "to thwart and hold 
 in check the increasing influences here hostile to the United 
 States some effective measures are absolutely necessary. In 
 view of the facts as they existed for half a century a drifting 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 375 
 
 policy was safe enough. Rapidly changing circumstances de- 
 mand a prompt abandonment of the drifting policy of the past." 
 He urges an appropriation for Pearl harbor, financial aid to the 
 ocean cable, and a modification of the reciprocity treaty in such 
 a way as to increase the American population in Hawaii and 
 strengthen the bonds between it and the United States. 
 
 On the 20th of May, he writes protesting against the clause 
 of the McKinley Bill putting sugar on the free list. It would, 
 he said, "spread ruin and disaster throughout the islands," 
 and would weaken essentially their fraternal relations with the 
 United States. 
 
 King Kalakaua died in January, 1891, and was succeeded by 
 his sister, Liliuokalani, who, not less than her brother, was 
 dissatisfied with the Constitution of 1887. 
 
 Mr. Stevens wrote, September 5, 1891, that the Hawaiian 
 Government was about to renew the effort for a revision of the 
 reciprocity treaty, and " the aim will be to secure entire free 
 trade, with the exception of opium and distilled liquors." A 
 liberal commercial policy, said Mr. Stevens, "is absolutely 
 necessary to save these islands from grave disaster and secure 
 the American interests and influence here which our Govern- 
 ment has so long held of vital importance." 
 
 When it became apparent that no suitable treaty was likely 
 to be obtained, the sentiment of annexation again came to the 
 front. 
 
 Mr. Stevens wrote, February 8, 1892 : "There are increasing 
 indications that the annexation sentiment is growing among 
 the business men as well as with the less responsible of the 
 foreign and native population of the islands. The present 
 political situation is feverish, and I see no prospect of its being 
 permanently otherwise until these islands become a part of the 
 American Union or a possession of Great Britain." 
 
 A month later, March 8, Mr. Stevens asked for instructions 
 from the State Department, in the event of " an orderly and 
 peaceful revolutionary movement, largely of native Hawaiians, 
 and a Provisional or Republican Government" being pro- 
 claimed. 
 
 " Ordinarily in like circumstances, the rule seems to be to 
 limit the landing and movement of United States forces in foreign 
 
376 TOPICS IX AMEEIOAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ■waters and dominion exclusively to the protection of the United 
 States legation, and of the lives and property of American citizens. 
 But as the relations of the United States to Hawaii are exceptional, 
 and in former years the United States officials here took some- 
 what exceptional action in circumstances of disorder, I desire to 
 know how far the present Minister and naval commander may 
 deviate from established international rules and precedents in 
 the contingencies indicated in the first part of this dispatch." 
 
 In the same despatch, Mr. Stevens said : " the annexation 
 sentiment is increasing quite as much among the white resi- 
 dents and native Hawaiians and other workingmen who own 
 no sugar stock as with the sugar planters." 
 
 On September 6, 1892, Admiral Brown wrote to the Secretary 
 of the Navy from Honolulu, that "there is a strong senti- 
 ment existing in Hawaii, among the native Hawaiians as well 
 as among the Americans and Germans, in favor of a change in 
 the form of government, looking toward the ultimate annex- 
 ation of the islands to the United States." He thought the 
 Queen would consent to abdicate in favor of a republican form 
 of government if she could be assured of suitable provision for 
 her. 
 
 On the 20th of November, 1892, Mr. Stevens, in a confidential 
 despatch to Foster, gave a detailed account of the industrial 
 and political condition of the islands, and concludes that : 
 
 ' ' One of two courses seems to me absolutely necessary to be 
 followed, either bold and vigorous measures for annexation or a 
 ' customs union,' an ocean cable from the Calif ornian coast to 
 Honolulu, Pearl Harbor perpetually ceded to the United States, 
 with an implied but not necessarily stipulated American pro- 
 tectorate over the islands. I believe the former to be the better, 
 that which will provp much the more advantageous to the islands, 
 and the cheapest and least embarrassing in the end for the United 
 States. If it was wise for the United States, through Secretary 
 Marcy, thirty-eight years ago, to offer to expend $100,000 to 
 secure a treaty of annexation, it certainly cannot be chimerical 
 or unwise to expend $100,000 to secure annexation in the near 
 future. * * * I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion with 
 emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand. A perpetual 
 customs union and the acquisition of Pearl Harbor, with an im- 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS* 377 
 
 plied protectorate, must be regarded as the only allowable alter- 
 native. 
 
 "* * * Having for so many years extended a helping hand to the 
 islands and encouraged the American residents and their friends 
 at home to the extent we have, we cannot refrain now from aid- 
 ing them with vigorous measures, without injury to ourselves 
 and those of our ' kith ' and ' kin ' and without neglecting Ameri- 
 can opportunities that never seemed so obvious and pressing as 
 they do now. * * * " 
 
 During the last months of 1892 the contest between the 
 Queen and the majority of the legislature became pronounced and 
 bitter ; and the despatches of Mr. Stevens show that his sympa- 
 thies were fully aroused in favor of the latter, which repre- 
 sented the American party. He frequently makes use of 
 opprobrious epithets in speaking of the Queen and her adherents. 
 Mr. Charles B. Wilson, the Marshal of Hawaii, is always 
 either the " Tahitian favorite of the Queen," or the Queen's 
 " paramour," or the " Tahitian marshal." "The Tahitian favorite 
 of half- English blood does not mean to yield, and were there 
 not an American ship of war here, he would perhaps try to 
 use his police and a mob of ' hoodlums ' to break up the legis- 
 lature.* * * My present impression is that the Queen and her 
 faction will have to yield. Otherwise, the overthrow of the 
 monarchy could not be long delayed." (Oct. 19, 1892). 
 
 Whether the views and desires of Mr. Stevens in this matter 
 were shared by the executive department of the United States 
 does not appear in the published correspondence ; but it is 
 hardly to be supposed that he would have taken the position 
 he did before and after the revolution of 1893 without some 
 encouragement from his government ; indeed subsequent events 
 would seem to show that this was the case. 
 
 On the 13th of January, 1893, the Queen, having succeeded 
 in getting a cabinet favorable to her party, proposed to promul- 
 gate a new constitution. On Saturday, the 14th, at noon, the 
 legislature was prorogued, and the constitution was to be pro- 
 claimed immediately afterward ; but her ministers refused to 
 sign it, and the Queen was obliged reluctantly to abandon the 
 project, and a proclamation to that effect was issued on Mon- 
 day, the 16th. The party opposed to the Queen, that is, the 
 
378 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Foreign or " Missionary " party, was not disposed to allow the 
 matter to rest there ; in the evening of Saturday a committee 
 of public safety was secretly formed, who called a mass-meeting 
 for Monday, the 16th. Accordingly such a meeting was held 
 at 2 p. ji. on that day, and the action of the committee was in- 
 dorsed, and it was authorized to take the necessary measures 
 for the public welfare. At the request of this committee, Mr. 
 Stevens authorized the landing of sailors and marines from the 
 U. S. S. Boston^ "for the protection " of the United States lega- 
 tion and consulate and " to secure the safety of American life 
 and property." " At 4:30 p. m., .January 16th," said Captain 
 Wiltse, " I landed the ship's battalion under command of Lieut.- 
 Commander William T. Swinburne. 
 
 " One detachment of marines was placed at the legation and 
 one at the consulate, while the main body of men, with two 
 pieces of artillery, were quartered in a hall of central location 
 near the Government building." 
 
 A provisional government was then formed, and the next 
 day, January 17th, a proclamation announced that : " (1) The 
 Hawaiian monarchical system of government is hereVjy abro- 
 gated ; (2) A provisional government for the control and man- 
 agement of public affairs and the protection of public peace is 
 hereby establLshed, to exist until terms of union with the 
 United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon. 
 (-3) Such provisional government shall consist of an executive 
 council of four members who are hereby declared to be Sanford 
 B. Dole, James A. King, Peter C. Jones, and William O. Smith, 
 who shall administer the executive department of the govern- 
 ment." An Advisory Council was also established, consisting 
 of fourteen members. 
 
 " Such executive and Advisory Councils shall, acting jointly, 
 have power to remove any member of either council and to M 
 such or any other vacancy." 
 
 The Queen and her ministers were removed from office. 
 
 The right of the writ of fuibeas corpus was suspended and 
 martial law was declared to exist throughout the island of Oahn. 
 
 The Queen and her ministers published on the same day the 
 following protest : 
 
 " I, LUiuokalaQi, by the Grace of God and under the Constita- 
 
THE HA-WAnA3Sr ISLANDS. 379 
 
 tion of the Hawaiian kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest 
 against any and all acts done against myself and the constitu- 
 tional government of the Hawaiian kingdom by certain persons 
 claiming to have established a provisional government of and for 
 this kingdom. 
 
 " That I yield to the superior force of the United States of 
 America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency, JohnL. 
 Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu 
 and declared that he would support the said provisional govern- 
 ment. 
 
 ' ' Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the 
 loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, 
 yield my authority until such time as the government of the 
 United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo 
 the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority 
 which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian 
 Islands. 
 
 " Done at Honolulu this seventeenth day of January a.d. 1893." 
 
 In the afternoon of this same day Mr. Stevens recognized the 
 provisional government. He wrote to Secretary Foster on 
 the 18th : 
 
 ' ' I promptly recognized the provisional government as the 
 de facto government of the Haweiiiaa Islands. The English min- 
 ister, the Portugese charge d'affaires, the French and the Japanese 
 Commissioners promptly did the same; these with myself being 
 the only members of the diplomatic corps residing here. 
 
 ' ' All is quiet here now. Without the sacrifice of a single life 
 this change of government has been accomplished. Language 
 can hardly express the enthusiasm and the profound feeling of 
 relief at this peaceful and salutary change of government. The 
 underlying cause of this profound feeling among the citizens is 
 the hope that the United States Government will allow these 
 islands to pass to American control and become American soU. 
 A commission of citizens, duly accredited, will go by the steamer 
 that takes this dispatch to Washington, to state the wishes of the 
 provisional government and of the responsible people of the islands 
 and to give a complete account of the existing state of things 
 here." 
 
 This commission, consisting of L. A. Thurston, W. C. Wilder, 
 
380 TOPICS IN AMERICAN' DIPLOMACY. 
 
 W. R. Castle, J. Marsden, and Charles L. Carter, arrived in the 
 United States and communicated with Secretary Foster, Feb- 
 ruary 3, 1893. They declared that they' were instructed and 
 fully authorized and empowered by the provisional government 
 to negotiate a treaty between the Hawaiian Islands and the 
 United States by the terms of which fulj and complete political 
 union might be secured between the United States of America 
 and the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 They related the causes which led up to the revolution, and 
 also submitted a copy of the protest made by Queen Liliuoka- 
 lani against the action of the provisional government. 
 
 The Queen appealed to the President of the United States in 
 a letter which was received February 3d, as follows : 
 
 " His Excellency, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United 
 States. 
 
 " My great Airo good Friend: — It is with great regret that I 
 address you on this occasion. Some of my subjects aided by 
 aliens have renounced their loyaity and revolted against the con- 
 stitutional government of my kingdom. They have attempted to 
 depose me and to establish a provisional government in direct 
 conflict with the organic law of this kingdom. Upon receiving 
 incontestable proof that His Excellency the Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary of the United States aided and abetted their unlawful 
 movements and caused United States troops to be landed for that 
 purpose, I submitted to force believing that he would not have 
 acted in that manifer unless by the authority of the government 
 which he represents. 
 
 ' ' This action on my part was prompted by three reasons : The 
 futility of a conflict with the United States ; the desire to avoid 
 violence, bloodshed, and the destruction of life and property, and 
 the certainty which I feel that you and your government 
 will i-ight whatever wrongs have been inflicted upon us in the 
 premises. 
 
 ' ' In due time a statement of the true facts relating to this matter 
 win be laid before you, and I live in the hope that you wiU judge 
 uprightly and justly between myself and my enemies. 
 
 " This appeal is not made for myself personally, but for my 
 people who have hitherto always enjoyed the friendship and pro- 
 tection of the United States. 
 
 " My opponents have taken the only vessel that could be 
 obtained here for the purpose, and hearing of their intention to 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 381 
 
 send a delegation of their number to present their side of this 
 conflict before you, I requested the favor of sending by the same 
 vessel an envoy to you to lay before you my statement, as the 
 facts appear to myself and my loyal subjects. 
 
 " This request has been refused and I now ask you, that in 
 justice to myself and to my people, no steps be taken by the 
 government of the United States until my cause can be heard 
 by you. 
 
 " I shall be able to dispatch an envoy about the 3d day of 
 February, as that will be the first available opportunity hence, 
 and he will reach you with every possible haste that there may 
 be no delay in the settlement of this matter. 
 
 " I pray you, therefore, my good friend, that you wiU not allow 
 any conclusion to be reached by you until my envoy arrives. 
 
 ' ' I beg to assure you of the continuance of my highest con- 
 sideration. 
 
 " LILIUOEALANI, R. 
 
 " HoNOLiTLu, January 18, 1893." 
 
 On the 28th of January, Secretary Foster wrote to Stevens 
 approving his course in recognizing the provisional government. 
 
 " The rule of this government has been to recognize and enter 
 into relation with any actual government in full possession of 
 executive power with the assent of the people. You will con- 
 tinue to recognize the new government under such conditions. 
 It is trusted that the change besides conducing to the tran- 
 quillity and welfare of the Hawaiian Islands, will tend to draw 
 closer the intimate ties of amity and common interest which so 
 conspicuously and necessarily link them to the United States." 
 
 On February 1st, Mr. Stevens telegraphs as follows : — 
 
 " Provisional Government of Hawaii gaining power and re- 
 spect. Everything is quiet. Annexation sentiment is increasing. 
 Dead monarchy and opposition to annexation is supported chiefly 
 by lottery and opium ring. To-day at 9 a.m. in accordance with 
 request of provisional government of Hawaii, I have placed 
 government of Hawaii under the United States' protection during 
 the negotiation, not interfering with the execution of public 
 affairs. Have mailed important dispatches. Have sent duplicate 
 copies of dispatches. It is advisable that Commodore Skerrett 
 proceed at once to Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, with one or more 
 United States ships as precautionary measures." 
 
382 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Mr. Stevens wrote the same day, giving at length his views 
 on the question of annexation, and the special arrangement in 
 respect of the sugar bounty. He declares that the annexation 
 settlement is everywhere increasing and that " the Hawaiian 
 pear is now fully ripe and this is the golden hour for the United 
 States to pluck it. If annexation does not take place promptly, 
 all is held in doubt and suspense for six or ten months, there 
 certainly will be here a revulsion to despair, and these people 
 by their necessities might be forced towards becoming a British 
 colony, for the English here of the monarchical type would then 
 avail themselves of the opportunity to stir up all possible oppo- 
 sition to annexation." 
 
 The reasons given by Stevens for declaring a protectorate 
 were that on account of the great number of Japanese and 
 Chinese, evil-disposed persons might easily stir them up to dis- 
 order ; and, moreover, there was the possibility of the arrival in 
 Hawaii of a British war- vessel, and that the English minister 
 there thus aided, might try to press unduly the provisional 
 government. " With the islands under our protection, we think 
 the English minister will not attempt to insist that his govern- 
 ment has the right to interfere while our flag is over the 
 Government building." 
 
 The American flag had been raised over the Government 
 building, and the marines from the Boston had been retained 
 permanently on shore. 
 
 When the news of Stevens' action in setting up a protectorate 
 reached the Government at Washington, the President disa- 
 vowed the act, and Secretary Foster telegraphed Stevens to 
 that effect : — 
 
 " Press telegrams from San Francisco give full details of 
 events of first instant with text of your proclamation. The latter 
 in announcing the protection of Hawaiian Islands in the name of 
 the United States would seem to be tantamount to the assumption 
 of a protectorate over those islands on behalf of United States, with 
 aU the rights and obligations which the term implies. It is not 
 thought, however, that the request of the provisional govern- 
 ment for protection or your action in compliance therewith con- 
 templated more than the co-operation of the moral and material 
 forces of the United States to strengthen the authority of the 
 provisional Government by according to it adequate protection 
 
, THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 383 
 
 for life and property during the negotiations instituted here, and 
 without interfering with the execution of puhUc affairs. Such 
 co-operation was and is within your standing instructions and 
 those of the naval commanders in Hawaiian waters. So far as 
 your course accords to the de facto Government, the material 
 cooperation of the United States for the maintenance of good 
 order and the protection of life and property from apprehended 
 disorders it is commended ; hut so far as it may appear to over- 
 step that limit by setting the authority of the United States above 
 that of the Hawaiian Government in the capacity of protector, 
 or to impair the independent sovereignty of that Government by 
 substituting the flag and power of the United States, it is disa- 
 vowed." 
 
 Secretary Foster authorized Mr. Stevens to retain the marine 
 force on shore for the protection of the American interests, but 
 called his attention to the fact that it is always necessary " to 
 distinguish between the functions of voluntary or accorded 
 protection and the assumption of the protectorate over the 
 Government of the Hawaiian Islands, which the United States 
 has recognized as sovereign and with which they treat on 
 terms of sovereign equality." 
 
 Mr. Foster in a dispatch of February 11th, 1893, explained at 
 greater length the views of the Government in respect of a 
 protectorate. " No steps," said Mr. Foster, " are to be taken 
 by you or will be sanctioned by this Government which might 
 tend to derogate in any way from the independence of the 
 Government of the Hawaiian Islands, which the United States 
 have recognized as sovereign, and with which they treat on 
 terms of sovereign equality." 
 
 Secretary Foster's language would seem to plainly imply 
 that he did not approve the act of placing the United States 
 flag upon the Go-*^ernment building of Hawaii ; and one of Mr. 
 Stevens' reasons for placing it there was to interpose the power 
 of the United States, which the flag represented, between the 
 provisional Government and any possible interference by Eng- 
 land. But Stevens did not understand the "disavowal" to 
 affect in any way the action he had taken. On the 27th of 
 February, he wrote: "My understanding of the spirit and 
 terms of our temporary protectorate is in entire accord with 
 the spirit and terms of the Secretary of State's dispatch to me 
 
384 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. . 
 
 of February 14th, and implied in my dispatch No. 84, of Febru- 
 ary 1st, and the papers accompanying the same." 
 
 The American flag was, therefore, allowed to remain on the 
 Government building, representing the authority of the United 
 States. 
 
 The Commissioners of the provisional government arrived in 
 Washington on the 3d of February, and on the 14th of the 
 same month a treaty of annexation was concluded, which was 
 submitted on the next day by the President to the Senate for 
 its ratification. By the first article of this treaty the Govern- 
 ment of the Hawaiian Islands cedes absolutely to the United 
 States all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over 
 the Hawaiian Islands. All questions of detail such as the 
 ownership of public lands, the extension of the laws of the 
 United States over the islands, and their relations to the 
 United States, were left for the future action of Congress. 
 
 The Senate not having acted on this treaty, during the ad- 
 ministration of President Harrison, Mr. Cleveland on coming 
 into ofQce, on March 4th, withdrew the treaty from the Senate. 
 He said : 
 
 "I conceive it to be my duty therefore to withdraw the treaty 
 from the "Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an 
 accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of the facts 
 attending the subversion of the constitutional Government of 
 Hawaii, and the installment in its place of the provisional Govern- 
 ment. I selected for the work of investigation the Hon. James 
 H. Blount of Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a 
 member of the House of Representatives, and whose experience 
 as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign AfEairs in that body, 
 and his consequent familiarity with international topics, joined 
 with his high character and honorable reputation, seem to render 
 him peculiarly fitted for the duties entrusted to him." 
 
 Mr. Blount was appointed Commissioner and received his 
 instructions from Secretary Gresham on March 11, 1893: — 
 
 " Honorable James H. Blount : 
 
 " Sir : — The situation created in the Hawaiian Islands by 
 the recent deposition of Queen Liliuokalani and the erection of a 
 provisional government demands the fullest consideration of the 
 President, and in order to obtain trustworthy information on 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 385 
 
 this subject, as well as for the discharge of other duties herein 
 specified, he has decided to despatch you to the Hawaiian Islands 
 as his special Commissioner, in which capacity you will herewith 
 receive a commission and also a letter whereby the President ac- 
 credits you to the President of the Executive and Advisory 
 Council of the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 "The comprehensive, delicate and confidential character of 
 your mission can now only be briefly outlined, the details of its 
 execution being necessarily left in great measure to your good 
 judgment and wise discretion. 
 
 " You will investigate and fully report to the President all the 
 facts you can learn respecting the condition of affairs in the 
 Hawaiian Islands, the causes of the revolution by which the 
 Queen's government was overthrown, the sentiment of the 
 people toward existing authority, and in general all that can fully 
 enlighten the President touching the subject of your mission. 
 
 " To enable you to fulfill this charge, your authority in all 
 matters touching the relations of this government to the existing 
 or other government of the islands, and the protection of our 
 citizens therein is paramount, and in you alone, acting in co-oper- 
 ation with the commander of the naval forces, is vested full dis- 
 cretion and power to determine when such forces should be landed 
 or withdrawn. * * * 
 
 " In the judgment of the President your authority, as well as 
 that of the commander of the naval forces in Hawaiian waters 
 should be and is limited in the use of physical force to such 
 measures as are necessary to protect the persons and property of 
 our citizens ; and while abstaining from any manner of interfer- 
 ence with the domestic concerns of the islands, you should indic- 
 ate your wQlingness to intervene with your friendly offices in the 
 interests of a peaceful settlement of the trouble within the limits 
 of sound discretion. 
 
 "Should it hb necessary to land an armed force upon Hawaiian 
 territory on occasions of popular disturbance when the local 
 authorities shall be unable to give adequate protection to the life 
 and property of citizens of the United States, the assent of such 
 authority should first be obtained if it can be done without prej- 
 udice to the interests involved. Your power in this regard 
 should not, however, be claimed to the exclusion of similar 
 measures by the representatives of other Powers for the protec- 
 tion of the lives and property of their citizens or subjects residing 
 in the islands. 
 25 
 
386 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " While the United States claim no right to interfere in the 
 political or domestic afEairs or in the internal conflict of the 
 Hawaiian Islands otherwise as herein stated, or for the purpose 
 of maintaining any treaty or other right which they possess, this 
 government will adhere to its consistent and established policy 
 in relation to them and it will not acquiesce in domestic interfer- 
 ence by other Powers." * * * 
 
 Mr. Blount was furnished with a letter of credence from 
 President Cleveland to President Dole, in the usual form of 
 such diplomatic communications. The statement is made that 
 in all relations between the two governments the authority of 
 Mr. Blount is paramount. 
 
 In a despatch to Mr. Stevens, Secretary Gresham informs 
 Stevens of Blount's appointment, and says that " in all matters 
 pertaining to the existing or other government of the islands, 
 the authority of Mr. Blount is paramount. As regards the 
 conduct of the usual business of the Legation, you are requested 
 to continue, until further notice, in the performance of your offl- 
 cial functions, so far as they may not be inconsistent with the 
 special powers confided to Mr. Blount. You are also requested 
 to aid him in the fulfillment of his important mission, by fur- 
 nishing any desired assistance and information, and the archives 
 of the Legation should be freely accessible to him. 
 
 " Mr. Blount is fully instructed touching his relations to the 
 commanding officer of the United States naval force in Hawaiian 
 waters." 
 
 On the 29th of March Mr. Blount arrived at Honolulu, and 
 the next day presented his letters of credence to President Dole. 
 On the 31st he issued the following order to Admiral Skerrett : 
 
 ' ' You are directed to haul down the United States ensign from 
 the Government Building, and to embark the troops now on shore 
 to the ships to which they belong. 
 
 " This will be executed at 11 o'clock on the 1st day of April." 
 
 This order was carried out at the time designated ; and Com- 
 missioner Blount now began a long and careful investigation 
 into the history and causes of the then recent revolution. 
 
 Mr. Stevens tendered his resignation on March 7, which was 
 
THE HAWAIIAN- ISLANDS. 387 
 
 accepted by the Executive on April 25; and soon after, Mr. 
 Blount was appointed as his successor. Mr. Stevens, under 
 date of May 18, 1893, writes: "Agreeably to your instructions, 
 I have turned over the archives and other property of the Lega- 
 tion to Hon. James G. Blount, my successor as envoy extraor- 
 dinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States." 
 On the 24th of May, Mr. Blount writes to Secretary Gresham : 
 
 " I received by the Australia arriving here on the 17th instant 
 two telegrams from you, dated on the 9th instant. * * * 
 
 " I regret very much that it was found necessary to appoint 
 me as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the 
 Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 "On the afternoon of the former date I took the oath of office 
 — which I enclose herewith — and have taken charge of the records 
 and property of the legation. 
 
 " I have done so because I supposed from the circumstances 
 that I was appointed against a declaration on my part to you in 
 Washington that I could not accept it, that some important rea- 
 son, not contained in the telegram, made it desirable to the 
 President and yourself that Mr. Stevens' connection with the 
 Legation should be promptly severed. 
 
 " I enclose herewith my resignation of the office, with the re- 
 quest that it be accepted, and my successor appointed as soon as 
 practicable." 
 
 Mr. Blount continued to sign himself commissioner in the 
 case of letters touching the business of his original mission. It 
 was not till October that a successor was appointed. 
 
 Mr. Blount's report includes a large number of affidavits, 
 interviews, and statements of various persons, with reference 
 to the causes and the circumstances accompanying the revo- 
 lution of January, 1893. As to the revolution, he was con- 
 vinced that the action of Minister Stevens was the chief factor 
 in its successful termination. This action consisted in giving 
 assurance to the revolutionists of the aid of the United States 
 forces, and in recognizing the provisional government, before 
 the Queen had yielded, under protest, and before her troops 
 had surrendered the station-house. The evidence is certainly 
 very strong to that effect. All the drift of Mr. Stevens's dis- 
 patches shows that he was ardently in favor of such a move- 
 
388 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ment ; and Mr. Damon admitted that he expected the aid of 
 the United States forces at the time the new government 
 was proclaimed. 
 
 Mr. Albert S. Willis, who succeeded Mr. Blount, arrived at 
 Honolulu on the 4th of November. His instructions, dated 
 October 18, 1893, are as follows: 
 
 ' ' Supplementing the general instructions which you have re- 
 ceived with regard to your official duties, it is necessary to com- 
 municate to you in confidence special instructions for your guid- 
 ance in so far as concerns relations of the Government of the 
 United States towards the de facto Government of the Hawaiian 
 Islands. The President deemed it his duty to withdraw from the 
 Senate the treaty of annexation which has been signed by the 
 Secretary of State and agents of the provisional Government and 
 to despatch a trusted representative to Hawaii to impartially in- 
 vestigate the causes of the so-called revolution and obtain a report 
 of the true situation in those islands. This information was 
 needed the better to enable the President to discharge a delicate 
 and important public duty. The instructions given to Mr. Blount, 
 of which you are furnished a copy, had a line of conduct to be 
 observed by him in his personal relations to the islanders, by 
 which you will be guided so far as they are applicable and in con- 
 sistence with what is herein stated. 
 
 ' ' It remains to acquaint you with the President's conclusions 
 upon the facts embodied in Mr. Blount's report and to direct your 
 course in accordance therewith. The provisional Government 
 was not established by the Hawaiian people with their consent or 
 acquiescence, nor has it since existed with their consent. The 
 Queen refused to surrender her power to the provisional Govern- 
 ment-until convinced that the Minister of ttie United States had 
 recognized it as the de, facto authority and would support and de- 
 fend it with the military force of the United States, and that re- 
 sistance would precipitate a bloody conflict with that force. She 
 was advised and assured by her Ministers and by the leaders in 
 the movement for the overthrow of her Government that if she 
 surrendered under protest her case would afterwards be thor- 
 oughly considered by the President of the United States. The 
 Queen finally and wisely yielded to the armed forces of the United 
 States, then quartered in Honolulu, relying upon the good faith 
 and honor of the President, when informed of what had occurred, 
 to undo the action of the Minister and reinstate her in the author- 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 389 
 
 ity which she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the 
 Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 " After a patient examination of Mr. Blount's report the Presi- 
 dent is satisfied that the movement agaiastthe Queen, if not initi- 
 ated, was encouraged and supported by the representative of this 
 Government at Honolulu ; that he promised in advance to aid her 
 enemies in an effort to overthrow the Hawaiian Government and 
 set up by force a new Government in its place, and that he kept 
 these promises by causing a detachment of troops to be landed 
 from the Boston on Jan. 16, and by recognizing the provisional 
 Government the next day, which was too feeble to defend itself, 
 and the constitutional Government was able to successfully main- 
 tain its authority against any threatening force other than that 
 of the United States already landed. The President is therefore 
 determined that he will not send back to the Senate for its action 
 thereon the treaty which he withdrew from that body for further 
 consideration on the 9th day of March last. 
 
 ' ' On your arrival you will take advantage of the earliest oppor- 
 tunity to inform the Queen of this. Make known to her the 
 President's position regarding the reprehensible conduct of the 
 American Minister and the presence on land of the United States 
 forces. Advise her of the desire of this Government to do justice 
 and to undo this wrong. You will, however, at the same time 
 inform the Queen that the President expects that she will extend 
 amnesty to all who were against her, including all who were con- 
 nected with the provisional Government, depriving them of no 
 right or privilege. Having secured the Queen's agreement to 
 pursue this policy, you will advise the Executive of the pro- 
 visional Government and his Ministers of the President's deter- 
 mination of this question, which their action and that of the 
 Queen devolved upon him, and that they are expected to promptly 
 restore her constitutional authority. Should the Queen decline 
 to pursue the course suggested, or should the provisional Govern- 
 ment refuse to abide by the President's decision, you wiU report 
 the facts and await further instructions." 
 
 In accordance with these instructions, Mr. Willis had an 
 interview with the Queen, on November 13, and asked if she 
 was willing to comply with the President's conditions in the 
 event of her restoration : 
 
 ' ' She hesitated a moment and then slowly and calmly answered : 
 
390 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ' There are certain laws of my government by which I shall abide. 
 My decisions would be, as, the law directs, that such persons 
 should be beheaded and their property confiscated to the govern- 
 ment.' 
 
 " I then said, repeating very distinctly her words : ' It is your 
 feeling that these people should be beheaded and their property 
 confiscated ? ' 
 
 "She replied, 'It is.' 
 
 ' ' I then said to her : ' Do you fully understand the meaning of 
 every word which I have said to you and of every word which 
 you have said to me, and if so, do you stUl have the same opin- 
 ion ? ' 
 
 ' ' Her answer was : ' I have understood and mean all I have 
 said, but I might leave the decision of this to my ministers.' 
 
 ' ' To this I replied : ' Suppose it was necessary to make a decis- 
 ion before you appointed any ministers, and that you were asked 
 to issue a royal proclamation of general amnesty, would you do 
 it?' 
 
 " She answered, ' I have no legal right- to do that and I would 
 not do it.' 
 
 " Pausing a moment she continued : * These people were the 
 cause of the revolution and constitution of 1887. There will never 
 be any peace while they are here. They must be sent out of the 
 country or punished and their property confiscated.' 
 
 " I then said : ' I have no further communication to make to 
 you now and wUl have none until I hear from my Government, 
 which will probably be three or four weeks.' " 
 
 Mr. Willis further said that in conversation with Sam 
 Parker and others, it was his opinion, that in the event of 
 restoration, there would be a concerted movement for the over- 
 throw of the constitution of 1887, "which would mean the 
 overthrow of constitutional and limited government." He 
 sent a telegram to the Secretary of State as follows : 
 
 " Views of first party [the Queen] so extreme as to require 
 further instructions." 
 
 To this Secretary Gresham replied by telegram of November 
 24 : " The brevity of your telegrams is embarrassing. You 
 will insist upon amnesty and recognition of obligations of the 
 provisional Government as essential conditions of restoration. 
 All interests would be promoted by prompt action." 
 
 Again, on the 3d of December, Gresham telegraphed : 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 391 
 
 " Your despatch, which was received by steamer on the 25th 
 of November, seems to call for additional instructions. Should 
 the Queen refuse to assent to the written conditions, you will at 
 once inform her that the President will cease interposition in her 
 behalf, and, while he deems it his duty to endeavor to restore her 
 to the sovereign constitutional Government of the islands, his 
 further efforts in that direction will depend upon the Queen's 
 unqualified agreement that all obligations created by the provis- 
 ional Government in a proper course of administration shall be 
 assumed, and upon such pledges by her as will prevent the adop- 
 tion of any measures of proscription or punishment for what has 
 been done in the past by those setting up or supporting the pro- 
 visional Government. The President feels that by our original 
 interference and what followed we have incurred responsibility 
 to the whole Hawaiian community, and it would not be just to 
 put one party at the mercy of the other. 
 
 " Should tha Queen ask whether, if she accedes to the condi- 
 tions, active steps would be taken by the United States to effect 
 her restoration or to maintain her authority thereafter, you will 
 say that the President cannot use force without the authority of 
 Congress. Should the Queen accept the conditions and the pro- 
 visional Government refuse to surrender, you will be governed 
 by previous instructions. If the provisional Government asks 
 whether the United States will hold the Queen to the fulfillment 
 of stipulated conditions, you will say that the President, acting 
 under dictates of honor and duty as he has done in endeavoring 
 to effect restoration, will ,do all in his constitutional power to 
 cause observance of the conditions he has imposed." 
 
 On the 16th of December, Mr. Willis had another interview 
 ■with the Queen, in the presence of Mr. J. O. Carter, and again 
 on the 18th, in which she so far modified her previous position 
 as to spare the lives of those concerned in deposing her, but 
 insisted that they should be removed out of the islands, and 
 that their property should be confiscated. 
 
 Mr. Willis then read to her the instructions given him by 
 the President with reference to amnesty, and to the effect that, 
 if the Queen would not assent, the President would cease inter- 
 ference in her behalf. The interview then closed ; but it appears 
 that later, on the same day, December 18, the Queen was per- 
 suaded to sign the following agreement : 
 
392 TOPICS IN AMEEICAK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 "I, Liliuokalani, in recognition of the high sense of justice 
 which actuated the President of the United States, and desiring 
 to put aside all feeling of personal hatred or revenge, and to do 
 what is best for all the people on. these islands, both native and 
 foreign born, do hereby and herein solemnly declare and pledge 
 myself that if reinstated as constitutional sovereign of the Ha- 
 waiian islands I will immediately proclaim and declare, uncondi- 
 tionally and without reservation, to every person who directly or 
 indirectly participated in the revolution of Jan. 17, 1893, a full 
 pardon and amnesty for their oflEenses, with restoration of all 
 rights and immunities under the constitution and laws which 
 have been made in pursuance thereof, and that I will forbid and 
 prevent the adoption of any measure of proscription or punish- 
 ment for what has been done in the past by those setting up or 
 supporting the provisional Government. I further solemnly 
 agree to accept the restoration under the constitution existing at 
 the said time of said revolution, and that I will abide by and fully 
 execute that constitution, with all the guarantees as to person 
 and property therein contained. 
 
 ' ' I furthermore solemnly pledge myself and my Government, 
 if restored, to assume all the obligations created by the provisional 
 Government in the proper course of administration, iacluding all 
 expenditures for military and police service, it being my purpose, 
 if restored, to assume the Government precisely as it existed on 
 the day when it was unlawfully overthrown. 
 
 " Witness my hand this 28th day of December, 1893. 
 
 " LILIUOKALANI. 
 " Attest : J. O. Carter." 
 
 Having obtained this agreement of the Queen, Mr. Willis 
 proceeded, on the next day, December 19, to carry out the 
 second part of his instructions, namely, to procure the abdica- 
 tion of the provisional Government in favor of the Queen. In a 
 communication to President Dole, after reciting the circum- 
 stances of the revolution, and the President's view of the re- 
 spoQsibility incurred by the United States through the illegal 
 action of their representative Minister Stevens, and also the 
 agreement signed by the Queen, Mr. Willis continues : 
 
 " It becomes my further duty to advise you, sir, the Executive 
 of the provisional Government and your ministers, of the Presi 
 dent's determination of the question which your action and that 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 393 
 
 of the Queen devolved upon him, and that you are expected to 
 promptly relinquish to her her constitutional authority. * * * 
 
 " I submit to you the question ; 
 
 " ' Are you willing to abide by the decision of the President ? ' " 
 
 To this question President Dole gave, on the 23d of Decem- 
 ber, a long and ably written answer. He reviews the history of 
 the case, and avers that the evidence upon which the President 
 of the United States had based his decision was wholly ex parte, 
 taken in secret, and with no opportunity for the provisional 
 government to present its side of the case. Many of the as- 
 sertions of Commissioner Blount he contradicts, and says : 
 
 "Surely the destinies of a friendly government, admitting by 
 way of argument that the right of arbitration exists, may not be 
 disposed of upon an ex pqrte and secret investigation, made with- 
 out the knowledge of such government or an opportunity by it 
 to be heard or even to know who the witnesses were." 
 
 Mr. Dole denies the right of the United States to interfere 
 in the internal affairs of a de facto independent government, 
 whose sovereignty they had recognized by twice accrediting 
 ministers to it, and with which they had negotiated a treaty. 
 
 As to the interference of Minister Stevens, President Dole 
 says : 
 
 " No man can correctly say that the Queen owed her downfall 
 to the interference of American forces. The revolution was car- 
 ried through by the representatives, now largely re-enforced, 
 of the same public sentiment which forced the monarchy to its 
 knees in 1887, which suppressed the insurrection of 1889, and 
 which, for twenty years, had been battling for representative 
 government in this country. If the American forces had been 
 absent, the revolution would have taken place, for the sufficient 
 causes for it had nothing to do with their presence." 
 
 In conclusion, President Dole says : 
 
 " I am instructed to inform you, Mr. Minister, that the pro- 
 visional Government of the Hawaiian Islands respectfully and 
 unhesitatingly declines to entertain the proposition of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States that it should surrender its authority 
 to the ex-Queen." 
 
394 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 On receiving Mr. Willis's account of his first interview vrith 
 Queen Liliuokalani, President Cleveland, believing that her 
 peaceful restoration through his efforts was improbable, sub- 
 mitted the whole question, with the correspondence thereon, 
 to Congress for its action. He closed his message to Congress, 
 of the 18th of December, as follows : 
 
 ," In commending this subject to the extended powers and wide 
 discretion of the Congress, I desire to add the assurance that I 
 shall be much gratified to co-operate in any legislative plan which 
 may be devised for the solution of the problem before us, which 
 is consistent with American honor, integrity and morality." 
 
 The subject was subsequently discussed in both Houses of 
 Congress. In the Senate, the committee on Foreign Relations 
 entered upon a thorough investigation of the matter, and on 
 the 26th of February, 1894, submitted three separate reports. 
 The majority report was presented by the chairman, Senator 
 Morgan, Democrat, and concurred in by the Republican Sena- 
 tors Sherman, Fry, Dolph and Davis. This report approved of 
 nearly everything that had been done, with the exception of the 
 action of Minister Stevens in declaring a protectorate over 
 Hawaii, and in placing the American flag over the government 
 building in Honolulu. 
 
 The four Republican senators mentioned above presented a 
 minority report in which they censure the appointment of 
 Blount, and the acts of both Blount and Willis in Hawaii. 
 
 A minority report was also presented by the Democratic 
 members of the committee other than Morgan, namely, Butler, 
 Turpie, Daniel and Gray, in which they censure the conduct of 
 Stevens both before and after the revolution. 
 
 In the House, the subject became a party question, and the 
 debate upon it often showed the spirit of partisan bitterness. 
 The most extended discussion took place in the first week of 
 February, 1894. 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 395 
 
 COiSrCLUSION. 
 
 In respect to the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, it will 
 be seen by the foregoing outline of the history of our relations 
 with the islands, that Secretaries Marcy, Seward, Fish and 
 Blaine were in favor of annexation, and the first three, at least, 
 did what they could to accomplish it. Failing in this, ttiey 
 favored a reciprocity treaty which would bind the islands, polit- 
 ically and commercially, more closely to the United States. 
 Such a treaty was finally concluded in 1875; but it has been 
 by no means an unmixed good for the islands, indeed it is the 
 cause of the greater part of their present troubles. It has had 
 the effect of transforming the varied agricultural industries of 
 the country into a single one — that of sugar planting ; an in- 
 dustry which requires large capital for its successful execution, 
 and from which, therefore, the natives were for the most part 
 excluded. In a report on Hawaiian sugar-plantation corpora- 
 tions, of June, 1893, it appears that, of stock issued amounting 
 to $27,964,290, only $38,991 was held by native Hawaiians. 
 And in a list of sugar plantations not incorporated, valued at 
 $8,000,000, the name of no native Hawaiian appears. In other 
 directions the showing is not much better. Of forty-three 
 business corporations other than sugar plantations, with stock 
 amounting to about $6,000,000, the native Hawaiians are stock- 
 holders to the amount of only $51,620. It appears, further- 
 more, that of $28,274,000 capital stock of sugar corporations, 
 $13,800,000 was owned by San Francisco companies. 
 
 But perhaps this is not the worst evil for the islanders 
 brought about by the reciprocity treaty. The sugar planting 
 necessitated the introduction of foreign labor ; and accordingly 
 the importation of Asiatic contract laborers was entered upon. 
 By the census of 1890, there were in the islands 15,301 Chinese, 
 12,360 Japanese, and 8,602 Portuguese of the most ignorant class. 
 Of these the Chinese and Japanese are nearly all males, with 
 no political rights. Thus a race problem has been suddenly 
 thrust upon the islands which will continue to embarrass any 
 government that may have control. 
 
396 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DEPLOMACY. 
 
 The native Hawaiians are thus not only being crowded out 
 of the industrial pursuits of their own land, but the foreigners, 
 who represent the greater part of the material interests of the 
 islands, naturally, perhaps, desire also the political control. 
 It is for their interests to have an efficient and stable govern- 
 ment ; and that they undoubtedly did not have during Kala- 
 kaua's reign. 
 
 The constitution of the kingdom was largely a copy of that 
 of the United States ; but one very important difference, ne- 
 cessitated by the fact of their having a king, was the adoption 
 of the English system of responsible cabinet government. 
 Instead, moreover, of a legislature composed of senators and 
 representatives, they established one composed of nobles and 
 representatives sitting together in one House. 
 
 By the constitution of 1864, the King appointed the nobles 
 to hold their appointments during life, and their number was 
 not to exceed twenty. The representatives were to be elected 
 by the people, and were not to be less in number than twenty- 
 four, nor more than forty. 
 
 The members of the cabinet were to be appointed by the 
 King, and to hold office during his pleasure. All acts of the 
 King must be countersigned by a minister, who thus made 
 himself responsible. 
 
 The judicial power was vested " in one supreme court and 
 in such inferior courts as the legislature may, from time to 
 time, establish." And the judges were to hold office during 
 good behavior. 
 
 Under this constitution the King and his friends could 
 usually control the legislature ; and during Kalakaua's reign 
 the government became so corrupt that the opposition finally 
 forced upon him the constitution of 1887. The changes in the 
 old constitution were intended mainly to restrict the power of 
 the King, and place the legislature under the control of the 
 capitalist class. To this end, the legislature was to be composed 
 of twenty-four nobles and the same number of representatives. 
 The nobles were to be elected for six years by residents of the 
 Hawaiian Islands, who had resided there at least three years, 
 and who possessed taxable property in the country of the value 
 of not less than three thousand dollars, or should have received 
 an income of not less than six hundred dollars. 
 
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 397 
 
 This provision, it was said, deprived tliree-fourths of tlie 
 native voters of tlie right to vote for nobles. 
 
 Representatives were required to own real estate of the value 
 of five hundred dollars, or to have an annual income of at least 
 two hundred and fifty dollars. 
 
 The members of the cabinet were to be appointed by the 
 King, but could be removed by him " only upon a vote of want 
 of confidence passed by a majority of all the elective members 
 of the legislature." 
 
 The King was exceedingly dissatisfied with this constitution, 
 and within the next few years several attempts were made to 
 overturn it. And the Reform party who had enacted it were 
 not always able to maintain a majority of the legislature in 
 their favor. 
 
 In January, 1893, the Reform cabinet was voted out, as I have 
 said, and the Queen, with a cabinet favorable to her, attempted 
 to proclaim a new constitution which would restore to her the 
 powers exercised by the King under the constitution of 1864. 
 
 The most important features of this instrument were : 
 
 Art. 57. The Queen shall appoint the nobles not to exceed 
 twenty-four. 
 
 Art. 60. The representatives may be increased from twenty- 
 four to forty-eight. 
 
 Art. 62. Only subjects shall vote. 
 
 Art. 65. The term of appointment of the supreme court 
 judges shall be, not for life, as before, but for six years.^ 
 
 1 The outline of the history of the relations of the United States with the 
 Hawaiian Islands given above is taken mainly from the documents sub- 
 mitted to Congress by President Cleveland, and which may be found in full 
 in H. K. Ex. Doc. Nos. 47 and 48, 53d Cong., 2d Sess. There is also some 
 later correspondence. The annual volumes of Foreign Relations contain 
 much information in respect of Hawaii not to be found in the documents 
 mentioned above. See also Wharton's Digest of International Law, I. § 62. 
 And " The History of the Hawaiian People," by W. D. Alexander. 
 
398 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 SAMOA. 
 
 " 1 The group known as Samoa, or the Navigator's Islands, 
 lies in a mean latitude of 13° 50' south, and extends from 170° 30' 
 to 173 west longitude. 
 
 " 2. The largest island of the group of Savaii, which attains an 
 altitude of nearly 5,000 feet, and contains an approximate area 
 of 825,440 acres. 
 
 " 3. The island of Upolu, which lies ten miles east of Savaii, is 
 the next in size. It contains approximately an area of 169,984 
 acres, and reaches an altitude of about 2,500 feet. 
 
 "4. Next, eastward of Upolu, lies the small island of Tutuila, 
 containing an area of about 24,988 acres, and ascending to an 
 altitude of 2,000 feet. 
 
 "5. The Manua Islands lie eastward of Tutuila, a distance of 
 sixty miles. They are three in number and of small area. The 
 largest of them rises, in the form of a cone, to a height of 2,500 
 feet. 
 
 "6. These islands are properly classed with the Samoan group ; 
 but beyond language and origin, the people have little in com- 
 mon with the two large islands, and take no permanent or prac- 
 tical part in their politics. 
 
 " 7. The distance from Auckland, in New Zealand, to Samoa is 
 1,600 miles, and the island of Tutuila referred to above, lies 
 directly in the track taken by the trans-Pacific steamers running 
 between the Australasian colonies and San Francisco, or Van- 
 couver's Island, via Hawaii. [The distance to Honolulu is 2,215, 
 and to San Francisco, 4,275 miles.] 
 
 "8. Prior to 1856, it cannot be said that commerce had any 
 well-marked existence at Samoa, although the islands had been 
 occasionally resorted to by whalers and trading vessels, chiefly 
 from Sydney and Hobart. 
 
 "9. There were, however, even then, two British resident 
 traders and one American at Apia, doing a certain amount of trade 
 with the colonies and with ships passing between California and 
 Australia. 
 
 "10. So far back as the year 1845 a British consul had been 
 appointed to reside at Samoa. It was also the residence of an 
 American consular oflBcer. 
 
SAMOA. 399 
 
 " 11. About the year 1857 the powerful and well-known firm of 
 Messrs. GodefiEroy, of Hamburg, established themselves at Apia, 
 making that place the base of their operations in other parts of 
 the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 " 12. In the month of April, 1877, there is reason to suppose 
 that the consular and naval representatives of the German Govern- 
 ment were negotiating with the native authorities (Taimua and 
 Faipule) of Samoa with a twofold object : (1) to secure German 
 interests during the prevalent disputes and petty wars of contend- 
 ing native parties, and (2) to obtain the recognition of Germany's 
 equal rights with other powers, as against the efforts constantly 
 being made to bring the group under the protectorate of a foreign 
 government. 
 
 " 13. With these objects .in view, the German representative at 
 Samoa obtained certain engagements from the then ruling native 
 authority by such representative termed the protocol of the 3d 
 July, 1877. 
 
 "14. On the 17th of January, 1878, a treaty was concluded 
 between the Governments of Samoa and the United States of 
 America. 
 
 "15. When the ratified treaty arrived at Apia by the United 
 States war-ship Adams, the German representative deemed it 
 necessary to vindicate the rights of the most favored nation, 
 which they affirmed had, under the protocol already cited, been 
 guaranteed to Germany. 
 
 "16. The German consul affirmed that, in the commercial 
 treaty concluded with the United States, privileges were granted 
 with another nation in violation of the terms of Article IV. of the 
 protocol. The objection raised by the German consul was founded 
 upon the terms of Article V. of the American treaty. 
 
 " 17. Not receiving a satisfactory reply from the Government 
 of Samoa, the ports of Saluafata and Fulealili were seized by the 
 German authority, and the Imperial Government notified its 
 determination to maintain this seizure until security was given 
 for the conclusion of a treaty between Germany and Samoa on 
 the footing of the most favored nation. 
 
 " 18. Such a treaty was, after some difficulty, finally con- 
 cluded on the 24th January, 1879. Among other things, the 
 treaty provided (Article V.) for the exercise of certain exclusive 
 privileges by Germany in the harbor of Saluafata. It also con- 
 tained an agreement with respect to land in the following words : 
 
 " ' To confirm in quiet possession of German subjects all lands 
 
400 TOPICS IN AMBKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in Samoa which they have hitherto bought from Samoans in a 
 regular manner, and in accordance with the custom prevailing at 
 the time ; and all further interference with regard to such lands 
 is therefore excluded by this confirmation by the Samoan Govern- 
 ment of the ownership of the German subjects.' " 
 
 " [It is open to question whether this rendering of the original 
 German text is permissible, but it is the rendering given by M. 
 Weber, who at the time was both German consul and manager 
 for Messrs. Godeffroy and who, sitting as a judge, immediately 
 proceeded to act on it.] 
 
 "19. Much jealousy was created by the exclusive privileges 
 accorded to Germany in respect of Saluafata Harbor, and the 
 Samoans laid themselves open to a complaint similar to that so 
 recently preferred by German representatives, viz., that Article 
 V. of the German treaty was in violation of the provision of 
 Article VI. of the American treaty. 
 
 "20. British and American residents were much disturbed by 
 the assumption that German subjects, which practically meant 
 the house of Messrs. Godeffroy, had secured possession of all 
 lands claimed by them without investigation. 
 
 "21. As much of the land so claimed was, and still is, disputed 
 by other nations upon titles believed to be equally as good or 
 better than those of Germany, this further feeling of irritation 
 was, perhaps, not unnatural. A treaty with Great Britain con- 
 ferring upon the latter the privileges of the most favored nation 
 was concluded upon the 28th August, 1879. 
 
 "22. It is proper to note that all through the official corre- 
 spondence relating to the period and events adverted to, the Ger- 
 man Government declared itself only anxious to acquire ' equal 
 right ' with other nations in Samoa, in order to safeguard ' the 
 well- won rights of its subjects ' against the arbitrary measures of 
 a policy influenced by speculators. 
 
 " 33. In the Reichstag on the 13th June, 1879, Herr von Bulow, 
 when submitting the Samoan treaty for the approval of the 
 chamber, observed : 
 
 ' ' ' Nous ne voulons point fonder de colonie en ce pays, nous ne 
 voulons pas avoir de monopole envers et contre d' autres, nous 
 voulons uniquement etablir autant qu'on pent le f aire, que la 
 navigation allemande et le commerce allemandJ tient la le bon 
 droit et I'egalite de droit.' 
 
 " 24. Shortly after the conclusion of the treaty with Germany 
 the islands were distracted by civil war, which was brought 
 
SAMOA. 401 
 
 to a partial close in the month of December, 1879 , by the influence 
 of the treaty powers, but chiefly by the active steps taken by 
 Captain Deinhardt, of His Imperial German Majesty's ship Bis- 
 marck, acting on the behalf and.on the request of the represent- 
 atives of Great Britain and the United States, as well as those 
 of Germ.any. 
 
 "25. Malietoa Talavoa was then recognized and declared to be 
 king ' for lifetime,' and Malietoa Laupepa was appointed re- 
 gent. 
 
 "26. It may be convenient in this place to state that as far 
 back as 1873, the so-called Government of Samoa consisted of two 
 councils, named respectively the Taimua and Faipule. 
 
 " 27. These councils existed at the date of the first visit of 
 Colonel Steinberger in the year 1873. 
 
 "28. Upon the return of this gentleman from Hamburg in 
 1875, they, at his instance, increased the number of representative 
 chiefs, re-organized their government to some extent, and elected 
 the chief Malietoa Talavoa as their King. Colonel Steinberger 
 himself became prime minister. 
 
 "29. This government, however, broke up in February, 1876, 
 when, at the instance of the American Consul Forster and King 
 Malietoa, the premier. Colonel Steinberger, was removed from 
 Samoa by Captain Stevens, of Her Majesty's ship, Barracouta. 
 
 "30. King Malietoa was shortly afterwards deposed by the 
 friends of Colonel Steinberger, and an acephalous government 
 was conducted by the chiefs calling themselves Taimua and 
 Faipule. 
 
 "31. It was with this government without the concurrence of 
 Malietoa and the strong party following his lead, that the Ger- 
 man-Samoan treaty was concluded. 
 
 32. "In March, 1879, the Taimua and Faipule placed them- 
 selves in the hands of General J. J. Bartlett, described in the 
 Samoan official papers as ' a gentleman of the United States of 
 America.' His connection with the government occasioned 
 some difficulty, but was of brief duration. 
 
 " 33. The British-Samoan treaty was concluded with the gov- 
 ernment of Malietoa who soon established themselves in power. 
 
 " 34. In this matter Sir Arthur Gordon (representing Her 
 Majesty's Government) appealed for an opinion to the different 
 consular officers resident in Apia, the naval officers in command of 
 the English, German, and American ships of war in harbor, and 
 Her Majesty's deputy commissioner and late acting consul, who 
 25 
 
402" TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 unanimously informed him that in their judgment Malietoa was 
 entitled to recognition as a de facto king, and was in a position 
 to enter into treaty engagements with Great Britain. 
 
 "35. Malietoa was generally, recognized as the chief most 
 entitled by birth and actual authority to be king. He was ac- 
 cordingly proclaimed, and anointed king at Mulinuu, on the 
 24th May, 1879. 
 
 "36. This position, as above stated, was subsequently con- 
 firmed by the influence and authority of the three treaty powers, 
 in December, 1879 (vide articles of agreement signed by the con- 
 tending native parties on board His Imperial Majesty's ship 
 Bismarck, the 23d December, 1879, and witnessed by Captain 
 Deinhardt, Captain Chuden, and Consul Weber) . 
 
 " 37. The party opposed to Malietoa shortly afterwards repudi- 
 ated their obligations under the agreement referred to, and 
 until the middle or end of June, 1880, the island of Upolu was 
 the scene of constant fighting and disorder. 
 
 "38. For the better security of life and property during the 
 continuance of strife, the contending parties had already agreed 
 with the foreign consuls to define and respect a neutral territory 
 in and about Apia. This agreement was made on the 29th 
 May, 1879. 
 
 " 39. On the 24th March, 1880, the foreign representatives 
 agreed with King Malietoa for the constitution of an executive 
 council for the Samoan Government. 
 
 "40. This agreement, however, was not confirmed by the 
 treaty powers. Her Majesty's government were of the opinion 
 that a council of the nature proposed would exercise so prepon- 
 derating an influence over Samoans, over the officers of Samoa, 
 as practically to throw the government of the islands upon the 
 Three Governments, who would be represented by the executive 
 council. 
 
 "41. During 1880 the contending native factions in Samoa 
 seldom ceased quarreling, and petty conflicts were of frequent 
 occurrence. 
 
 "42. King Malietoa Talavoa died on the 7th November, 1880, 
 and on the thirteenth of the month the consuls wrote to both 
 war parties proposing a cessation of hostilities. 
 
 "48. The King's party accepted, the others declined these 
 proposals. 
 
 "44. In March, 1881, Malietoa Laupepa, the Vice-King, was 
 appointed king, the chief of the opposing party protesting, and 
 
SAMOA. 403 
 
 notifying that they had chosen Tamasese, a chief of the Tapua 
 family, to be king. 
 
 "45. Tamasese was not recognized by the consuls, and on the 
 28th April, Malietoa Laupepa was received by the captain of the 
 German corvette Herthe on board his ship, and saluted as King. 
 
 "46. On the 12th July, 1881, an agreement for peace was 
 signed by both native parties on board the United States ship 
 Lackawanna. 
 
 "47. Peace was thereupon proclaimed, and Malietoa accepted, 
 as King, with Tamasese as Vice-King. 
 
 "48. Two days afterward several individual fights occurred 
 in Apia, between the party chiefs of the King and the Vice-King. 
 The municipal policemen were severely wounded. Order was 
 temporarily restored by^an armed party promptly landed from 
 the German gunboat Mowe. 
 
 "49. After numerous distractions a new government was in- 
 augurated at Mulinuu on the 12th July, 1882. 
 
 "50. The whole of the consular body was present, and the 
 meetiug was considered ' a thoroughly representative one. ' Ma- 
 lietoa Laupepa and Tamasese were again saluted as King and 
 Vice- King. Nine laws or regulations were framed by this govern- 
 ment, and copies thereof sent to the consuls. 
 
 "51. With the exceptions of minor difficulties and rumors of 
 divisions among the people, afEairs went on more quietly until the 
 ■middle of the year 1883. 
 
 " 52. In July of this year King Malietoa complained that the 
 Tupua family (Tamasese) were again plotting, and sought the 
 advice and aid of the consuls. 
 
 "53. The consuls promised the exercise of their good offices, 
 acting German consul Von Oertzen stating that he held instruc. 
 tions to the effect ' that so long as Malietoa observed his agree- 
 ments and did not provoke war, he was to support him, by force, 
 if necessary.' 
 
 "54. On the 29th September, 1883, an agreement was signed 
 between this government and foreign representatives, protecting 
 (protracting ?) for an iudefinite period the municipal convention 
 of the 2d September. 
 
 "55. At this period, and owing to a variety of circumstances, 
 commercial and political rivalries in Samoa and the Pacific gener- 
 ally were much quickened. 
 
 "56. For reasons which have been explained by the Imperial 
 German Government, its consul-general at Samoa had, on the 
 
i04 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 10th November, 1884, concluded a convention -with the Samoan 
 government providing for the creation of a Samoan-German 
 council of government. 
 
 ' ' 57. King Malietoa refused or failed to execute the terms of 
 the convention. 
 
 "58. In some other matters also King Malietoa offended the 
 
 German consul-general, who thereupon, on the 23d January, 1885, 
 
 by way of ' reprisal ' seized or attached the sovereign rights of 
 
 , King Malietoa in and over Apia, and hoisted the Imperial German 
 
 flag on Mulinuu Point. 
 
 "59. The reasons given for this act on the part of the German 
 consul-general are given in the annextures forming copies of com- 
 munications from, that officer to the King, the resident consuls, 
 and the public of Samoa. 
 
 "60. The act of the German consul was at once protested 
 against by the British and American consuls. 
 
 "61. A few days after these occurrences Tamasese, the Vice- 
 King and head of the Tupua party, announced that he had 
 separated from the government. His party issued a proclama- 
 tion, hoisted a flag, and went into rebellion. 
 
 " 63. After the lapse of twelve months during which the rela- 
 tions of all parties were much strained, King Malietoa by reason 
 of the pressure brought to bear upon him by M. Weber, was com- 
 pelled to move from Mulinuu. He then hoisted his flag at Apia 
 within the boundaries of the neutral zone governed by the muni- 
 cipality under the convention of the 2d September, 1879. 
 
 ' ' 64. From this position it was hauled down by an armed 
 body of seamen landed from his Imperial German Majesty's ship 
 of war Albatross on the 23d January, 1886. 
 
 "65. This act was again protested against by the British and 
 American consuls. 
 
 ' ' 67. Upon the departure of the king and his people from 
 Mulinuu, and its seizure by M. Weber, for the company repre- 
 sented by him, the whole country became more disturbed than 
 ever. Kin g Malietoa fafling to hoist his flag at Apia, established 
 his government at a village a mile or two west of that place. 
 The Tamasese or Tupua party had already hoisted their flag and 
 fixed their quarters at Leulumcega. 
 
 "68. On the 28th April, 1886, Admiral Knorr commanding a 
 German squadron of three ships, arrived at Apia, when it was 
 hoped that a better understanding would be arrived at. 
 
 "69. From official and other information it would appear that 
 
SAMOA. 405 
 
 the admiral accorded no recognition whatever to King Malietoa 
 or his Government. 
 
 " 70. On the 16th of the month the squadron left for the North 
 Paciflc. 
 
 " 71. On the 13th, however, Malietoa alarmed by the support 
 he believed was being given by the German authorities to the op- 
 position chief, Tamasese, had applied to the consul for the United 
 States for assistance and protection. 
 
 " 72. The application was acceded to by Mr. Greenebaum, the 
 United States consul, who on the 14th wrote out a notification, 
 which in consequence of delay in printing, or for some other un- 
 explained cause, does not seem to have been published until the 
 16th. 
 
 "73. Upon the 16th, after the German squadron had left the 
 port of Apia, the United States consul hoisted the Samoan flag 
 under the American colors, as an indication that he had, on behalf 
 of his government, assumed a protectorate over Samoa. 
 
 "74. On the same day that the German fleet left, Her Majesty's 
 ship Diamond arrived, and on the 20th the United States ship of ' 
 war Mohican also anchored at Apia. 
 
 "75. The complications were now daily growing more acute. 
 A meeting was therefore held at the British consulate on the 25th, 
 at which Captain Clayton of Her Majesty's ship Diamond, and 
 Captain Day of the United States ship Mohican were present, 
 together with the consuls of England and America. 
 
 "76. It was then arranged that the two consuls should proceed 
 in the Mohican to Leulumoega, and endeavor to bring about a rec- 
 onciliation with Tamasese, or obtain a promise from him to keep 
 the peace. 
 
 ' ' 77. Tamasese behaved with rudeness and peremptorily re- 
 fused to accept advice. 
 
 "78. Malietoa then prepared in earnest for war. 
 
 "79. The armed factions had now approached within striking 
 distance of each other, though, by the exercise of unremitting 
 persuasion on the part of the British consul. King Malietoa kept 
 his force in camp. 
 
 ' ' 80. The King declared to the two consuls that the rebel party 
 had been recognized by the German authorities, and that the 
 German flag was flying over Apia^ while the German consul kept 
 his (the King's) down by force. He wished, he added, ' to end it 
 at once. ' 
 
 " 81. Further meetings were then held between the consuls, 
 
406 TOPICS IN AMEBIC AN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 when the German consul-general happily recognized the undesir- 
 ability of pushing events to the extreme. 
 
 " 82. The German flag was then lowered, the attachment upon 
 the municipality of Apia removed, and a joint proclamation issued 
 that neither the consuls nor the respective governments did, or 
 ever had, ' in any way recognized Tamasese as King of Samoa.' 
 
 "83. But, notwithstanding these remedial measures, the King 
 notified that he would attack the * rebels ' if they had not returned 
 to their homes within the five days ending the 2d June. 
 
 " 84. On the 29th May, consul-general Stuebel, in compliance 
 with a promise made to his colleagues, called personally on the 
 chief Tamasese, at Aana, with the object of inducing him to 
 withdraw his forces and abstain from war. The result of this 
 interview was communicated to the American consul in a letter 
 dated the 30th May. 
 
 "85. Upon the 8th June the ' representatives of Malietoa and 
 his Government', and the ' representatives of Tamasese and his 
 party,' signed on board the United States ship Mohican an agree- 
 ment of perpetual peace : that they, the two parties, should live 
 ' in friendship and cordial relations, ' and ' all forts should be 
 destroyed ' and ' no fire-arms be carried by any Samoan.' Since 
 this date an armed truce has existed, both sides buying, chiefly 
 on credit, all the arms and ammunition procurable. 
 
 "86. The United States flag continued hoisted for some time. 
 It was lowered, or perhaps, more correctly speaking, not hoisted, 
 upon the 24th August, 1886, since which date the flag of King 
 Malietoa has flown in front of the ' Government offices ' at 
 Apia."' 
 
 1 Extract from report of John B. Thurston, British Commissioner to 
 Samoa, October 1, 1886; Ex. Doc. No. 238, H. R., 50th Congress, 1st. Ses- 
 sion, page 268. 
 
 By agreement, the governments of Germany, England, and the United 
 States sent commissioners to Samoa In 1886, to report on the condition of 
 the islands as the basis of further negotiations on the subject . An extract 
 from the report of Thurston, the English commissioner, is here given as 
 being the most concise. The report of George H. Bates, United States com- 
 missioner, is of greater length, and is a detailed history of the subject, but 
 agrees in the main with that of Thurston. It may be found in the volume 
 of United States Foreign Relations for 1889, page 237, and also In Ex. Doc. 
 No. 238, H. R., 50th Congress, 1st session, page 137. The report of 
 the German commissioner, Travers, may be found in the same volume, 
 page 261. 
 
SAMOA. 407 
 
 Tu supplement the report of Thurston in several points, it 
 may be said that after Steinberger had been removed from 
 Samoa, a movement was set on foot to annex the islands to the 
 British colony of Fiji. With the purpose of preventing this, 
 the American consul Colmesnil, in 1877, raised the flag of the 
 United States over that of Samoa. In 1878 the American flag 
 was again raised by Consul Griffin, and with a similar purpose. 
 
 By the treaty of 1878 with Samoa, the United States ac- 
 quired the right to a naval and coaling station in the port of 
 Pango-Pango. 
 
 From 1879 to 1885, the three powers exercised control jointly 
 through their consuls, but Germany having the greatest ma- 
 terial interests in the islands, began to feel that she ought to be 
 allowed to take the lead in the political control. 
 
 The Hamburg News of the 7th of August, 1886, published a 
 communication from Apia which probably expressed the Ger- 
 man view : — 
 
 " There reside in the Samoan group 127 Germans, 62 English- 
 men, 26 Americans, 17 Frenchmen, and 13 Chinese. Apia, the 
 chief commercial place of this group, is at the same time the 
 central point of German trade and German interest in the whole 
 South Seas. * * * 
 
 ' ' Moreover, four-fifths of the entire importation and exporta- 
 tion are in the hands of German firms. * * * 
 
 ' ' The Germans have been most profoundly disappointed in 
 their long-entertained hopes of a ' declaration of protectorate ' 
 for the better appreciation and protection of their preponderat- 
 ing interests, and of a comprehensive reform of criminal rela- 
 tions." 
 
 In 1885, therefore, the Germans, dissatisfied with the King 
 Malietoa, supported the Vice-King, Tamasese, who went into 
 rebellion. The Governments of England and the United States 
 continued, however, to recognize Malietoa; and in 1886, the 
 American consul Greenebaum, hoisted the American flag at 
 Apia. For this act he was censured and recalled, Harold M. 
 Sewall being appointed in his place. It was at this time that 
 the agents were sent out and made their reports. 
 
 In June and July, 1887, a conference was held at Washing- 
 ton, at which the three powers were represented — Mr. Bayard 
 
408 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 for the United States, Sir Lionel West for England, and von 
 Alvensleben for Germany. 
 
 The United States took the position that Samoa should retain 
 its independence, and be allowed to choose its king, and that 
 the powers should assist the islanders to form a civilized 
 government. 
 
 Germany insisted that the natives were not capable of any 
 practicable government, and that the powers should take the 
 government of the islands into their hands ; and, further, that, 
 as Germany had the greatest interests at stake, she " should 
 exercise a preponderating influence." 
 
 In answer, Mr. Bayard said : that it seemed to him that this 
 proposition was in conflict with the principle upon which they 
 propose to proceed, and that it was one which would increase 
 as they progressed. That is to say, that the ultimate result of 
 admitting such a principle as that, and proceeding upon such a 
 basis, would be to reduce the islands into a Germanic posses- 
 sion. 
 
 He said further, that ' ' he wished to draw attention to the fact 
 that the importance of these islands is mainly because of their 
 geographical position. They lie in the pathway of a commerce 
 that is just being developed. The opening of the west coast of 
 North America to civilization and commerce by means of the trans- 
 continental railways had given to this group of islands an interest 
 which they never had before, and moreover we all hope for the 
 penetration of the isthmus in some way or other. If that occurs, 
 a new feature of interest wiU be added to them. Great Britain 
 and Germany, and Spain, and France, at this time hold the 
 island groups in Polynesia, and something more than mere is- 
 lands. Great Britain owns Fiji and New Zealand and other 
 islands. He said nothing of the continent of Australia. Great 
 Britain had her settlement on New Guinea. Germany had the 
 Marshal group and the Solomon Islands. She also has a settle- 
 ment, and a very important one, on New Guinea. Spain has the 
 Carolines ; France makes claims to the New Hebrides. With a 
 great ocean front on the Pacific the United States has not ac 
 quired a foot of land in that region, but they were the first as a 
 power to make a treaty with the Samoans. Our treaty antedates 
 the rest, and there was in it no special privilege of any kind. 
 There was a cession to the United States for their use for a naval 
 
SAMOA. 409 
 
 and coaling station of the harbor of Pango-Pango, which remains 
 now as it was at the time it was ceded. It seemed to him that 
 it was equally important to Germany and to all the other com- 
 mercial nations and to the United States, that there should be a 
 general line of action tending to secure the neutralization of that 
 group of islands. There is something beyond the mere material 
 present value of the land or the products, and it was for that 
 reason the United States desired to see the group of islands main- 
 tained for the conmion use of nations, and the United States 
 should receive the ready support of Great Britain and Germany 
 in endeavoring to impress upon Samoa its counsels in favor o 
 the proposed government. He would not go into a comparison 
 of the relative importance of the Pacific commerce to the United 
 States or to others. The interest of the United States was very 
 great and quite equal to any other, and perhaps in some aspects 
 greater, because less remote from the United States than from 
 Great Britain and Germany, and because anything that is needed 
 there as outposts these two countries have already acquired. 
 The political policies of the United States are not such as to give 
 the slightest alarm to the commercial interest of any other 
 country. The policy of this Government in respect to acquisi- 
 tion of remote points has been pretty well defined, and it was 
 for that reason that the Government of the United States was 
 more disinterested by reason of its policies and by reason of its 
 position in this matter than perhaps any other government equal 
 in importance and having the same prospective interests in the 
 commerce of the Pacific. Germany had proposed to take the 
 nomination bocause at the time they had a greater amount of 
 land, people, and money. He did not know what would be the 
 result of the land commission upon German claims to title." 
 
 The English representative took no active part in the discus- 
 sions, and assumed a neutral position. • 
 
 As the American and German views could not be reconciled, 
 Mr. Bayard proposed, July 26, an adjournment of the confer- 
 ence until autumn ; and this was agreed to by the others. 
 
 In the meantime, the Germans were proceeding with a high 
 hand in Samoa. Four German warships arrived, and active 
 war was begun against Malietoa. ,0n the 24th of August, Com- 
 modore Heusner of the German squadron issued the following 
 proclamation : — 
 
410 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY, 
 
 " By order of His Majesty, the Emperor of Germany, war has 
 been declared against the chief Mahetoa. 
 
 " The neutrality of the municipal districts will be respected as 
 long as the security of the German troops is not endangered by 
 agitators within the municipal district. 
 
 "I call upon the inhabitants of Apia to assist me in the main- 
 tenance of peace and good order in Apia." 
 
 On the same day the German consul Becker sent the follow- 
 ing communication to Mr. Sewall : — 
 
 "I have the honor to inform you that His Majesty, the Emperor 
 of Germany has declared war against the chief Malietoa. 
 
 ' ' Germany does not intend to make any alterations in the 
 existing relations between the three treaty powers and the 
 Samoan Islands ; but adheres to the conventions concluded 
 between the three treaty powers." , 
 
 On the next day the German consul informed Sewall that his 
 government had recognized Tamasese as King of Samoa. 
 
 On that day also the American and British consuls issued the 
 following proclamation : — 
 
 ' ' Whereas the Government of Germany has this day pro- 
 claimed Tamasese King of Samoa. 
 
 ' ' Now, therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the 
 United States of America and Great Britain, hereby give notice 
 that we and our governments do not and never have recognized 
 Tamasese as king of Samoa, but continue as heretofore to recog- 
 nize Malietoa. 
 
 ' ' We advise all Samoans to submit quietly to what they cannot 
 help ; not to fight, whatever the provocation, but to await peace- 
 ably the result of the deliberations now in progress, which alone 
 can determine the future of Samoa." 
 
 On August 27th Sewall issued the following proclamation : — 
 
 " To all who are under the protection of the Government of 
 the United States: 
 
 " Whereas the Commander of the German squadron has pro- 
 claimed martial law. 
 
 ' ' Now, therefore, take notide that the sentries are commanded 
 to shoot until dead men who do not stop when challenged, but 
 attempt to run away." 
 
SAMOA. 411 
 
 Malietoa was now driven into the bush; and Commodore 
 Heusner gave orders for his capture. 
 On October 10, 1887, Consul Sewall writes as follows :— 
 
 " I have the honor to report that on the 17th of September His 
 Majesty King Malietoa gave himself up to the German consul and 
 was taken to the Bismarck, the flag-ship of the German squadron. 
 
 ' ' Previous to this, while yet in the hush, he wrote two letters 
 (inclosures Nos. 1 and 2)." 
 
 ' ' The first is addressed to Samoans, and is MaHetoa's farewell 
 to his people. 
 
 "The second is addressed to me, and sets forth his reasons for 
 doin^ what he is about to do. He does this, he states, to avoid 
 bloodshed and save the lives of his people, for Germany is strong 
 and they are weak. He is ignorant, however, of his offence. He 
 declares that he desired to put down the rebellion of Tamasese at 
 its beginning, but was prevented by the American and British 
 consuls. He reminds me of the assurances so frequently given 
 him, and states that he still looks for their fulfillment. He con- 
 cludes with a declaration that he will never sign away his sover- 
 eignty. 
 
 " Alarmed by the preparations going .on about them, with no 
 prospect of help or of news from the conference which they had 
 been so long awaiting, the chiefs determined to save the lives of 
 their brothers in the bush, and the honor of their King, preferring 
 to have him give himself up, to being taken prisoner, for a Malie- 
 toa has never yet suffered this humiliation. They promised the 
 commodore that they would bring in Malietoa by the 17th, if he 
 would delay until then the commencement of hostilities. The 
 commodore agreed, and they immediately sent out messengers 
 into the bush. On the morning of the 17th the King came in. 
 All the morning he sat with his chiefs, and they were all in tears 
 while the last talk was had. Lauati, the Talking Man, in his 
 speech told them that they need not be ashamed ; that it was to 
 the powerful stranger, not the Tamasese, to whom they were 
 yielding. 
 
 "At two o'clock accompanied by his chiefs and a large number 
 of European residents, Malietoa went to the German barracks and 
 gave himself up. At about three he and the German consul came 
 out, and a boat took them to the Bismarck. As Malietoa walked 
 to the wharf large crowds of his people followed, crying and 
 clinging to him as if they could not give him up." 
 
412 TOPICS EST AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 The United States warship Adams arrived at Samoa on the 
 20th of October, 1887, before which time Americans were with- 
 out protection save that afforded by the consulate. Sewall 
 wrote on November 8th, that the sailors from the German ships 
 were landed on the 14th of October, and were stationed at the 
 Government House, where the Tamasese's flag was flying, the 
 German hospital, the German consulate building, and the muni- 
 cipal jail and court-house. 
 
 On the 18th of November, Prince Bismarck wrote to Zedtwitz, 
 charge d' affaires at Washington, complaining of the conduct 
 of Sewall, and indeed of all the American consuls in Samoa 
 during the previous ten years. He said they were evidently 
 hostile to German interests, and he presumed they were acting 
 without authority from the United States Government. He 
 would, he said, be thankful to Mr. Bayard, if he would lend his 
 assistance in the investigation of this strange fact. 
 
 On the 17th of January, 1888, Bayard answered, through a 
 letter to Pendleton, charging the difficulty upon the German 
 consuls, rather than upon the American, and intimated that the 
 German desire for domination in the islands was the cause of 
 the trouble. 
 
 In August, 1888, Mr. Sewall went to Washington and left 
 Vice-consul Blacklock in charge of the consulate. On Septem- 
 ber 4th, Blacklock telegraphed to Bayard, as follows : — 
 
 ' ' Samoans at war. General revolt against Tamasese. Affairs 
 more serious than ever." 
 
 This telegram was received at Washington September- 15th, 
 and Mr. Bayard suggested to the Secretary of the Navy that he 
 send a discreet offlcer in command of a government vessel to 
 Samoa at the earliest possible day to report fully upon the con- 
 dition of affairs. Secretary Whitney replied on the 17th, that 
 telegraphic instructions had been sent to Rear Admiral Kim- 
 berley to send one of the ships of his command to Samoa for 
 the protection of American interests. 
 
 On the 9th of September, 1888, the Malietoa party elected 
 Mataafa as King of Samoa. On the 13th of September, Com- 
 mander Leary of the American ship Adams wrote to Secretary 
 Whitney, as follows : — 
 
SAMOA. 413 
 
 ' ' The revolutionists have elected and installed Mataaf a, their 
 most important chief in Samoa as King of Samoa, with the name 
 of MaUetoa-Mataaf a, who is now with and directing their actions. 
 
 " At 12.50 p. M. on the 11th (12th by Samoan time) instant, the 
 opposing forces met and fought the greatest battle that has ever 
 taken place in the group, the Tamasese men firing the first shot. 
 
 " After about two hours fighting, the Tamasese men were 
 driven from their first fort into the sea, and some escaped by 
 swimming to their boats. * * * 
 
 " During this battle, the German sailors of the Adler were em- 
 ployed building fortifications on Mulinuu Point, ostensibly for the 
 protection of G-erman property, but Tamasese, with a few men 
 not engaged in the fight, remained there. * * * " 
 
 Tamasese had appointed as prime minister a German by the 
 name of Eugene Brandeis, who directed the military operations, 
 and in fact the government in general. 
 
 The U. S. war vessel Nipsic under command of Mullan ar- 
 rived at Apia, November 7th, 1888. 
 
 On the '5th of January, 1889, Blacklock sent the following 
 telegram to Bayard : — 
 
 " Three German war-ships undertaken to disarm Mataaf a 
 Landed at night force to prevent retreat. Mataafa's men fired 
 on and forced to fight [December 18, 1888]. Germans routed. 
 20 killed, SO wounded. Germans swear vengeance. SheUing 
 and burning indiscriminately regardless of American property. 
 Protest unheeded. Natives exasperated. Foreigners lives and 
 property in greatest danger. Germans respect no neutral ter- 
 ritory. Americans in boats fiying. American flag seized in Apia 
 Harbor by armed German boats, but released. Admiral with 
 squadron necessary immediately. OfBcer accompanying this 
 dispatch can be questioned at Auckland where he wfil remain 
 three weeks." 
 
 On the 11th of January, Mr. Bayard telegraphed to Black- 
 lock : — 
 
 " Proper measures have been adopted for protection of Ameri- 
 can interests in Samoa, and to preserve Samoan independence. 
 Admiral Kimberley with frigate Trenton starts at once. You wUl 
 consult freely with him." 
 
414 TOPICS IN AMEEICAK DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Secretary Whitney in instructions to Admiral Kimbcrley 
 ordered him, 
 
 ' ' to protest against the subjugation and displacement of native 
 government of Samoa by Germany as in violation of positive 
 agreement and understanding between treaty powers, but inform 
 the representatives of the German and British Governments of 
 your readiness to co-operate in causing all treaty rights to be 
 respected, and in restoring peace and order on the recognition of 
 Samoan right to independence. Endeavor to prevent extreme 
 raeasures against Samoans, and bring about a peaceful settle- 
 ment. If such arrangement can be made on that basis, you wUl 
 report the same for approval, and you will inform this govern- 
 ment as soon as possible after your arrival in Samoa of the con- 
 dition of affairs and the prospect of peaceful adjustment and 
 ■whether Germany was acting impartially between the opposing 
 forces when the late conflict occurred." 
 
 In a communication to the United States through the Ger- 
 man Minister, Count von Arco-V'alley, Prince Bismarck wrote, 
 January 13, as follows : — 
 
 ' ' We shall carry on the contest which has been forced upon us 
 by Mataafa and his followers, with the utmost consideration for 
 English and American interests. Our military measures have in 
 view only the punishment of the murderers of German soldiers 
 and the protection of our countrymen and their property. As 
 they, on their part, are at war with Tamasese, our interference 
 will necessarily assume the character of assistance to Tamasese. 
 
 ' ' In the endeavor for the just punishment of a murderous crime 
 we hope for the co-operation of the treaty powers in Samoa in 
 friendship with us, and we ask the Government of the United 
 States to be good enough to furnish the consuls, and the com- 
 manders of its ships of war in Samoa with suitable instructions. 
 Our armed forces there are instructed to avoid and to prevent all 
 injury to neutral commerce and property, and to adopt measures 
 of reprisal and destruction only against the followers of the 
 party which initiated the contest against our troops in a mur- 
 derous attack. 
 
 " We shall, of course, abide by the agreements with America 
 and England with respect to Samoa, and pay due regard under 
 all circumstances to the rights of those powers as established 
 by treaty 
 
SAMOA. 415 
 
 In a despatch to Count Arco- Valley, of January 31, 1889, Mr. 
 Bayard informed him that Consul Blacklock had telegraphed 
 that : the German consul in Samoa had declared "Germany at 
 war with Mataafa, and Samoa under martial law." He con- 
 tinued : 
 
 "Our minister at Berlin was therefore instructed to make 
 it known at the German foreign ofiBlce that the United States 
 assumes that German oflScials in Samoa would in this sense be 
 instructed scrupulously to abstain from all interference with 
 American citizens and their property in Samoa, and that no 
 increase or expansion of German jurisdiction over American 
 citizens or their property would be caused by the German declara- 
 tion of m^artial law, nor would such jurisdiction be recognized or 
 conceded by the United States." 
 
 On the 1st of February, 1889, Count Arco- Valley, by instruc- 
 tion of Bismarck, sent the following communication to Secre- 
 tary Bayard : — 
 
 " When the state of war was declared against Mataafa the com- 
 mander of the German squadron issued a proclamation by which 
 the foreigners established in Samoa were subjected to martial 
 law. International law would, to a certain extent, not prevent 
 such a measure, but as Prince Bismarck is of the opinion that our 
 military authority has gone too far in this instance, the miUtary 
 commander has received telegraphic orders to withdraw the 
 part of his proclamation concerning foreigners. 
 
 ' ' In negotiation with Mataafa our consul at Samoa has asked 
 that the administration of the Islands of Samoa might be tem- 
 porarily handed over to him, which demand not being in conform- 
 ity to our previous promises regarding the neutrality and in- 
 dependence of Samoa, Mr. Knappe has been ordered by telegram 
 to withdraw immediately his command." 
 
 During the latter part of January, 1889, the question of a 
 war with Germany was discussed in the press of Europe and 
 America. The vigorous tone of the government of the United 
 States, and the sending of ships of war to Samoa gave some 
 color to the rumors that the United States meant to fight. 
 Admiral Kimberley was ordered to proceed from Panama to 
 ■ Samoa with his flag-ship, the Trenton, and on the 20th of Jan- 
 
416 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 uary, the Yandalia also, sailed from San Francisco for the 
 same destination. With the Nipsic, which was still at Apia, 
 there were at the end of February three American ships of war 
 in Samoan waters. The Germans had likewise three ships 
 there present — the Olga, the Adler, and the Eber ; while Eng- 
 land had but one, the Calliope. It is a singular fact that, soon 
 after the arrival of Admiral Kimberley at Apia, all these ships, 
 the Calliope, excepted, were wrecked in that harbor by a tor- 
 nado which swept over the islands. Of the American vessels, 
 the Nipsic was afterwards raised and repaired. 
 
 On the 4th of February, Bismarck proposed a conference of 
 the three powers for the purpose of settling the Samoan diffi- 
 culty. Said the German Minister to Mr. Bayard : — 
 
 ' ' Prince Bismarck, in consequence, considers it a duty of the 
 participating governments to put an end, by the agreement of 
 the treaty powers, to the troubles which have originated in Samoa, 
 and by restitution of peace among the Samoans themselves, and 
 so make an end of future bloodshed and the horrors of civil war 
 conducted with barbarous cruelty among the natives. 
 
 ' ' The best remedy seems to be a resumption of the consultation 
 which took place between the representatives of Germany, Eng- 
 land, and the United States in the year 1887 at Washington, and 
 at that time adjourned without any possibility of their repre- 
 sentatives coming to any agreement. 
 
 ' ' In consequence I have been requested by Prince Bismarck to 
 propose to you to resume with Germany and the British Govern- 
 ment the consultation regarding the Samoan question. 
 
 " The last conference took place at Washington. According to 
 the equal rights of the three treaty powers it seems proper that 
 the place for the negotiations should change in regular turn. 
 Based upon this opinion, I am directed to invite the Government 
 of the United States to a conference regarding Samoa to take 
 place at Berlin, and a similar invitation has been sent to the 
 British Government. 
 
 ' ' I am also directed to declare that any supposition that Ger- 
 many would not feel satisfied with a neutral position in the Samoan 
 Islands is unfounded, as we have already declared in the last con- 
 ference (of 1887) it is neither our intention to put in question the 
 independence of the island group nor the fequal rights of the treaty 
 powers. We simply desire to create a condition which oflEers per- 
 manent security for bringing to an end bloodshed and decapita- 
 
SAMOA. 417 
 
 tion, and which grants permanent safety to the commercial 
 interests of the three treaty powers in Samoa." 
 
 The next day, February 5, Mr. Bayard replied : — 
 
 " The President having been made acquainted fully with the 
 tenor of the instructions received by you from Prince Bismarck 
 and read by you yesterday for my transcription, he requests mo 
 to say that he fully shares in the desire expressed by the prince 
 chancellor to bring the blessings of peace and order to the remote 
 and feeble community of semi-civilized people inhabiting the 
 Islands of Samoa ; and that he clearly recognizes the duty of the 
 powerful nations of Christendom to deal with these people in a 
 spirit of magnanimity and benevolence. 
 
 "On behalf of the United States Grovernment, the President 
 instructs me to express his acceptance of the proposal of the 
 Government of Germany to resume the consultation held in this 
 city between the representatives of the United States, Germany, 
 and Great Britain, which was suspended on the 26 th day of 
 July, 1887, such consultation to be renewed, as it was undertaken, 
 for the purpose of establishing peace and an orderly stable gov- 
 ernment in the Samoan Islands, on the basis of their recognized 
 independence and the equal rights of the three treaty powers. 
 The resumption of such conference as it is now proposed by Prince 
 Bismarck upon the general lines advanced by each of the three 
 powers, as set forth in the protocols of the conference as far as it 
 has progressed and embracing certain points of agreement, ap- 
 pears to present a hopeful prospect for securing the welfare of 
 the Samoan people, and such a neutralization of territorial juris- 
 diction as will prevent preponderant control by any nation and 
 secure equal rights of commerce and navigation to aU." 
 
 Accordingly commissioners of the three powers met in Ber- 
 lin, April 29, 1889, and on the 14th of June signed a conven- 
 tion for the regulation of Samoan affairs. 
 
 John A. Kasson, William Walter Phelps, and George H. 
 Bates represented the United States; Count Herbert Bis- 
 marck, Holstein, and R. Krauel, Germany; and Edward B. 
 Malet, Charles S. Scott, and J. C. Crowe, England. 
 
 The more important provisions are as follows : — 
 
 " It is declared that the Islands of Samoa are neutral territory, 
 
 27 
 
418 TOPICS IK AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in which the citizens and subjects of the three signatory powers 
 have equal rights of residence, trade, and personal protection. 
 The three powers recognize the independence of the Samoan Gov- 
 ernment and the free right of the natives to elect their chief or 
 king and choose their form of government according to their own 
 laws and customs. Neither of the powers shall exercise any 
 separate control over the islands or the government thereof. 
 
 " It is further declared, with a view to the prompt restoration 
 of peace and good order in the said islands, and in view of the 
 difficulties which would surround an election in the present dis- 
 ordered condition of their government, that Malietoa Laupepa, 
 who was formerly made and appointed king on the 12th day of 
 July, 1881, and was so recognizied by the three powers, shall 
 again be recognized hereafter in the exercise of such authority, 
 unless the three powers shall by common accord otherwise de- 
 clare ; and his successor shall be duly elected according to the 
 laws and customs of Samoa. 
 
 ' ' Considering that the following provisions of this general act 
 cannot be fully effective without a modification of certain provis- 
 ions of the treaties theretofore existing between the three powers, 
 respectively, and the Government of Samoa, it is mutually declared 
 that in every case where the provisions of this act shall be incon- 
 sistent with any provisions of such treaty or treaties, the provisions 
 of this act shall prevail. 
 
 ' ' Considering, further, that the consent of the Samoan Gov- 
 ernment is requisit6 to the validity of the stipulations hereinafter 
 contained, the three powers mutually agree to request the assent 
 of the Samoan Government to the same, which when given, shall 
 be certified in writing, to each of the three governments through 
 the medium of their respective consuls in Samoa." 
 
 Article III. 
 
 ^'' A declaration respecting the establishment of a surpeme court 
 of justice for Samoa and defining its jurisdiction." 
 
 " Section 1. A supreme court shall be established in Samoa, to 
 consist of one judge, who shall be styled chief- justice of Samoa, 
 and who shall appoint a clerk and a marshal of the court; and 
 record shall be kept of all orders and decisions made by the 
 court, or by the chief -justice in the discharge of any duties imposed 
 
SAMOA. 419 
 
 on him under this act. The clerk and marshal shall be allowed 
 reasonable fees to be regulated by order of the court. 
 
 " Section. 2. With a view to secure judicial independence and 
 the equal consideration of the rights of all parties, irrespective of 
 nationality, it is agreed that the chief justice shall \)e named by 
 the three signatory powers in common accord ; or, failing their 
 agreement, he may be named by the King of Sweden and Norway. 
 He shall be learned in law and equity, and of good repute for his 
 sense of honor, impartiality and justice. 
 
 " His decision upon questions within his jurisdiction shall be 
 final. He shall be appointed by the Samoan Government upon 
 the certificate of his nomination as herein provided. He shaU. 
 receive an annual salary of six thousand dollars ($6,000) in gold, 
 or its equivalent, to be paid the first year in equal proportion 
 by the three treaty powers, and afterward out of the revenues 
 of Samoa apportioned to the use of the Samoan G-overnment, 
 upon which his compensation shall be the first charge. Any 
 deficiency therein shall be made good by the three powers in 
 equal shares. 
 
 ' ' The powers of the chief- justice in case of a vacancy of that 
 office from any cause shall be exercised by the president of the 
 municipal council until a successor shall be duly appointed and 
 qualified. 
 
 " Section 3. In case either of the four governments shall at any 
 time have cause of complaint against the chief -justice for any 
 misconduct in office, such complaint shall be presented to the 
 authority which nominated him, and if, in the judgment of such 
 authority, there is sufficient cause for his removal, he shall be 
 removed. If the majority of the three treaty powers so request 
 he shall be removed. In either case of removal, or in case the 
 office shall become otherwise vacant, his successor shall be ap- 
 pointed as hereinbefore provided. 
 
 "Section 4. The supreme court shall have jurisdiction of all 
 questions arising under the provisions of this gereral act, and 
 the decision or order of the court thereon shall be conclusive upon 
 all residents of Samoa. The court shall also have appellate juris- 
 diction over all municipal magistrates and officers. 
 
 " Section 5. The chief -justice is authorized at his. own discretion, 
 and required upon written request of either party litigant, to 
 appoint assessors, one of the nationality of each litigant, to 
 assist the court, but without voice in the decision. 
 
 " Section 6. In case any question shall hereafter arise in Samoa 
 
420 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 respecting the rightful election or appointment of king or of any- 
 other chief claiming authority over the islands, or respecting the 
 validity of the powers which the king or any chief may claim in 
 the exercise of his office, such question shall not lead to war, but 
 shall be presented for decision to the chief -justice of Samoa, who 
 shall decide it in writing, conformably to the provisions of this 
 act and to the laws and customs of Samoa, not in conflict there- 
 with ; and the signatory governments will accept and abide by 
 such decision. 
 
 " Section 7. In case any difference shall arise between any of 
 the treaty powers and Samoa which they shall fail to adjust by 
 mutual accord, such difEerence shall not be held cause for war, 
 but shall be referred for adjustment on the principles of justice 
 and equity to the chief -justice of Samoa, who shall make his de- 
 cision thereon in writing. 
 
 "Section 8. The chief- justice may recommend to the Govern- 
 ment of Samoa the passage of any law which he may consider 
 just and expedient for the prevention and punishment of crime 
 and for the promotion of good order in Samoa outside the munici- 
 pal district and for the collection of taxes within the district. 
 
 "Section 9. Upon the organization of the supreme court there 
 shall be transferred to its exclusive jurisdiction — 
 
 "1. All civil suits concerning real property situated in Samoa 
 and all rights affecting the same. 
 
 " 2. All civil suits of any kind between natives and foreigners 
 or between foreigners of different nationalities. 
 
 "3. All crimes and offences committed by natives against 
 foreigners or committed by such foreigners as are not subject to 
 any consular jurisdiction ; subject, however, to the provisions of 
 Section 4, Article V., defining the jurisdiction of the municipal 
 magistrate of the district of Apia. 
 
 "Section 10. The practice and procedure of common law, 
 equity, and admiralty, as administered in the courts of England, 
 may be — so far as applicable — the practice and procedure of this 
 court ; but the court may modify such practice and procedure 
 from time to time as shall be required by local circumstances. 
 The court shall have authority to impose, according to the crime, 
 the punishment established therefor by the laws of the United 
 States, of England, or of Germany, as the chief -justice shall de- 
 cide most appropriate ; or, in the case of native Samoans and 
 other natives of the South Sea Islands, according to the laws and 
 customs of Samoa. 
 
SAMOA. 421 
 
 " Section 11. Nothing in this article shall be so construed as to 
 affect existing consular jurisdiction over all questions arising 
 between masters and seamen of their respective national vessels; 
 nor shall the court take any ex post facto or retroactive jurisdic- 
 tion over crimes or offences committed prior to the organization 
 of the court." 
 
 Aeticlb IV. 
 
 ' ' A declaration respecting titles to land in Samoa and restrain- 
 ing the disposition thereof- by natives, and providing for the 
 investigation of claims thereto, and for the registration of valid 
 titles:' 
 
 AUTICLB V. 
 
 " A declaration respecting the municipal district of Apia, pro- 
 viding a local administration therefor, and defining the jurisdic- 
 tion of the municipal magistrate.^' 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 " A declaration respecting taxation and revenue in Samoa." 
 
 Abticle VII. 
 
 ' ' A declaration respecting arms and ammunition, and intoxi- 
 cating liquors, restraining their sale and use.'''' 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 ' ' General dispositions. ' ' 
 
 " Section 1. The provisions of this act shall continue in force 
 until changed by consent of the three powers. Upon the request 
 of either power after three years from the signature thereof, the 
 powers shall consider by common accord what ameliorations, if 
 any, may be introduced into the provisions of this general act. 
 In the meantime any special amendment may be adopted by the 
 consent of the three powers with the adherence of Samoa." 
 
 "Proclamation of Consuls." 
 
 ' ' We, the undersigned representatives of the Governments of 
 Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, hereby make 
 known to the people of Samoa that our governments, with a view 
 to the prompt restoration of peace and good order in the Samoan 
 Islands, and in view of the difficulties which would surround an 
 election in the present disordered condition of their government. 
 
422 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 have by common accord declared that Malietoa Laupepa, -who 
 was formerly made and appointed King on the 12th of July, 1881, 
 and was so recognized by the three powers, shaU again be so recog- 
 nized hereafter in the exercise of such authority. 
 
 " We at the same time invite the people of Sajnoa to take with- 
 out delay such measures as according to Samoan custom are neces- 
 sary to reinstate the High Chief Laupepa as King of Sajnoa. 
 
 " DR. STUEBEL, 
 
 " H. I. G. M. Consul-General. 
 "H. DECOETLOGON, 
 
 "H. B.M. Consul. 
 " W. BLACKLOCK, 
 "U. S. Vice-consul. 
 " Apia., November 8, 1890." 
 
 At a meeting of the Samoan rulers on December 4, 1889, it 
 was decided that Malietoa should be King, and even Tamasese 
 acquiesced in this arrangement as the, best settlement of the 
 question.^ 
 
 EEMARKS ON THE MONROE DOCTRINE, 
 
 The declaration of President Monroe, in 1823, had a definite 
 purpose ; namely, to defeat the machinations of the so-called 
 " Holy Alliance," which, having suppressed by force of arms 
 all popular demonstrations in Europe, proposed to transfer its 
 activity to this continent, to restore the monarchical authority 
 in the Spanish American republics, and, perhaps, to attack the 
 United ^ates. The declaration was, therefore, a defensive 
 measurcil^he European Alliance had announced a policy which 
 was thought to be dangerous to the interests and peace of the 
 United States, but the particular circumstances which called 
 forth that declaration have passed away forever. Since that 
 time, Europe itself has become to a great degree, democratic ; 
 
 1 The correspondence with reference to Samoa may be found in Ex. Doc. 
 No. 238, H. R. 50th Congress, First Session: Ex. Doc. No. 31, Senate, 50th 
 Congress, Second Session; Ex. Doc. No. 58, Senate, 50th Congress, Second 
 Session; Ex. Doc. No. 118, H. R.,50th Congress, Second Session; Ex. Doc. 
 No. 102, Senate, 50th Congress, Second Session; Mis. Doc. No. 81, Senate, 
 15st Congress, First Session. 
 
BEMAUKS ON THE MONKOB DOCTEINE. 423 
 
 and with this change, the spirit of monarchical propagandism 
 has ceased to exist. 
 
 The danger of European aggression has been lessened, too, 
 by the fact that the Spanish American States, still struggling 
 for their independence in 1823, are now recognized republics of 
 seventy years' standing. And this is well understood in South 
 America. The Minister of Foreign affairs of the Argentine 
 Confederation said, in 1881, that " happily the day has gone by 
 in which political combinations on this continent had for their 
 principal object the preserving of their independence against 
 foreign aggression and machinations. Europe no longer har- 
 bors any thought of conquest or chimerical vindications." 
 
 It must be admitted, however, that there is a tendency on 
 the part of several leading European States to extend their 
 dominion in the interest of their navigation and trade. At 
 present this tendency shows itself in the inordinate desire to 
 plant colonies in all places not yet occupied by civilized socie- 
 ties ; and it is by no means improbable that, did a favorable 
 opportunity offer itself, they would attempt to gain vantage- 
 ground on the continents or islands of this hemisphere. It 
 ought not to be expected that the United States will be an in- 
 different spectator of these movements, at least, where their 
 interests are at stake, whether it be a question of the American 
 continents or of islands in the Atlantic or Pacific. But it is 
 not necessary to attempt to stretch the Monroe doctrine so as 
 to include every possible case, nor to exclude other cases from 
 I its effect ; we have outgrown the Monroe doctrine, and ought 
 to be able to have a foreign policy entirely independent of it. 
 The Uhited States are large in extent of territory, and strong 
 in material resources, and stronger still in their defensive posi- 
 tion between two oceans ; and there is no longer any occasion 
 as there was in the early part of the century, to fear those 
 " entangling alliances " with European powers, in regard either 
 to European or American affairs. It was not contemplated by 
 Washington, when he so earnestly enjoined upon his country- 
 men a policy of isolation, that we should always hold aloof 
 from the rest of the world. The danger, as he saw it, would 
 pass away so soon as the infant State should have arrived at 
 the vigor of manhood : there would come a time, he said, when 
 the United States could choose war or peace at their pleasure. 
 
424 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 What, then, is the sense of adhering, in the strict letter, to a 
 policy adopted, of necessity, in the early period of our history, 
 but the reason for which no longer exists ? In this age of 
 steam and electricity, the differejit countries of the world have 
 been brought wonderfully near to one another, in comparison 
 with fifty years ago. The United States have interests in all 
 parts of the world, and there may come a time when they could 
 properly exert an influence for good ; certainly it is not a time 
 when we should adhere to a Chinese policy of exclusion in re- 
 spect of the American continents. 
 
 Yet on the other hand, are we to cast aside wholly our con- 
 servative foreign policy of the past, and enter upon a career of 
 aggression and conquest ? In the view of some of our states- 
 men, the exclusive control of the proposed isthmian canal is 
 but one part of a greater scheme, which includes the annexa- 
 tion of the Hawaiian Islands, of Cuba, and, perhaps, of 
 Mexico. The United States are thus to control the commerce 
 of, the Pacific Ocean, as well as that of the Gulf of Mexico and 
 the Caribbean Sea. The Latin American States are to be 
 forced, willing or unwilling, into a commercial union by which 
 their trade is to be mainly with the United States. As the 
 United States delegates to the International American Confer- 
 ence intimated, the " Home Market " theory was to be extended 
 to all the States of the Western Hemisphere. 
 
 To carry out this plan requires, of course, the aid of a power- 
 ful navy ; and indeed that is an important feature of the pro- 
 posed system ; and all this is to be done in the name of the\ 
 Monroe doctrine. 
 
 Perhaps it would be well to take time to consider to what 
 result this policy will inevitably lead us. Is there not danger 
 indeed that we shall change the Monroe doctrine from a de- 
 fensive into an aggressive policy ; that we shall not only keep 
 European powers away from the American continents, but that 
 we shall revive their methods, in extending our boundaries 
 and dominion, or, perhaps, set up an American "Holy Alli- 
 ance?" When we speak of making the proposed canal our 
 southern coast line, we go far in that direction. We should 
 then be doing, in the supposed interests of trade, what was, in 
 an earlier period of our history, done in the interests of 
 slavery. In adopting such a policy, we should, moreover, ali- 
 
^ EEMAEKS ON THE MONROE DOCTEINB. 425 
 
 enate the sympathies of the Spanish American States, with 
 their forty-five millions of inhabitants, and force them into the 
 arms of Europe ; indeed there have been indications of such a 
 result. Spanish Americans are not slow in detecting signs of 
 aggression on our part. A Central American newspaper de- 
 clared, on August 4, 1881, that "we should suffer an undecep- 
 tion, if the Government of the United States, representing a 
 great people, ruled by exemplary institutions, should adopt, 
 with the other nations of America, before the world, which 
 looks on with lively interest, a policy, troublesome, radically 
 egotistical, that would sacrifice the sacred principles of justice 
 to the spirit of mercantilism, overpowering and dangerously 
 developed." 
 
 A very intelligent South American, Mr. Sarmiento, then 
 Argentine Minister in Washington, said, in 1886, " The Federal 
 system is the most admirable combination which chance ever 
 suggested to the genius of man. . . But it is dangerous to con- 
 vert the Federal system into an invading republic, swallowing 
 ever, without being able to digest. The experiment has never 
 succeeded. . . The Monroe Doctrine must be purified of all 
 the stains by which the hand of mUn has dimmed its lustre. . . 
 The United States ought to say that it is the country which 
 lies between two oceans and two treaties ; and the day after it 
 has said so, the Monroe Doctrine will be accepted by the in- 
 ternational law of Europe, thus removing the greatest source 
 of present peril." 
 
 Now, as to the much-maligned Clayton-Bulwer treaty, what 
 have been and what are its dangers or disadvantages for us ? 
 In the first place its restrictive clauses have effected all that 
 the makers of the treaty expected of them ; they have kept 
 Central America from falling under the dominion of England, 
 — a fact of the first importance. Having gained this great 
 object, it would seem hardly just to say to England now: 
 " We have no longer any need of the treaty ; we can look after 
 the canal ourselves." England might very well reply, as in 
 1857, that, in that case, she should insist upon being placed m 
 the same position in Central America which she occupied before 
 the treaty was made. But, aside from this consideration, the 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty probably offers the best possible solu- 
 tion of the canal question, namely, in the clause which con- 
 
426 TOPICS IN AMEBICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 templates the invitation of all interested States to join in the 
 protectorate of the canal, in other words the neutralization of 
 the canal. By the adoption of this plan, the United States 
 would gain all the advantages which a canal would offer, and 
 without the necessity of keeping on foot an enormous navy, or 
 of entering generally upon a career of militarism, which is at 
 this moment the calamity and the danger in European nations. 
 As Dr. Wharton pointed out : " Such an international agree- 
 ment, entered into by all the great powers, would not be in 
 conflict with the Monroe Doctrine. For an agreement that no 
 powers whatever should be permitted to invade the neutrality 
 of an isthmus route, but that it should be absolutely neutralized • 
 so as to protect it from all foreign assaults by which its freedom 
 should be imperilled, is an application, not a cofltravention, of 
 the Monroe Doctrine. Such an agreement is not an approval 
 of, but an exclusion of foreign interposition." ^ 
 
 There would probably be no objection on the part of Euro- 
 pean States to the United States taking a leading part in the 
 management of the canal ; that would be a natural consequence 
 of our position. 
 
 The argument of Mr. Blaine as to England's control of the 
 Suez Canal has, of course, no longer any force since, by the joint 
 action of the European powers, on the 29th of October, 1888, 
 that canal has been neutralized. 
 
 On the other hand, if we set aside the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty, and attempt an exclusive control of the canal, we shall 
 encounter many difficulties. More than half the world is in- 
 terested, politically or commercially in the isthmian canal ; and 
 it is more than probable that all the maritime States of Europe 
 and America would combine to oppose our exclusive control of 
 it. In the case of the Panama route, moreover the sole basis 
 of our claim is the thirty-fifth article of the treaty of 1846 with 
 Colombia, which may be abrogated at any time by a twelve- 
 months' notice on the part of Colombia, and thus leave us with- 
 out the semblance of a legal right to a protectorate over that 
 route. In regard to the Nicaragua route, it is said that we 
 should be able to control it by annexing Mexico and a part of 
 Central America. Herein lies the real danger of such a policy ; 
 
 1 Digest of International Law, II. 243 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 427 
 
 and the warning of Mr. Sarmiento applies to it. To take into 
 our Union twelve millions of people, of a race totally different 
 from ours in temperament, in traditions and laws, in capacity 
 for self-government, and in their habits and religion, would in- 
 troduce an element of discord and perpetual trouble, which it 
 would be the part of wisdom to avoid. 
 
 As to the question of annexation of territory in general, there 
 is serious danger to our system of government in introducing 
 into it territories which are occupied by any races essentially 
 different from our own. The history and the present political 
 condition of those States, composed of peoples of different 
 nationalities, should be a warning to us not to repeat that fun- 
 damental mistake. 
 
 THE PISHEEIES QUESTION. 
 
 It is said there are two sides to every question : and we may 
 add, that the fisheries question forms no exception to the rule. 
 In the dispute about the fisheries between the United States 
 and England, which has been going on for more than a century, 
 each party has apparently come to believe that the other is 
 wholly in the wrong. The truth would seem to be somewhere 
 between these two extremes. The real issue has been so be- 
 fogged by a mass of doubtful claims and abstruse reasoning 
 that the average man despairs of reaching a definite conclusion 
 in the matter. 
 
 Besides the old claim of the United States to a natural right 
 in the British fisheries in America, there have arisen questions 
 of international law, such as the nature of the jurisdiction over 
 the ocean, within the three-mile limit, the question of headlands, 
 the interpretation of treaties, and the rights of vessels under 
 the laws of navigation and commerce. 
 
 The subject may be conveniently divided into the following 
 heads, to be discussed as nearly as possible in their historical 
 order : — 
 
 1. Did the United States have a right to the inshore fisheries 
 of the British provinces independent of the treaty of 1783 ? 
 
 2. Was the article of that treaty granting the liberty to fish 
 in British waters abrogated by the war of 1812 ? 
 
428 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 3. Has the article relating to the fisheries of the conveution 
 of 1818 been modified by subsequent statutes of the two coun- 
 tries relating to navigation and commerce ? 
 
 4. What is the rule of international law as to jurisdiction 
 over the three-mile limit ? And is this limit to be measured 
 from headland to headland in the case of bays more than six 
 miles wide, or is it to follow the sinuosities of the shore ? 
 
 5. The Keciprocity treaties of 1854 and 1871. 
 
 6. The controversy in recent years. 
 
 In any discussion of the history of the controversies about 
 the fisheries between the United States and England, the fact 
 must be recognized that the relative importance of the fisheries 
 as an industry and commercially was very much greater during 
 the colonnial period and for some time subsequently than it is 
 at the present time. In the New England colonies the fisheries 
 not only were the chief source of food at times, but they 
 furnished the first articles of export, and laid the foundation of 
 their commerce and navigation. It was not without reason, 
 therefore, that Lord North's bill, of 1775, depriving Massachu- 
 setts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island of the 
 fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland and other places, was 
 expected to " starve them into submission." 
 
 England had claimed, as France had done before her, the ex- 
 clusive right of fishing over a very extensive area of sea — in- 
 cluding the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Newfoundland Banks. 
 When the last of the French territory in this part of America 
 (with the exception of the islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre) 
 was transferred to England by the treaty of 1763, French 
 fishermen were excluded from the fisheries within three leagues 
 of the British coast in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fifteen 
 leagues from the island of Cape Breton. ^ By the same treaty 
 Spain formally renounced all her claims to territory and 
 rights in that part of America. It is important to remember 
 that the rule of the " freedom of the seas " and the " three-mile 
 limit " had not then attained a fixed determination. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the statesmen of the Continen- 
 tal Congress expected that England would, in negotiating a 
 peace, attempt to exclude the United States from the fisheries 
 of the Newfoundland banks and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
 
 1 See extracts from the treaties of 1713 and 1763, supra, pp. 1- 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 429 
 
 But, as important as the fisheries were to them, the members 
 of Congress did not make the right to the fisheries an ultima- 
 tum, in the instructions to John Adams, August 14, 1779, to 
 negotiate a treaty of peace.^ In instructions of the same date 
 for the negotiation of a treaty of commerce, however, the fish- 
 ing rights are made an important part. ^ What they insisted on 
 liere was the right to fish on the " banks of Newfoundland and 
 other fisheries in the American seas anywhere, excepting within 
 the distance of three leagues of the shores of the territories re- 
 maining to Great Britain at the close of the war, if a nearer 
 distance cannot be obtained by negotiation." And Mr. Adams 
 was to endeavor to obtain a " nearer distance to the Gulf of St. 
 Lawrence " and " along the shores of Nova Scotia," and even 
 an occasional use of the shores. There is no intimation in 
 these instructions of any claim to a right in the British shore- 
 fisheries. And indeed, on the 12th of July, 1781, the commission 
 and instructions for the negotiation of a treaty of commerce 
 were revoked, thus leaving no instructions or ultimatum to 
 insist on even a right to the bank or deep-sea fisheries. 
 
 On the 27th of October, 1781, the Massachusetts legislature, 
 by resolution, instructed the delegates from that State in Con- 
 gress to insist on the right to the fisheries ; and the resolution 
 having been referred to a committee, the committee reported 
 on the 16th of August, 1782.' An extract from this very able 
 report is given above (p. 57), and it will be seen therein that no 
 claim is made to a right to the shore-fisheries of British terri- 
 tory ; it is an argument drawn from history and practice to 
 prove that the open sea is not subject to appropriation by any 
 State. The Newfoundland banks, therefore, " the nearest point 
 of which is thirty-five leagues distant from Cape Race, are too 
 far advanced in the Atlantick to be a dependence of the shores." 
 
 It appears not to have .occurred to the statesmen of the 
 revolutionary \ period to put forward a claim of right to the 
 shore-fisheries of the territories remaining to Great Britain ; 
 indeed they anticipated a hard fight to establish their right to 
 the deep-sea fisheries on the banks. This being the case, how 
 did it happen that by the treaty of peace, the United States 
 obtained the privilege of both the bank and shore-fisheries ? 
 
 I Supra, p. 64. ^ Supra, p. 55. ' Supra, p. 57. 
 
430 TOPICS IN AKEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 The fact seems to be that John Adams was determined to get 
 the use of these fisheries regardless of instructions ; and gave 
 the British commissioners to understand that this was an ulti- 
 matum on the part of the United States. 
 
 In the meantime Congress had added to the commission Ben- 
 jamin Franklin, John Jay and Henry Laurens. On the part of 
 England was Mr. Oswald, as commissioner, assisted by Mr. 
 Strachey and Mr. Fitzherbert. 
 
 In one of their discussions which had continued the whole 
 day, says Mr. Adams : " I proposed a new article concerning the 
 fishery ; it was discussed and turned in every light, and multi- 
 tudes of amendments proposed on each side ; and at last the 
 article drawn as it was finally agreed to. 
 
 " The other English gentlemen being withdrawn upon some 
 occasion, I asked Mr. Oswald if he could consent to leave out 
 the limitation of three leagues from all their shores, and the 
 fifteen from those of Louisburg. He said, in his own opinion, 
 he was for it ; but his instructions were such that he could not 
 do it." 
 
 From this and from other incidents the American commis- 
 sioners now appeared to have strongly suspected that Mr. 
 Oswald's instructions did not make the fisheries an ultimatum, 
 that a certain discretion was permitted to him, and Mr. Adams, 
 at least, determined to make a bold strike for the complete 
 right to the whole fishery. He continues : — 
 
 " Upon the return of the other gentlemen, Mr. Strachey pro- 
 posed to leave out the word ' right ' of fishing, and make it 
 ' liberty ' (for the entire fishery). Mr. Fitzherbert said that 
 the word ' right ' was an obnoxious expression. Upon this, I 
 rose up and said, ' Gentlemen, is there or can there be a clearer 
 right ? In former treaties, — that of Utrecht and that of Paris, 
 — France and England have claimed the right, and used the 
 word. When God Almighty made the banks of Newfoundland 
 at three hundred leagues distance from the people of America, 
 and at six hundred leagues distance from those of France and 
 England, did he not give as good a right to the former as to 
 the latter ? If Heaven in the creation gave a right, it is ours 
 at least as much as yours. If occupation, use, and possession 
 give a right, we have it as clearly as you. If war, and blood, 
 and treasure give a right, ours is ais good as yours.' " It must 
 
THE FI5HBEIES QXTESTION. 431 
 
 be borne in mind that here was mainly question of the bank 
 fisheries. 
 
 The British negotiators had been willing to concede the use 
 of the high seas as a privilege, whilst they denied it altogether 
 within three leagues of their coasts. But not prepared to re- 
 sist the argument, they proposed to sign the preliminaries, 
 leaving this question to be adjusted by the definitive treaty. 
 But Mr. Adams would not consent to this, says his biographer 
 (Mr. Charles Francis Adams). " He rose, and with the concen- 
 trated power which he possessed when excited, declared that 
 when first commissioned as a negotiator with Great Britain, 
 his country had ordered him to make no peace without a clear 
 acknowledgment of the right of the fishery, and by their direc- 
 tion he would stand. No preliminaries should have his signa- 
 ture without it. And here he appealed with some adroitness, 
 to Mr. Laurens, who had just taken his place in the commis- 
 sion, and who happened to have been president of congress at 
 the time when that first commission was given. Mr. Laurens 
 had likewise been in sympathy with the original movement 
 that produced the commission, so that he readily responded to 
 the call, and seconded the position witlj characteristic warmth. 
 And Mr. Jay, without committing himself to an equal extent, 
 virtually threw his weight into the scale. 
 
 "This act," continues Mr. Charles Francis Adams, "was the 
 assumption of a . . . prodigious responsibility. For the powers 
 to treat on comfnerce in which the instructions referred to 
 were inserted, had in the interval been revoked by congress, 
 and the right to the fisheries, although adhered to in argument, 
 had been abandoned as an ultimatum. . . . The stroke proved 
 decisive. The term of persistence dictated to the British by 
 their government, had been reached, and after consultation 
 they announced their readiness to abide by Mr. A,dams's article 
 as it stood. Such a victory is not often recorded in the annals 
 of diplomacy." 
 
 Mr. Adams had consented, however, tO leave open the ques- 
 tion of the choice of terms, right or liberty, to be settled in the 
 definitive treaty ; and in the third article of that treaty the 
 word " right " is used in reference to the deep-sea fisheries, and 
 the word " liberty " with reference to the shore fisheries. For 
 the fisheries article of the treaty of peace of 1783, see page 65, 
 supra. 
 
4S2 TOPICS EST AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 It should be noted that the mackerel fishing of the Gulf of 
 St. Lawrence, about which we hear so much in these days, was 
 not in question in 1782 ; this branch of the fisheries was not 
 developed till fifty years later. The only really important 
 shore-fishing was that for cod on the coast of Newfoundland ; 
 and the value of this fishery was much decreased by the pro- 
 hibition of the treaty to dry fish on that island. Where then 
 is the recognition of a prior right in the United States to the 
 inshore fisheries ? It does not appear either in the negotiations 
 or in the third article of the treaty. Mr. Oswald explains in a 
 letter to Mr. Strachey (in the nature of an apology), that they 
 yielded to the vehement representations of Mr. Adams, seconded 
 by the other American commissioners, as to the dire effects to 
 the people of Massachusetts of depriving them of the fisheries. 
 
 The part of Mr. Oswald's letter bearing on this subject is as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' ' I will next add what was settled as to what passed with the 
 American commissioners, particularly Mr. Adams (the New 
 England member), when we came to treat of this article, and to 
 propose keeping off the Americans to a distance from the shore, 
 in the prosecution of their fishery, as weU as drying their fish on 
 the coast of Newfoundland. 
 
 ' ' I had sundry conversations with this gentleman on the sub- 
 ject before you came over the last time ; when his language was 
 as follows : — 
 
 " That the fishery was their all, their bread. That other states 
 had other staples of production ; they had none but what they 
 raised out of the sea ; that they enjoyed a freedom of fishing 
 time out of mind, and that their people would never part with it ; 
 that in depriving them of the privilege in question,we should strike 
 a deeper stroke into their vitals, than any, perhaps, they had suf- 
 fered since the war commenced. That our refusal was unfriendly, 
 unjust, insidious, since we could not come out in time to overtake 
 them; and when we did come we could not miss them, there be- 
 ing fish enough for all nations, during the whole time we chose to 
 seek for them. But that we grudged that they should avail them- 
 selves of the natural conveniency of their situation, only to pre- 
 vent our (the British) getting somewhat less for that part which 
 it was convenient for us to undertake. That we made no diffi- 
 culty in accommodating the French in this matter, which of itself 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 433 
 
 would make their people feel more sensibly the effect of the ex- 
 clusion. That his constituents were alarmed, and particularly 
 attentive to this question ; and sent him instructions that would 
 by no means allow him of signing any treaty in which this 
 privilege should be excepted. That he would never sign any 
 such treaty ; that if he were to do so, he would consider it as 
 signing a declaration of perpetual war between England and 
 America. That if things were to come to the worst, their states 
 would support that war of themselves, without the help of France 
 or any other nation. That if we lost somewhat in the sales of 
 our fish by their interfering with us, it would, in part, be made 
 up in the sales of our (British) manufactures, since the more 
 money they had for their fish, the more they would buy of these 
 manufactures.' 
 
 ' ' These observations passed (as I have said) at different times 
 in conversation with him (Mr. Adams), some part of which he 
 also mentioned in your hearing. 
 
 ' ' And you will remember the other commissioners were equally 
 stiff in refusing to proceed in the treaty, while we proposed to 
 deprive their people of the coast or inshore fishery. 
 
 " And also that one of these gentlemen said, that if we insisted 
 on keeping their people at a distance of three leagues from our 
 shores, we could not complain if they also forbade our ships from 
 'coming within like distance of the coasts of the thirteen prov- 
 inces. 
 
 ' ' With respect to drying their fish, the same gentleman said he 
 thought, if we would not allow of their landing upon the unsettled 
 parts of our shore, at a certain season in the year, they would 
 justly deny us the same privilege in all parts of their coimtry. * * * 
 
 ' ' The above is the substance of what the American commis- 
 sioners said at difEerent times, upon the unpleasant subject of this 
 intended exclusion, and as near their words as I can remember. 
 I had put them in writing, from time to time, as they occurred in 
 my conversation with the commissioners ; and when you (Mr. 
 Strachey) came over and showed me the altered plan of the treaty, 
 and how the article was guarded in all the instructions and letters, 
 I own I despaired of any settlement with America before the 
 meeting of Parliament. But there being, happily, a discretionary 
 power, as well regarding the extent as the manner of dispensing 
 with this article, in your instructions, I used the freedom of 
 pointing it out, and insisting on it. And you, very properly (as 
 well as Mr. Fitzherbert), took the benefit of it, and gave your 
 28 
 
434 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 consent to my signing the treaty. To which, if there is still any 
 objection, I must take my share of the blame, as I took the liberty 
 of mentioning to the secretary of state, in the letter which I 
 troubled you with on your return to London. 
 
 ' ' If your wishing for this paper is to answer some purpose in 
 Parliament, in case of challenge on this head, you can judge 
 what parts will be suitable to be brought under public review. 
 Perhaps not many. The best general one is, that, without giving 
 way in this particular, there would have been no provisional 
 articles. That is very certain." 
 
 In further explanation of the reason which induced the 
 British Government to grant the inshore fisheries, it may be 
 statgd that in a certain sense the free navigation of the Missis- 
 sippi was considered an olfset on the other side. Then, too, 
 the dissensions in the ranks of the Whigs after Lord North 
 was driven from office, prevented a strong policy on the part 
 of the government. Shelburne, believing that the negotiation 
 of peace would strengthen his ministry, did not haggle long 
 over a matter so unimportant as he thought the fisheries to be. 
 
 2. Was the 3d article of the treaty of 1783 abrogated by the 
 war of 1812? 
 
 When the American commissioners, Gallatin, J. Q. Adams, 
 Clay, J. A. Bayard, and J. Russell, sent to negotiate a treaty of 
 peace in 1814, were ready to proceed to work at Ghent, they 
 were met by a notice on the part of the British commissioners, 
 " that the British Government did not intend to grant to the 
 United States gratuitously the privileges formerly granted by 
 treaty to them, of fishing within the limits of the British sov- 
 ereignty, and of using the shores of the British territories for 
 purposes connected with the British fisheries." 
 
 This declaration was based upon the assumption that the fish- 
 ing liberties accorded to the United States by the 3d article 
 of the treaty of 1783 were in the nature of a grant, and came 
 under the rule that all such treaties were abrogated by a sub- 
 sequent war between the parties. ' 
 
 The American commissioners had instructions not to give up 
 the fisheries ; therefore this declaration of the British commis- 
 sioners had to be met. Mr. Gallatin proposed the offer of the 
 free navigation of the Mississippi to England as a compensation 
 for the liberties of the fishery ; or, in other words, the renewal 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 435 
 
 of Articles iil. and viii. of the trgaty of 1783. To this proposition 
 Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell strenuously objected. Mr. Adams 
 then offered an alternative proposition, namely, " to take the 
 ground that the whole right to the fisheries was recognized as 
 a part of our national independence ; that it could not be abro- 
 gated by the war, and needed no stipulation for its renewal." 
 (Diary, 4th Nov., 1814.) Some years afterwards Adams said : 
 " The only way in which it was possible to meet the notification 
 of the British plenipotentiaries, without surrendering the rights 
 which it jeopardized, was by denying the principle upon which 
 it was founded. This was done by asserting the principle, that 
 the treaty of independence of 1783 was of that class of treaties, 
 and the right in question of the character, which are not abro- 
 gated by a subsequent war." (The Fisheries and the Mississippi, 
 p. 82.) 
 
 A proposition embodying this principle was drawn up by Mr. 
 Clay, of which Mr. Adams remarks in his diary (Nov. 7, 1814), 
 " I should have preferred the proposal of Mr. Gallatin's article, 
 as placing the subject out of controversy ; but as we could not 
 be unanimous for that, I was willing to take Mr. Clay's para- 
 graph, by which we should reserve all our rights, and at the 
 same time execute all our instructions. Mr. Bayard said, that 
 rather than differ among ourselves, he would agree to substi- 
 tute Mr. Clay's paragraph, instead of the proposed article, and 
 this was ultimately consented to by us all." (Nov. 14, 1814. 
 The Fisheries and the Mississippi, p. 145.) 
 
 " This view of the case was not acceded to by the British com- 
 missioners. Each party adhered to its asserted principles, and 
 the treaty was concluded without settling the interest involved." 
 {lb. 88.) 
 
 Immediately after the close of the war in 1815, American 
 fishermen were warned off the coasts of the British provinces. 
 The United States protested ; and John Quincy Adams, as Min- 
 ister in London, entered into a correspondence with Lord Bath- 
 urst upon the subject. In this correspondence (Am. St. Pap. 
 For. Eel., Vol. V.), and in Mr. Adams's paper on " The Fisheries 
 and the Mississippi" (the beginning of the famous quarrel be- 
 tween Mr. Adams and Jonathan Russell), the American argu- 
 ment is fully set forth. 
 
 The Law of Nature is appealed to to sustain the rights of 
 
436 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 American fishermen ; arguments favoring it are quoted from 
 Vattel and other writers on international law, as well as from 
 speeches of opposition members in the British parliament. But 
 the strictly legal argument of Mr. Adams is leveled against the 
 British assumption that war abrogates all treaties. Stipula- 
 tions made in contemplation of a state of war, says Adams, are 
 not abrogated by war, as all agree. But another class of articles 
 are equally privileged from abrogation, namely, executed stipu- 
 lations — cessions of territory, demarcations of boundary, ac- 
 knowledgment of pre-existing rights and liberties — and in it 
 are included the first three articles of the treaty of 1783. (1. 
 acknowledgement of independence; 2. demarcation of bound- 
 ary; 3. fisheries.) 
 
 These are executed contracts and are abrogated by the exe- 
 cution itself. So of all articles the purport of which is the 
 acknowledgment by one party of a pre-existing right belong- 
 ing to another. The engagement of the acknowledging party 
 is consummated by the ratification of the treaty. It is no 
 longer an executory contract ; but a perfect right united with 
 a vested possession, is thenceforth in one party, and the acknowl- 
 edgment of the other is in its own nature irrevocable. Hence 
 a subsequent war cannot affect siich a right. 
 
 " A grant of a facultative right, or incorporeal hereditament, 
 and specifically of a right of fishery, from one sovereign to 
 another, is an article of the same description. It is analagous 
 to a cession of territory, and is in fact a partial and qualified 
 cession. The right is consummated by the ratification of the 
 treaty. The possession is vested by the exercise of the faculty. 
 
 " So that whether the third article of the treaty of 1783 be 
 considered as an acknowledgment of pre-existing liberties or 
 as a grant of them, to be exercised within British jurisdiction, 
 it was in its nature permanent and irrevocable." 
 
 Other reasons have been put forward to prove a prior right 
 to the fisheries ; and notably by the American counsel before 
 the Halifax commission in 1877 ; more recently by Mr. Francis 
 Wharton in his Digest of International Law, and by Mr. Bayard 
 in his correspondence of 1886 with Mr. West, the British min- 
 ister at Washington.— One of these arguments is the fact that 
 the New England colonists aided in conquering the fisheries 
 from France, and that they used them thereafter in common 
 
THE FISHEEIES QUESTION. 437 
 
 with other British colonists. And so, as Mr. Wharton says 
 {lb. 302), " The treaty of peace of 1783 was not a grant of in- 
 dependence, but was a partition of the empire, the United States 
 retaining their common share in the fisheries." And again, the 
 treaty was a partition of " natural rights of territoriality." The 
 American commissioners at Ghent went still further, and said, 
 "in consenting by that treaty (1783) that a part of the North 
 American continent should remain subject to the British juris- 
 diction, the people of the United States had reserved to them- 
 selves the liberty, which they had ever before enjoyed, of fish- 
 ing upon that part of the coasts, and of drying and curing fish 
 upon the shores, and this reservation had been agreed to by the 
 other contracting party." (The Fisheries and the Mississippi, 
 p. 42.) 
 
 These arguments are virtually answered by proving histori- 
 cally the negative of the first question, viz. : that we had not 
 a prior right to the inshore fisheries. But we may add that 
 the contention of Mr. J. Q. Adams and others, that the third 
 article of the treaty stands in the same categoi*y with the first 
 and second is scarcely tenable. The recognition of independ- 
 ence in the first article was the recognition of an accomplished 
 fact; it created no new condition of things. The express 
 recognition was in fact superfiuous ; the negotiation of a treaty 
 of peace was a suflBcient acknowledgment of independence. So 
 of the adjustment of boundaries in the second article, the 
 United States occupied certain territory at the end of the war, 
 and if nothing had been said -in regard to boundaries in the 
 treaty, they would have held this territory by the rule of uti 
 possedetis. But it was more convenient for both parties to agree 
 upon this question. As to fisheries it is admitted universally 
 that a state has the exclusive right to the enjoyment of the 
 fisheries in its marginal waters. At the end of the war, in 1788, 
 the Canadian and Newfoundland fisheries remained in the full 
 and exclusive possession of England, and she could not be dis- 
 possessed of any right or part in them without a special act on 
 her part. She chose to grant to the United States liberty of 
 a certain restricted use of those fisheries — a use which 
 would be more and more restricted as the coasts became 
 occupied by settlers. The liberty of the shore-fisheries was 
 therefore in the nature of a grant, not executed but executory, 
 
438 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 depending upon the treaty for its validity ; and it would fall 
 with the abrogation of the treaty. 
 
 Mr. Theodore Lyman ( American Diplomacy, Vol. II, p. 90) 
 says, " A certain part of the doctrine, as to the effect of war 
 on the treaty of '83, is undoubtedly sound, but it appears to us, 
 the remark is equally just, that certain portions of the fishing 
 rights or liberties have, from the commencement of the first 
 negotiation with England, been made the subject of treaty 
 regulation. These remarks, of course, do not apply to the 
 bank, or deep-water fisheries, aboiit which all formal stipula- 
 tions are needless.'' 
 
 So, Dr. Woolse}'^, in the first editions of his International 
 Law, said, that at and after the treaty of Ghent, " it was con- 
 tended by the American negotiators, hut without good reason, 
 that the article of the peace of 1783, relating to the fisheries, 
 was in its nature perpetual, and thus not annulled by the war 
 of 1812." In later editions of his work. Dr. Woolsey has sub- 
 stituted for the phrase " hut vnthout good reason,^'' the phrase 
 " but for reasons which Great Britain would not accept?' No 
 explanation is given for this change in the text ; it does not 
 follow, however, that the author had changed his opinion. 
 
 As to the sentimental argument based upon the conquest of 
 the fisheries from Prance, " by the common sword and mingled 
 blood of Americans and Englishmen," it is almost too much to 
 believe that it was ever put forward in seriousness. We might, 
 for the same reason, claim a common right in the provinces of 
 Nova Scotia and Quebec. Neither does the fact that these 
 fisheries were used in common before the separation from 
 England give the Americans the right to use them after the 
 separation. While the New England people were British sub- 
 jects, they had duties to perform toward that country as 
 well as privileges to enjoy; the Revolution put an end to 
 both. 
 
 Furthermore, if the argument against the abrogation of the 
 fisheries article is sound, why did not the same rule apply in 
 respect of the navigation of the Mississippi ? By the 8th 
 article of the treaty of 1783, the free navigation of that river 
 was conceded to England ; and yet Mr. Clay held it to be 
 abrogated, and the other members of the commission ac- 
 quiesced in that view. And yet the 3d and 8th articles are 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 439 
 
 precisely similar ; each grants a certain privilege in foreign 
 territory. 
 
 As the two governments could come to no agreement upon 
 the question in dispute, a compromise was effected in 1818, by 
 the 1st article of the convention of that year.^ 
 
 By this treaty England again granted certain privileges to 
 American fishermen, though very restricted in comparison 
 with those granted by the treaty of 1783. And thus it would 
 seem as if the United States had waived their old claim of a 
 pre-existing right to the shore-fisheries. 
 
 But those who contend that the fisheries article of the 
 treaty of 1783 was not abrogated by the war of 1812, see in 
 this first article of the convention of 1818 a complete confirm- 
 ation of their views. The clause, they afEirm, by which the 
 " United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore 
 enjoyed or claimed, etc," was, when accepted by England, a 
 formal acknowledgment on her part of a pre-existing right of 
 " unbroken existence." " The treaty " says Dr. Wharton, " io 
 not a grant of fisheries by Great Britain to the United States, 
 but a grant by the United States to Great Britain of certain 
 restrictions on fisheries which the United States already 
 owned." And therefore, " the right of territoriality in Cana- 
 dian waters and shores thus recognized as existing in our 
 fishermen brings with it the incidents of such territoriality. 
 They may purchase, as may any other visitor, to whom ter- 
 ritorial rights are given, whatever is needed for their use. 
 They must not ' abuse ' these ' privileges.' They must not 
 smuggle, and what they buy must not be bought for the pur- 
 pose of shore-fishing." It is contended therefore that the 
 clause admitting American fishermen to " enter such bays or 
 harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages 
 therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for 
 no other purpose whatever^'' did not prohibit them from pur- 
 chasing bait and other supplies intended for use in the deep- 
 sea fisheries. This would seem to be a somewhat forced con- 
 struction of the first article, even if there were not strong 
 evidence against it, at least in the case of bait. In the protocol 
 of the American commissioners of the 17th of September, 
 
 1 Supra, p. 79. 
 
440 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 1818, the purchase of " bait" was included among the privileges 
 demanded in addition to those of "shelter," "repair of dam- 
 ages, etc ; " taut this demand was not allowed by the British 
 commissioner, and the word bait does not appear in the final 
 draught of this article. 
 
 In view of the history of the negotiation, and of the plain 
 sense of the language used, it is difficult to avoid the con- 
 clusion that the prohibition expressed by the phrase "and 
 for no other purpose whatever," was intended to convey the 
 ordinary meaning of the terms used ; that is, that the Ameri- 
 can fishermen were limited to the four privileges enumerated. 
 It is hardly a proof to the contrary, that the act of parliament 
 of the next year (59 George III.) to carry the treaty into effect, 
 did not impose penalties for the obtaining by United States 
 fishermen of bait and supplies. England had at that time 
 other laws which prohibited such trade, and which she might 
 have considered sufficient for the purpose. 
 
 Although treaties have a strong analogy to private contracts, 
 yet we should not forget that they cannot be subjected to 
 those refinements of interpretation that courts of law apply 
 to contracts. It is not competent for one of the contracting 
 parties to import into a treaty a construction, based upon the 
 ex parte interpretation of its text, which is not accepted by 
 the other party ; for unlike private contracts, treaties unfort- 
 unately have not for their interpretation and enforcement a 
 legally constituted and impartial tribunal. 
 
 In the case of the convention of 1818, the British Govern- 
 ment has never accepted the American view of the first article 
 as establishing a prior right to the Canadian shore-fisheries. 
 The concessions made by the convention of 1818 in regard to 
 the fisheries, were evidently for the sake of putting an end to an 
 aggravating dispute, and prevent the collisions that were con- 
 stantly occurring in the fishing grounds. This argument of 
 " a prior right to the fisheries," which John Quincy Adams 
 invented in 1 814, because, as he said, he could find no other 
 which would meet the British position, has nevertheless 
 dazzled the intellect of American statesmen to the present day. 
 It has as little foundation in history, as it has in law, and 
 would better be left out of account in future discussions of the 
 subject. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 441 
 
 Unfortunately the treaty of 1818 proved to be ambiguous in 
 another important particular. The clause in question reads 
 as follows : — And the United States hereby renounce forever 
 any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants 
 thereof to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three marine 
 miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or ha/rbors of His BritannHj 
 Majesty's dominions in America, not included in the above- 
 mentioned limits : Provided, however, that the American 
 fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for 
 the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of 
 purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other 
 purpose whatever." 
 
 It was, and is, contended, on the part of the United States 
 that "three miles" from the "bays, creeks etc," meant three 
 miles from the shores of those bays, etc., following their sinuos- 
 ities. Therefore all bays more than six miles broad would be 
 free to American fishermen, except within the three-mile 
 limit. 
 
 The British construction of the language was, on the other 
 hand, that " three miles from a bay," etc., meant three miles 
 from the mouth of the bay, in other words, three miles from a 
 line drawn from headland to headland of the bay. Moreover 
 this construction was applied not only to the great arms of the 
 sea, as the Bays of Fundy and Chaleurs, but also to all inden- 
 tations of the coast, as the north coast of Prince Edward Island- 
 from North Cape to East Cape, and the northeast coast of Cape 
 Breton, from North Cape to Cow Bay. A line drawn between 
 those points would be in some places as far as thirty miles from 
 the coast. 
 
 Even granting that the British interpretation of the treaty 
 was correct as to the " headland " question, it still remained to 
 be determined what were "British bays, etc." For the 
 United States maintained that it was never intended to in- 
 clude the great bays ; in the very paragraph above quoted, it 
 is stipulated that American vessels are to have the privilege 
 of seeking shelter and repairing damages in the bays within 
 which they are forbidden to fish. But " there is, of course, no 
 shelter nor means of repairing damages for a vessel entering 
 the Bay of Fundy, in itself considered. It is necessary, before 
 relief or succor of any kind can be had, to traverse the broad 
 
442 TOPICS IN AMEEICAIir DIPLOMACY. 
 
 arm of the sea, and reach the bays and harbors referred to in 
 the conveution of 1818." (Edward Everett). So by the treaty 
 of 1783 the Americans have the liberty to cure fish "on any of 
 the bays; harbors, etc., of Nova Scotia." It was said in answer 
 that if the negotiators of the convention had only intended to 
 exclude American fishermen from bays within three miles 
 from their shores, then the use of the vrords " bay, etc.," was 
 quite superfluous. 
 
 As no agreement has ever been arrived at as to the mean- 
 ing of the treaty in this point, much reference has been made 
 in recent years to international law and usage. It is asserted 
 on the part of the United States, that the Bays of Fundy and 
 Chaleurs could no more be appropriated by any state than 
 could the Bays of Biscay, Bengal, or the Gulf of Mexico. The 
 Bay of Fundy is over sixty miles wide at its entrance, and the 
 Bay of Chaleurs is nearly as wide. 
 
 The usage of nations has tended to restrict territorial juris- 
 diction over large bodies of water ; and although there is no 
 rule of interna'tional law fixing an absolute limit in this respect, 
 the whole spirit of it is opposed to such a claim as that of 
 England in the Bay of Fundy and in many other cases. 
 
 On the other hand, the contention of the United States, that 
 only bays six miles, or less, in width can be considered as 
 territorial waters, has, to say the least, no better foundation in 
 law or practice. Probably most maritime states claim exclu- 
 sive' jurisdiction over bays of a greater width than six miles. 
 Certainly that can be affirmed of France, England, and the 
 United States. For instance, France claims the exclusive 
 right to the Bay of Cancale, which is seventeen miles wide?. 
 England claims the Bristol Channel (Queen v. Cunningham, 
 Bell, C. C. 86) ; also Conception Bay in Newfoundland, which 
 is twenty miles wide (Direct U. S. Cable Co., Limited v. Anglo- 
 American Telegraph Co., Limited, 1877, 11 App. Cases, 394). 
 The decision in this case is an instructive discussion of author- 
 ities and principles. The United States would probably claim 
 the exclusive jurisdiction bver all the bays on their coast. In 
 the case of the British ship Grange taken by a French 
 cruiser in Delaware Bay in 1793, she was restored to her 
 owner on the opinion of the Attorney-General, as being 
 siezed in the territorial waters of the United States. Mr. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTIOK. 443 
 
 Seward said, in 1852, in a debate in the senate, that the 
 United States argument proved too much. It would divest 
 the United States of Boston Harbor, Long Island Sounds 
 Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, Albemarle Sound, etc. ' 
 
 In the American brief before the Halifax commissioners in 
 1877, reference is made to a number of writers on international 
 law to sustain the American view of this question. But of the 
 authors quoted not one lays down the rule of a definite dis- 
 tance of six miles necessary to give exclusive right to a bay or 
 gulf. 
 
 The nearest to anything like a general rule to be drawn from 
 the opinion of these writers is, that bays, gulfs, etc., whose en- 
 trance may be defended by cannon, ought to be susceptible of 
 appropriation by the neighboring state. In view of the pres- 
 ent range of cannon, this would give a width of about fifteen 
 miles. 
 
 As between England and France the exclusive right of fish- 
 ing is limited by treaty to bays ten miles wide at the mouth. 
 (Treaties of 1839 and 1867.) 
 
 And yet Senator Edmunds, Chairman of a Committee of In- 
 vestigation, said in 1886 : — "The Committee is therefore clear 
 in its opinion that any pretension that exclusive British jurisdic- 
 tion exists, either by force of public law or by this treaty (1818), 
 within headlands embracing such bodies of water (bays, creeks, 
 and harbors), and more than six marine miles broad, must be 
 quite untenable." (Edmunds Report on the Fisheries.) 
 
 Mr. W. E. Hall sums up the question as follows : — 
 
 ' ' On the whole question it is scarcely possible to say anything 
 more definite than that, while on the one hand it may be doubted 
 whether any state would now seriously assert a right of property 
 over broad straits or gulfs of considerable size and wide entrance, 
 there is on the other hand nothing in the conditions of vahd 
 maritime occupation to prevent the establishment of a claim 
 either to basins of considerable area, if approached by narrow 
 entrances such as those of the Zuyder Zee, or to large gulfs which, 
 in proportion to the width of their mouth, run deeply into the 
 land, even when so large as Delaware Bay, or stiU more to small 
 bays, such as that of Cancale." (International Law, 2d edition, 
 p. 141.) 
 
 In regard to the dispute between the United States and Eng- 
 
444 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 land, the most reasonable and practicable method of adjust- 
 ment would seem to be, for the two governments to cometoan 
 agreement, considering the circumstances of each case, what 
 bays, etc., should be free, and what closed. 
 
 The first discussion of this question began in 1824, on the 
 seizure of two American fishing vessels — the Reindeer and the 
 Rtibij, on July 26 of that year. But the rule prohibiting Ameri- 
 cans from fishing in the large bays seems not to have been rigidly 
 enforced until the year 1839, at virhich time the correspondence 
 took a definite shape. (Records of the Halifax Commission, p. 
 104.) 
 
 On May 10, 1843, the American schooner 'Washington, was 
 seized in the Bay of Fundy, ten miles from shore. A long cor- 
 respondence followed between Mr. Edward Everett, American 
 Minister at London, and Lord Aberdeen. 
 
 In August, 1844, the American schooner Argus was seized 
 while fishing off the coast of Cape Breton, under similar circum- 
 stances. « ■ 
 
 In 1845 the rule as to the Bay of Fundy was relaxed by the 
 British Government. 
 
 Under the Claims Convention of 1853, the case of the Wash- 
 ington was referred to a joint commission, and on the disagree- 
 ment of the Commission, was decided by the umpire, Mr. Joshua 
 Bates, of London. His decision was in favor of the United 
 States, on the ground that the Bay of Fundy could not be con- 
 sidered a British bay. 
 
 As early as 1847 England had proposed a reciprocity treaty ; 
 but no agreement being come to, the relations of the two coun- 
 tries became more and more critical ; the excitement was in- 
 creasing and war was talked of, when, in 1854, Lord Elgin came 
 to Washington and had a conference with Mr. Marcy. This re- 
 sulted in an agreement for a reciprocity treaty, which was soon 
 after ratified.^ 
 
 It appears from this treaty that there was a free exchange of 
 almost all the products of the land and the sea, including many 
 of the raw materials of manufacture. 
 
 This arrangement seems to have worked to the satisfaction 
 of both parties, until the high taxes necessitated by the civil 
 
 1 Supra, p. 90. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 445 
 
 war so enhanced the cost of living and the price of labor in the 
 United States, that the American farmer could not, it ^¥as con- 
 tended, compete with the Canadian farmer in the production of 
 those articles included in the free list of the reciprocity treaty. 
 The United States Government, too, found itself hampered by 
 its inability to levy internal revenue upon those American pro- 
 ductions, which under the treaty, came in free from Canada. 
 The government, said John Sherman, thus lost $5,000,000 on 
 the single item of lumber. As to the fishing interest, there 
 was little or no complaint from that quarter. 
 
 In spite, however, of these complaints against the treaty, it 
 is not probable that the resolution for its abrogaj;ion would 
 have passed Congress when it did, had it not been for the atti- 
 tude of hostility toward the United States assumed by Canada, 
 as well as England, during our Civil War. The St. Albans 
 raid of 1864, and the apparent sympathy with the raiders on 
 the part of the Canadian Government and people, seems to have 
 caused an outburst of indignation in the United States, and this 
 gave the chance for those who had before wished to abrogate 
 the treaty. 
 
 The resolution passed the House, in December, 1864, by a vote 
 of 88 to 54. It passed the Senate in January, 1865, by a vote 
 of 33 to 8. 
 
 Doubtless this was an unwise thing to do, as, in all likelihood, 
 the treaty could have been modified by mutual agreement. 
 Still it might well be asked of those Canadians who find so 
 much to censure in the American action on that occasion, to 
 explain the cause of their open sympathy with the slaveholding 
 states of the Union, and their bitter enmity to the ISTorth, their 
 nearest neighbors, to whom they were so closely bound by in- 
 terests of commerce. 
 
 In accordance with the joint resolution of Congress, notice 
 of abrogation was given the 17th of March, 1865, and took 
 eftecb twelve months later, — the 17th of March, 1866. 
 
 It will be noted that the stipulations of the reciprocity treaty 
 in regard to the fisheries were " in addition to those of the con- 
 vention of 1818 ; " and hence when the reciprocity treaty was 
 abrogated, the fisheries arrangements rested again upon the 
 convention of 1818. And of course all the old disputes were 
 revived. 
 
446 TOPICS IN AMEEICAIT DIPLOMACY. 
 
 England, with the hope of negotiating a new treaty, and to 
 prevent in the meantime, aggravating collisions, resorted to 
 the system of issuing licenses to American fishermen, permit- 
 ting them to fish in the inshore fisheries. The first year, 1866, 
 the license fee was fixed at 50 cents a ton, and 354 American 
 vessels took out licenses. The next year the fee was raised 
 to one dollar per ton, and the number of vessels taking them 
 dropped to 281. In 1868 the fee was raised to two dollars per 
 ton, and only 56 licenses were taken out. In 1869 with the 
 same fee only 25 licenses were taken out. It was said by our 
 fishermen that a fee of two dollars per ton was virtually a 
 prohibitive, tax. If this be true, why is it that in all Canadian 
 versions of the case, it is made a special point of complaint, 
 that the American fishermen refused to take out licenses? 
 Moreover the license fee is represented as merely nominal, and 
 nothing is said about the increase from fifty cents to two 
 dollars. 
 
 In 1870 the Canadian Government, which now began to take 
 the fisheries question into its own hands, induced the British 
 Government to issue no more licenses to foreign fishermen, and 
 preparations were made to enforce the laws against them. 
 Many seizures took place during the summers of 1870 and 1871. 
 
 Negotiations for a new reciprocity treaty had failed for the 
 reason, as President Grant said, that no citizen of the United 
 States would be benefited by reciprocity ; " our internal taxa- 
 tion would prove a protection to the British producer, almost 
 to the protection which our manufactures now receive from the 
 tariff." 
 
 But there were many other questions of dispute between the 
 two nations pressing for a settlement, that of the Alabama being 
 the most important ; and an agreement for their adjustment 
 was finally reached by the signing of the treaty of Washington, 
 the 8th of May, 1871. 
 
 The articles of this treaty relating to the fisheries are the 
 18th to the 25th and the 33d.i 
 
 On account of a delay in passing the necessary laws, the 
 fisheries articles did not go into effect until the 1st of July, 
 1873. 
 
 The next step in the procedure was the appointment of the 
 1 Supra, p. 98. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTIOlSr. 447 
 
 commissioners, in accordance with the provision of the 23d 
 article. And here we come upon certain proceedings of the 
 British Government, which have called forth much adverse 
 criticism on the part of the United States. The facts briefly 
 stated, as shown by the correspondence, are as follows : — 
 
 In a conversation between Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, and 
 Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington, held 
 some time previous to the 1st of July, 1873, the question of the 
 appointment of a third commissioner was discussed. Sir Ed- 
 ward Thornton suggested the name of Mr. Maurice Delfosse, 
 the Belgian minister at Washington. Mr. Fish replied that on 
 account of the peculiar treaty relations between England and 
 Belgium, the appointment of Mr. Delfosse would not be accept- 
 able to the United States, and requested the suggestion of 
 other names. Lord Granville, British Foreign Secretary, had 
 sent a telegram to Thornton suggesting Delfosse. As no other 
 names were mentioned on the part of England, on the 7th of 
 July, 1873, Mr. Bancroft Davis, acting secretary of state, wrote 
 to Thornton proposing the names of the ministers at Washing- 
 ton of the following states : — viz., Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Spain, 
 France, the Netherlands, and Italy. This list included all the 
 foreign ministers at Washington who were, by their knowledge 
 of the English language, fitted for the position, excepting the 
 Belgian minister, whose name was omitted for the reasons stated 
 above. 
 
 On the 19th of August Sir E. Thornton replied that he had 
 informed Lord Granville of the objection of the American 
 government to Mr. Delfosse; but that Granville had again 
 telegraphed him to ask the American Government to accept 
 Delfosse, and " fears that if the two governments cannot come 
 to an agreement, there will be nothing for it but to leave 
 the selection to the Austrian Ambassador at London." Thorn- 
 ton hopes that Fish will consider the matter. There was no 
 reply to the proposal of Davis. On the 26th of July Thornton 
 writes that the Canadian government, "strongly objects to 
 the appointment of any of the foreign ministers residing in 
 Washington as the third commissioner." 
 
 On the 6th of September, Fish asked Thornton to suggest 
 some one else. On the 24th, Thornton by order of his govern- 
 ment proposed to leave to the ministers of England and the 
 
448 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 United States at the Hague the selection of some Dutch gentle- 
 man. As the time within which the joint appointment could 
 be made would run out on the 30th of September, the American 
 government declined to accept this proposal. Mr. Fish added 
 that the American minister at the Hague had been but recently- 
 appointed and was therefore, not sufflcently acquainted with 
 people of Holland to make an intelligent selection. 
 
 Up to this point it would seem that the British government 
 refused to propose any name except the single one objected to 
 previously by the American government ; and that this objec- 
 tion was not without reason, it was shown that in discussing 
 the selection of the Geneva commissioner in 1871, Lord de 
 Grey said he " did not name Belgium or Portugal, because 
 Great Britain had treaty arrangements with them that might 
 be supposed to incapacitate them." 
 
 The Canadian government preferred the old reciprocity 
 treaty to the arrangement under the treaty of 1871, and now 
 suggested that an attempt be made to renew the reciprocity 
 policy. Accordingly a delay in the Halifax project was granted 
 for this purpose. 
 
 In 1874 the draft of the proposed treaty was submitted to 
 Mr. Pish by Sir Edward Thornton.^ It was based on the third 
 article of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, but with a large exten- 
 sion of the list of articles of free exchange even including 
 some manufactured articles. The fisheries arrangements were 
 to be essentially as in the old treaty. Apparently Mr. Fish 
 made no objection to the draft, and the President submitted 
 it to the Senate for its approval. The Senate did not act upon 
 the matter till February 3d, 1875, and then refused its assent. 
 All thoughts of a new reciprocity treaty were therefore at an 
 end, and the question of the Halifax commission was revived. 
 On the 21st of April, 1875, Sir Edward Thornton writes to Mr. 
 Fish urging the sending of an indentical note to the Austrian 
 ambassador at London, to request him to name the third com- 
 missioner. The correspondence as published makes a break at 
 
 1 Accts. and Papers, (41), Brit. Doc. 830, Stat. Papers, U. S., No. 4, 5 March— 
 7 August, 1874. 
 
 The draft of the treaty is at the end of the volume, p. 194. 
 
 See also, Cong. Rec. Vol. 3, Pt. 2, 43d Cong. 2d Sess., January 28, Feb- 
 kiary 23, 1875, p. 929. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 449 
 
 this point of over a year, and nothing definite seems to have 
 been done until the beginning of the year 1877. 
 
 In a despatch of February 13, 1877, to Pierrepont, American 
 minister at London, Fish says that on account of a desire to 
 finish the business before the expiration of the President's term 
 of office, he had told Thornton on the 1st of February that if the 
 British government should propose Delfosse, the government 
 of the United States would not oppose his appointment. This 
 proposal was readily agreed to on the part of England ; but to 
 carry out the former arrangement of the treaty the method of 
 bringing about this result was to be by an informal, not to say 
 secret, suggestion to Count Beust, the Austrian ambassador 
 at London. On the 9th February, Fish writes to Beale, 
 American minister at Vienna, " Considerable difficulty having 
 been experienced in the selection of the third commissioner, it 
 has finally been agreed between the two governments that the 
 appointment of Delfosse by the Austrian ambassador at London 
 will be acceptable to the two governments, and that such appoint- 
 ment be requested. But on this question you will not speak 
 officially, in any way, as the joint inclination concerning the 
 wishes of the two governments will be conveyed to Count 
 Beust when His Majesty shall have permitted him to act as re- 
 quired." It would then seem that Delfosse was finally ap- 
 pointed at the suggestion of Mr. Pish. 
 
 The other arrangements for the commission were soon per- 
 fected. The other two commissioners were Sir Alexander 
 Gait, on the part of Great Britain, and Ensign H. Kellogg, on 
 the part of the United States. The agent of the United States 
 was Judge Dwight Foster, assisted by Richard H. Dana and 
 W. H. Trescot as counsel. The British agent was Francis C. 
 Ford, assisted by Joseph Doutre, of Montreal, S. R. Thompson 
 of New Brunswick, W. V. Whiteway, of Newfoundland, Louis 
 H. Davis, of Prince Edward Island, and R. L. Weatherbee, of 
 Nova Scotia, as counsel. The first meeting of the commission 
 took place on the 15th of June, 1877. 
 
 The question for the Commission to determine was whether 
 the concession to American fishermen by article 18 of the treaty 
 of Washington, to fish within the three-mile limit of the 
 British provinces, was more valuable than the concession to 
 British fishermen by articles 19 and 21, to fish in American 
 29 
 
450 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 waters, and to import their fish into the United States free of 
 duty. Canada's claim for compensation for the privilege of 
 buying bait and supplies and for transshipment of cargoes was 
 disallowed by the Commission. 
 
 In accordance with article 33 of the treaty of Washington, 
 the fisheries clauses were to remain in force ten years, and a 
 further period of two years from the time either party should 
 give notice of a desire to terminate them. 
 
 For the privileges conceded during these twelve years, Canada 
 and Newfoundland claimed compensation to the amount of |14- 
 880,000, a yearly sum of $1,240,000. The United States, on the 
 other hand, contended that the remission of duties on Canadian 
 fish was a fair compensation for the liberty of fishing granted 
 by the 18th article of the treaty. But the Canadian counsel 
 argued that the remission of duties benefited the American con- 
 sumer equally with the Canadian exporter, and therefore it did 
 not form a subject for compensation. In this view of the case 
 the only thing to settle was the value of the concession in the 
 18th article. 
 
 Whether the majority of the commissioners took this view 
 of the case or not does not appear. They say, that, having 
 carefully and impartially examined the matters referred to 
 them, according to justice and equity, in conformity with the 
 solemn declaration made and subscribed by them on the 15th 
 day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, 
 they: 
 
 ' ' Award the sum of five millions five hundred thousand dol- 
 lars in gold to be paid by the government of the United States to 
 the government of Her Britannic Majesty in accordance with the 
 provisions of the said treaty. 
 
 " Signed at Halifax this twenty-third day of November, one 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. 
 
 " Maurice Delfosse. 
 " A. T. Galt." 
 
 "The United States Commissioner is of opinion that the ad- 
 vantages accruing to Great Britain under the treaty of Washing- 
 ton are greater than the advantages conferred on the United 
 States by said treaty, and he cannot therefore concur in the con- 
 clusions announced by his colleagues. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 451 
 
 " And the American commissioner deems it his duty to state, 
 further that it is questionable whether it is competent for the 
 board to make an award under the treaty except with the unani- 
 mous consent of its members. 
 
 (Signed) " E. H. Kbllog, 
 
 " Conunissioner." 
 
 The United States paid the award with some grumbling, and 
 with a protest against its being made a precedent in any future 
 arrangement. It was the almost unanimous opinion in the 
 tJnited States that the amount of award was excessively great; 
 and the resolution was immediately taken by Congress to give 
 notice of the intention to abrogate the treaty at the earliest 
 possible moment. Accordingly notice was given in 1883, and 
 the fisheries articles of the treaty of Washington were termi- 
 nated on the first of July, 1885. Again, therefore, the basis of 
 the fisheries arrangements was thrown back upon the con- 
 vention of 1818. 
 
 In the hope of being able to negotiate a new treaty, the 
 American fishermen were, by mutual agreement, permitted to 
 fish in the British waters during the summer of 1885. As Con- 
 gress refused to assent to the appointment of commissioners 
 to negotiate a new fisheries treaty, the British government, in 
 the spring of 1886, ordered the seizure of American fishermen 
 for the violation of the convention of 1818, and of the Canadian 
 customs laws ; and once more the old controversy was reopened. 
 The first case of the seizure of ah American vessel, in 1886, was 
 that of the David J. Adams, May 7, in Digby Harbor, and 
 involved the question of the right of an American fishing vessel 
 to buy bait in the British waters not free to such vessel for 
 purposes of fishing. Other cases followed which brought up 
 the whole subject of the right to buy bait and supplies other 
 than the wood and water mentioned in the last article of the 
 convention of 1818. 
 
 To follow the question back to the date of that convention, 
 we find that the United States, by the said convention, " re- 
 nounced the liberty to fish" in certain defined waters; but 
 American fishermen were permitted to enter the same for the 
 ^'■purposes of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchas- 
 ing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose what- 
 
452 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ever." The act of parliament passed the next year, 1819, to 
 carry this convention into effect, imposed no penalties for the 
 purchase of bait or other supplies, and it would seem that 
 American fishermen went on buying those articles as they had 
 done before ; and there is no record of any proceedings against 
 them therefor until 1870. 
 
 But granting that the convention intended to prevent such 
 traifie at that time, it was contended on the part of the United 
 States, that the fisheries article of that convention had been 
 modified by subsequent statutes of the two countries. 
 
 Mr. Bayard said, in his correspondence with Sir Lionel West, 
 May 10, 1886, "But since the date of the treaty of 1818 a series 
 of laws and regulations importantly affecting the trade between 
 the North American provinces of Great Britain and the United 
 States have been respectively adopted by the two countries, 
 etc." 
 
 In order to understand this general statement, it is necessary 
 to set forth more exactly the commercial relations between the 
 two countries existing at the date of the negotiation of the 
 convention of 1818. The important thing to note is that com- 
 merce carried on in vessels of the United States was at that 
 time excluded absolutely from the British North American 
 ports. Whatever partial and temporary suspensions of the old 
 navigation laws had been granted before the war of 1812, were 
 entirely discontinued after the close of that war. After a vain 
 attempt to secure a relaxation on the part of England, of these 
 navigation laws, the United States resorted to retaliatory 
 measures by the acts of Congress of 1818 and 1820. 
 
 Paiiiament then relented somewhat; and on the 24th of 
 June, 1822, passed an act permitting American vessels to enter 
 certain colonial ports, but, as John Quincy Adams said, " un- 
 der heavy and burdensome restrictions." This act was re- 
 pealed and a more liberal measure passed by Parliament, July 
 5, 1825. But as the United States did not hasten to take ad- 
 vantage of this concession, it was withdrawn in so far as they 
 were concerned, by the order in council of July 27, 1826. On 
 their side, the United States, by proclamation of the President, 
 March 17, 1827, returned also to the earlier restrictive meas- 
 ures. When General Jackson became President in 1829, he 
 renewed the negotiations with England for more liberal trade 
 
THE I'ISHEEIES QUESTION. 453 
 
 relations ; and he was able to announce by proclamation of Oc- 
 tober 5, 1830, the opening of British colonial ports to American 
 vessels, and a similar concession to British vessels on the part 
 of the United States. The Imperial Shipping and Navigation 
 Act of 1849 removed the last of the British restrictions upon 
 commerce, and marked the transition to the new free-trade 
 policy. 
 
 Now it was contended by Mr. Bayard that these subsequent 
 laws and regulations had worked a modification in the first 
 article of the convention of 1818. Under the treaty of 1783 
 flsh\ng vessels enjoyed, until 1812, privileges in British North 
 American ports, not accorded to trading vessels ; after the war 
 of 1812, fishing vessels were put upon the same footing with 
 trading vessels ; that is, they were not permitted to enter 
 Canadian ports. But by the convention of 1818 they were 
 again granted special privileges ; besides the liberty to fish on 
 certaiin shores, they were permitted to enter the forbidden 
 ports for purposes deemed absolutely necessary to vessels 
 navigating the adjacent waters, and "for no other purpose 
 whatever." It will be seen, therefore, that that clause put no 
 unusual restriction upon fishermen ; but, on the contrary, it 
 made to theip concessions not allowed to trading vessels. 
 
 Now it was the question, whether, if these ports had been 
 open to American vessels in general for purposes of commerce, 
 any restrictions would have been placed upon fishing vessels 
 by the convention of 1818 ; and, further, when such ports were 
 afterwards thrown open to all other vessels, whether there 
 was good ground for retaining the restriction upon fishing 
 vessels. In other words, the American contention was that by 
 a fair interpretation of the treaty, the intention of the parties 
 at the time of its negotiation should be considered, rather than 
 a literal construction of the words used. 
 
 The seeming restrictions in the language of the treaty were 
 not such at the time it was made, and when all trade restric- 
 tions were removed by England, fishing vessels should enjoy 
 the benefit of free commerce, and not be held to an arrange- 
 ment made under very different conditions. 
 • England answered that the above-mentioned changes in the 
 laws and regulations of commerce and navigation had not 
 changed the status of fishing vessels under the treaty ; that 
 
454 TOPICS IN AMBEICAI>r DIPLOMACY. 
 
 they had always been considered as a special class of vessels, 
 which possessed no commercial privileges, and were subject to 
 regulations different from those applied to trading vessels. 
 Furthermore, the convention of 1818 recognized this dis'tinction, 
 and therefore the United States could not confer a commercial 
 character upon vessels fitted out for fishing purposes. 
 
 The United States contended, on the other hand, to quote 
 Secretary Manning, that :— 
 
 ' ' The only question (as to what is an Amei-ican vessel) is this : 
 Has the vessel conformed to the laws, not of a foreign country, 
 but of the United States ? In the decision of that question her 
 papers must be prima facie evidence against all the world. * * * 
 The permission to touch and trade given to fishing vessels has 
 been understood by this department for nearly a hundred years 
 as conferring upon the vessels a right to land and to receive on 
 board a cargo of merchandise, in the same manner as if she were 
 not engaged in the fisheries. On the return of the vessel to the 
 United States, she is required to make a regular entry, and to be 
 in aU respects subject to the regulations prescribed for vessels ar- 
 riving from foreign ports." 
 By a law of Congress of the 18th of February, 1793 : 
 " Whenever any vessel licensed for carrying on the -fishery, is 
 intended to touch and trade at any foreign port, it shall be the 
 duty of the master or owner to obtain permission for that purpose 
 from the collector of the district where such vessel may be, pre- 
 vious to her departure, and the master of every such vessel shall 
 deliver like manifests, and make like entries, both of the vessel 
 and of the merchandise on board, within the same time, and 
 under the same penalty, as are by law provided for vessels of the 
 United States arriving from a foreign port." 
 
 The form of this permit is as follows : — ■ 
 
 United States of America, 
 
 District of , 
 
 Port of , 
 
 ,188 . 
 
 Permission is hereby granted to , , Master 
 
 of the named the of 
 
 burden , which was 
 
 licensed for carrying on the fishery, by ... . 
 
 collector for the district of , in the state of 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 455 
 
 , on the day of , to touch and 
 
 trade at any foreign port or place during her voyage presently 
 to be made. 
 
 Given under hand and seal, the day and 
 
 year above mentioned. 
 
 Collector. 
 
 Naval Officer, 
 
 This permit to " touch and trade " appears to be an anom- 
 alous document. When a trading vessel sails for a foreign 
 port, she must take out a clearance — a certificate given by the 
 collector of a port, stating that the master (named) of a ship 
 (named and described), bound to a port (named) has entered 
 and cleared his vessel according to law. 
 
 Mr. Sabine says, in his report, page 159: " Still further to 
 encourage the prosecution of the fisheries, an act of 1793 
 authorized the collectors of customs to grant vessels duly 
 licensed permits to touch and trade at any foreign port or 
 place, and under such documents to procure salt and other 
 necessary outfits without being subjected to the payment of 
 duties. This act, which is still in force (1853), has proved ex- 
 tremely beneficial to our fishingvessels in certain emergencies; 
 but it may be admitted that its privileges are liable to be 
 abused." 
 
 It seems probable that this measure was intended to apply 
 to American fishermen in their home ports. 
 
 Fishing vessels do not take out clearances : neither does 
 it appear that they have either passport or manifest, papers 
 usually carried by vessels in the foreign trade. It may well 
 be a question then, whether this permit to touch and trade, 
 without naming any special port of destination, could be ex- 
 pected to give a vpssel commercial rights in foreign ports. 
 When a vessel arrives near an American port, the first question 
 asked of its master by the United States revenue officer is its 
 destination and its port of departure, and the ship's papers 
 are expected to show these. To prevent illicit trade, the rev- 
 enue laws of all maritime nations are necessarily pretty 
 stringent in these respects. If, therefore, American fishing 
 vessels claim the right, under the convention of 1818, of trading 
 
456 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in Canadian ports, they should expect to comply with the 
 revenue regulations imposed upon trading vessels. But fisher- 
 men do not wish to be hampered by these regulations. They 
 do not know beforehand at what ports they may wish to touch, 
 — that depends upon the whereabouts of the fish for which 
 they are searching, as well as upon other contingencies. 
 
 According to Senator Edmunds' report of January 19, 1887, 
 the only vessel in the fishing business which sailed with a 
 clearance during the summer of 1886 was the Druid, McQuinn 
 master, which cleared from Gloucester to Harbor De Bar, 
 Magdalen . Islands. Instead, however, of going to the Mag- 
 dalens, she turned from her course and put in at Malpeque, 
 Prince Edward Island, and tried to get a cargo of fish to bring 
 back, and of course got into trouble with the revenue ofllcers. 
 The vessel was registered, and went down, not to fish, but to 
 carry supplies to fishing vessels, and to bring back a cargo of 
 fish ; but finding the fishing fieet off Prince Edward Island, 
 the master entirely ignored his clearance to the Magdalens. 
 
 The practice of American fishermen of buying bait and 
 other supplies without complying with the Canadian customs 
 laws is illustrated by the case of the David J. Adams, which 
 was argued at Halifax in 1888. The Adams was seized on the 
 7th of May, 1886 in Digby Bay for buying bait and ice in 
 British waters in contravention of the treaty of 1818. 
 
 The counsel for the owners of the Adams argued that 
 American fishermen had a right to buy, in Canadia.n waters, 
 bait and other supplies necessary for fishing, to be used in the 
 deep-sea fisheries. 
 
 The Canadian counsel insisted upon the strict interpretation 
 of the treaty, that American fishing vessels may enter their 
 waters for purposes of shelter, repairing damages, the 
 purchase of wood and obtaining of water, and " for no other 
 purpose whatever." As the British courts do not administer 
 treaties, but only the statutes that are passed to carry treaties 
 into effect, the Canadian courts encountered a difficulty, from 
 the fact that the Imperial act of 1819, to carry into effect the 
 convention of 1818, imposed no penalty for buying bait or sup- 
 plies; the only penalty was for "fishing or preparing to fish" 
 within the prohibited waters. In order to make the purchase 
 of bait or other fishing supplies an offense under the treaty, it 
 
THE riSHEEIES QUESTION. 457 
 
 was therefore necessary to consider this act as a "preparing 
 to flsh " within the prohibited waters. 
 
 Two similar cases were decided in 1870 and 1871, the decis- 
 ions being, however, in direct conflict with each other. 
 
 The first of these was the case of the Wfiite Fawn, an 
 American fishing vessel, seized at Head Harbor, Campobello, for 
 buying bait and ice in 1870. Judge Hazen, of St. John, who 
 tried the case, said that the construction sought to be put upon 
 the statutes by the Crown ofBcers was that " a foreign vessel 
 being in British waters and purchasing from a British subject 
 any article which may be used in prosecuting the fisheries, 
 without its being shown that such article is to be used in illegal 
 fishing in British waters, is liable to forfeiture as preparing to 
 fish in British waters." 
 
 Judge Hazen continues : — 
 
 ' ' I cannot adopt such a construction. I think it is harsh and 
 unreasonable, and not warranted by the words of the statutes. 
 It would subject a foreign vessel which might be of great Value, 
 as in the present case, to forfeiture, with her cargo and outfits 
 for purchasing (while she was pursuing her voyage in British 
 waters, as she lawfully might do, within three miles of our coast) 
 of a British subject any article however small in value (a card 
 line or net, for instance) without its being shown that there was 
 any intention of using such articles in Ulegal fishing in British 
 waters before she reached the fishing grounds to which she might 
 legally resort for fishing under the terms of the statutes. 
 
 ' ' I construe the statutes simply thus : If a foreign vessel is 
 found — 1st, having taken fish ; 2d, fishing, etc. ; 3rd, preparing 
 to flsh, etc., in British waters." 
 
 The statutes, he says, were intended to prevent fishing in 
 British waters. 
 
 This was precisely the ground taken by Mr. Bayard. 
 
 The other case, in 1871, was that of the J. H. Nickerson, an 
 American fishing vessel seized in the North Bay of Ingonish, 
 Cape Breton, for buying bait. Sir William Young, judge of 
 the Vice-Admiralty court at Halifax, rendered the decision that 
 the purchase of bait was " a preparing to fish" in the sense of 
 the British statutes ; the vessel was therefore condemned on 
 that ground. 
 
 The cause of complaint on the part of American fishermen 
 
458 TOPICS IN AMEEIGAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 in the summer of 1886 was not so much on account of not be- 
 ing permitted to buy bait and other supplies, as it was on 
 account of the harsh and unreasonable manner in which the 
 Canadian authorities carried out the regulations under the con- 
 tention of 1818 and their own customs laws. A vessel, accord- 
 ing to this interpretation, could enter a port to repair damages, 
 but was not permitted to buy a rope or anything that might be 
 wanted for such repairs ; she could procure water, but if her 
 water casks were out of repair, she was not allowed to buy 
 new ones, or even a hoop with which to mend the old ones ; she 
 could enter a harbor for shelter, but if she put a man on shore 
 or took one On board, she was subject to detention and flue : 
 and in any case she was often so pestered and insulted by rev- 
 enue officials that it were better to run the chances of shipwreck 
 than to enter a harbor where it was easy to find an excuse for 
 her detention. The actions of Captain Quigly and a few others 
 had more to do with stirring up a feeling of indignation and 
 resentment in the United States, than did any refusal of rights 
 under the treaty. It was not the seizure of the David J. 
 Adams and similar cases which was objected to so much as it 
 was such acts as the detention of vessels on slight pretexts, 
 and the hauling down the flag of an American vessel entered 
 for innocent purposes ; and the refusal to allow an American 
 vessel to land' the crew and effects of a wrecked Nova Scotian 
 vessel whom she had rescued at great trouble and expense. 
 Such acts as these revealed the animus of the Canadians, which 
 would seem to have been to take advantage of every techni- 
 cality of law or treaty, to annoy and provoke the American 
 fishermen, with the probable motive of ultimately forcing the 
 United States to make a new reciprocity treaty. 
 
 Another cause of complaint on the part of the United States 
 was the nature of the Canadian laws, which authorized and 
 regulated the seizure of transgressing fishing vessels. The 
 captor was given a large interest (about one-half) in the vessel 
 seized, and then he was so protected by restrictions placed 
 upon the owner of the vessel seized, that there was little or no 
 danger to the captor, even if the seizure were illegal. More- 
 over, " the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure shall 
 be upon the owner or claimant." (Law of 1868, sections 6, 10, 
 15, 16.) 
 
THE riSHEKIES QUESTION. 459 
 
 Again, the United States can only negotiate with the home 
 government and hold it responsible in matters connected with 
 the Canadian fisheries; whereas the Domiaion Government 
 since 1867 has really taken the matter into its own hands, and 
 puts its own construction upon treaties, and, under the name 
 of local regulations, may greatly modify th$ treaties. Except 
 in the last resort, England seems to have abrogated her author- 
 ity in Canada.^ 
 
 Now, looking at the question from the Canadian standpoint, 
 what is the nature of the grievance which the Canadians have 
 against us ? To put it briefly, it is that American fishermen 
 wish to use Canadian ports and waters generally, as a base for 
 their fishing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the 
 neighboring seas ; whilst the Canadians, fishing in the same 
 waters, are practically shut out of the American market by the 
 high duty laid on their fish in the United States. They affirm, 
 too, that many American fishermen habitually fish within the 
 prohibited three-mile limit, when the Dominion cruisers are 
 not in their vicinity ; and that they tend to destroy the fishery 
 by throwing oflal overboard on the fishing grounds. As to the 
 complaint of American fishermen, that they are unduly molested 
 when seeking shelter in Canadian harbors, the Canadian offi- 
 cials answer that, on the pretense of seeking shelter, American 
 fishing vessels frequently approach the shore or harbors for the 
 purpose of landing or taking on men. 
 
 Let us illustrate the above general complaint in the case of 
 the mackerel fishery, which is mainly limited to the Gulf of St. 
 Lawrence. If an American mackerel vessel goes to the Gulf 
 in the beginning of the season, and can there obtain supplies 
 and the privilege of transshipping her cargoes in Canadian 
 ports, it is evidently a great advantage to her; for, otherwise, 
 she would be obliged to sail home every time she had got a 
 full fare or was out of provisions. Now, say the Canadians, 
 you wish us to give you all the privileges in our ports that we our- 
 selves possess, to aid you in taking mackerel, but when we go 
 to your ports to sell mackerel, you demand of us a duty'of $2.00 
 a barrel. 
 
 In the case of the cod fishery, there is not so much depend- 
 
 1 The term Canada is used in these pages as a matter of convenience to 
 include Newfoundland. 
 
460 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ence upon the British provinces, because these fish are taken 
 mostly on the Banks ; but even here bait could be obtained 
 cheaper and better from the Canadians, if it were permitted to 
 buy it. In this case too it might be advantageous to transship 
 the fish. 
 
 Now if we wish^to have those privileges, say the Canadians, 
 we must give something in return, and of course the thing 
 most desired is a free market for their fish. To this of all 
 things the American fishermen most object. On their side, 
 they say that they cannot compete with the Canadian fishermen 
 on equal terms, for the reason that the cost of vessels, labor and 
 of living is much less in the provinces than it is in the United 
 States. They say further, according to the»evidence taken 
 in 1888 by Mr. Edmunds' committee, that the Canadians 
 have nothing to give them which would be an equivalent for a 
 free market to Canadian fish, not even the grant of the inshore 
 fishery ; they care nothing, they affirm, for the privileges of 
 buying bait which is now only used for fishing for cod and 
 halibut. 
 
 It remains to be seen whether American fishermen can prof- 
 itably carry on the mackerel fishing under the present condi- 
 tions, — that is, in the absence of those privileges and facilities 
 which they possessed under the reciprocity treaties. It is quite 
 evident that the Canadians, backed by the home government, 
 will not recede from their interpretation of the convention of 
 1818 as to the distinction between trading and fishing vessels. 
 And it may indeed be said in favor of this view that the gen- 
 eral practice of nations is to "regulate fisheries by treaties, in 
 which fishing vessels are placed in a special class. Even the 
 United States make, in their laws, certain distinctions between 
 the two classes of vessels. On the other hand, it is said that 
 Canadian fishing vessels are admitted freely into the ports of 
 the United States. 
 
 In 1887, Congress authorized the President, by way of retal- 
 iation, to suspend so much of the 29th article of the treaty of 
 1871 a^ granted to Great Britain the privilege of the transit of 
 merchandise through the territories of the United States with- 
 out payment of duties. This authority was not exercised by 
 the President. 
 
 The controversy of 1886 and 1887 led to negotiations for a- 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTIOK. 461 
 
 new fisheries treaty ; and on the 15th of February, 1888, such 
 a treaty was signed at Washington, but was subsequently re- 
 jected by the Senate. 
 
 The provisions of the treaty are as follows : 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties agree to appoint a mixed Com- 
 mission to delimit, in the manner provided in this Treaty, the 
 British waters, hays, creeks, and harbors of the coasts of Canada 
 and of Newfoundland, as to which the United States, by Article 
 I. of the Convention of October 20th, 1818, between the United 
 States and Great Britain, renounced forever any liberty to take, 
 dry, or cure fish. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 The Commission shall consist of two commissioners to be named 
 by Her Britannic Majesty, and of two commissioners to be named 
 by the President of the United States, without delay, after the 
 exchange of ratifications of this Treaty. 
 
 The Commission shall meet and complete the delimitation as 
 soon as possible thereafter. 
 
 In case of the death, absence, or incapacity of any commis- 
 sioner, or in the event of any commissioner omitting or ceasing 
 to act as such, the President of the United States or Her Britannic 
 Majesty respectively shall forthwith name another person to act 
 as commissioner instead of the commissioner originally named. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 The delimitation referred to in Article I. of this Treaty shall be 
 marked upon British Admiralty charts by a series of lines regu- 
 larly numbered and duly described. The charts so marked shall, 
 on the termination of the work of the Commission, be signed by the 
 commissioners in quadrupUcate, one copy whereof shall be de- 
 livered to the Secretary of State of the United States, and three 
 copies to Her Majesty's Government. The delimitation shall be 
 made in the following manner, and shall be accepted by both the 
 High Contracting Parties as applicable for all purposes under 
 Article I. of the Convention of October 30th, 1818, between- 
 the United States and Great Britain. 
 
 The three marine miles mentioned in Article I. of the Conven- 
 
462 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 tion of October 20th, 1818, shall be measured seaward from low- 
 water mark; but at every bay, creek, or harbor not otherwise 
 specially provided for in this Treaty such three mariae miles 
 shall be measured seaward from a straight line drawn across the 
 bay, creek, or harbor in the part nearest the entrance at the first 
 point where the width does not exceed ten marine miles. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 At or near the following bays the limits of exclusion under 
 Article I. of the Convention of October 20th, 1818, at points more 
 than three marine miles from low-water mark shaU be established 
 by the following lines, namely : — • 
 
 At the Baie des Chaleurs the line from the Light at Birch 
 Point on Miscou Island to Macquereau Point Light; at the Bay 
 of Miramichi, the line from the Light at Point Escuminac to the 
 Light on the Eastern Point of Tabisintac Gully; at Egmont Bay, 
 in Prince Edward Island, the line from the Light at Cape Egmont 
 to the Light at West Point; and oft St. Ann's Bay, in the Prov- 
 ince of Nova Scotia, the line from Cape Smoke to the Light at 
 Point Aconi. 
 
 At Fortune Bay, in Newfoundland, the line from Connaigre 
 Head to the Light on the south-easterly end of Brunet Island, 
 thence to Fortune Head ; at Sir Charles Hamilton Sound, the line 
 from the south-east point of Cape Fogo to White Island, thence 
 to the north end of Peckford Island, and from the south end of 
 Peckf ord Island to the East Headland of Bagged Harbor. 
 
 At or near the following bays the limits of exclusion shall be 
 three marine miles seaward from the following lines, namely : — 
 
 At or near Barrington Bay, in Nova Scotia, the line from the 
 Light on Stoddard Island to the Light on the south point of Cape 
 Sable, thence to the Light at Baccaro Point ; at Chedabucto and 
 St. Peter's Bays the line from Cranberry Island Light to Green 
 Island Light, thence to Point Rouge ; at Mira Bay, the line from 
 the Light on the east point of Scatari Island to the north-easterly 
 point of OapeMorien; and at Placentia Bay, in Newfoundland, 
 the line from Latine Point, on the eastern mainland shore, to the 
 most southerly point of Red Island, thence by the most southerly 
 point of Merasheen Island to the mainland. 
 
 Long Island and Bryer Island, at St. Mary's Bay in Nova Scotia, 
 shall, for the purpose of delimitation, be taken, as the coasts ot 
 such bay. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 463 
 
 Article V. 
 
 Nothing in this treaty shall be construed to include within the 
 common waters any such interior portions of any bays, creeks, ' 
 or harbors as cannot be reached from the sea without passing 
 within the three marine miles mentioned in Article I. of the Con- 
 vention of October 20th, 1818. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 The commissioners shall from time to time report to each of the 
 High Contracting Parties, such lines as they may have agreed 
 upon, numbered, described, and marked as herein provided, with 
 quadruplicate charts thereof ; which lines so reported shall forth- 
 with from time to time be simultaneously proclaimed by the High 
 Contracting parties, and be binding after two months from such 
 proclamation. 
 
 Article VH. 
 
 Any disagreement of the commissioners shall forthwith be re- 
 ferred to an umpire selected by the Secretary of State of the 
 United States and Her Britannic Majesty's Minister at Washing- 
 ton ; and his decision shall be final. 
 
 Article VHI. 
 
 Each of the High Contracting Parties shall pay its own com- 
 missioners and officers. All other expenses jointly incurred in 
 connection with the performance of the work, including compen- 
 sation to the umpire, shall be paid by the High Contracting Parties 
 in equal moieties. 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 Nothing in this treaty shall interrupt or affect the free, navi- 
 gation of the Strait of Canso by fishing vessels of the United 
 States. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 United States fishing vessels entering the bays or harbors re- 
 ferred to in Article I. of this Treaty shall conform to harbor reg- 
 
464 TOPICS IN AMEKICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ulations common to them and to fishing vessels of Canada or of 
 Newfoundland. 
 
 They need not report, enter, or clear, when putting into such 
 bays or harbors for shelter or repairing damages, nor when put- 
 ting into the same, outside the limitsof established ports of entry, 
 for the purpose of purchasing wood or of obtaining water ; except 
 that any such vessel remaining more than twenty-four hours, 
 exclusive of Sundays and legal holidays, within any such port, or 
 communicating with the shore therein, may be required to report, 
 enter, or clear ; and no vessel shall be excused hereby from giv- 
 ing due information to boarding officers. 
 
 They shall not be liable in any such bays or harbors for com- 
 pulsory pilotage ; nor, when therein for the purpose of shelter, of 
 repairing damages, of purchasing wood, or of obtaining water, 
 shall they be liable for harbor dues, tonnage dues, buoy dues, 
 light dues, or other similar dues ; but this enumeration shall not 
 permit other charges inconsistent with the enjoyment of the 
 liberties reserved or secured by the Convention of October 20th, 
 1818. , 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 United States fishing vessels entering the ports, bays, and har- 
 bors of the Eastern and Northeastern coasts of Canada or of the 
 coast of Newfoundland under stress of weather or other casualty 
 may unload, reload, transship, or sell, subject to customs laws 
 and regulations, aU fish on board, when such unloading, trans- 
 shipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental to repairs, and 
 may replenish outfits, provisions, and supplies damaged or lost 
 by disaster ; and in case of death or sickness shall be allowed all 
 needful facilities, including the shipping of crews. 
 
 Licenses to purchase in established ports of entry of the afore- 
 said coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland, for the homeward 
 voyage, such provisions and supplies as are ordinarily sold to 
 trading vessels, shall be granted to United States fishing vessels 
 in such ports, promptly upon application and without charge ; 
 and such vessels having obtained licenses in the manner afore- 
 said, shaU also be accorded upon all occasions such facilities for 
 the purchase of casual or needful provisions and supplies as are 
 ordinarily granted to the trading vessels ; but such provisions or 
 supplies shall not be obtained by barter, nor purchased for re- 
 sale or traffic. 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 466 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 Fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland shall have on the 
 Atlantic coast of the United States all the privileges reserved and 
 secured by this treaty to United States fishing vessels in the afore- 
 said waters of Canada and Newfoundland. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make 
 regulations providing for the conspicuous exhibition by every 
 United States fishing vessel, of its official number on each bow ; 
 and any such vessel, required by law to have an official number, 
 and failing to comply with such regulations, shaU not be entitled 
 to the licenses provided for in this Treaty. 
 
 Such regulations shall be communicated to Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment previously to their taking effect. 
 
 Article XIV. 
 
 The penalties for unlawfully fishing in the waters, bays, creeks, 
 and harbors referred to in Article I. of this treaty, may extend 
 to forfeiture of the boat or vessel and appurtenances, and also of 
 the supplies and cargo aboard when the ofEense was committed ; 
 and for preparing in such waters to unlawfully fish therein, pen- 
 alties shall be fixed by the court, not to exceed those for unlaw- 
 fully fishing ; and for any other violation of the laws of Great 
 Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland, relating to the right of fishery 
 in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbors, penalties shall be fixed 
 by the court, not exceeding in all three doUars for every ton of 
 the boat or vessel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden 
 for such penalties and forfeitures. 
 
 The proceedings shall be summary and as inexpensive as prac- 
 ticable. The trial (except on appeal) shall be at the place of 
 detention, unless the judge shall, on request of the defense, order 
 it to be held at some other place adjudged by him more conven- 
 ient. Security for costs shall not be required of the defense, 
 except when bail is ofEered. Reasonable bail shall be accepted. 
 There shall be proper appeals available to the defense only ; and 
 the evidence at the trial may be used on appeal. 
 
 Judgments of forfeiture shall be reviewed by the Governor- 
 General of Canada in Council, or the Governor in Council of 
 Newfoundland, before the same are executed. 
 30 
 
466 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 Article XV. 
 
 Whenever the United States shall remove the duty from fish- 
 oil, whale-oil, seal-oil, and fish of all kinds- (except flsh preserved 
 in oil), being the produce of fisheries carried on by the fishermen 
 of Canada and Newfoundland, including Labrador, as well as 
 from the usual and necessary casks, barrels, kegs, cans, and 
 other usual and necessary coverings containing the products 
 above mentioned, the like products, being the produce of fisheries 
 carried on by the fishermen of the United States, as well as the 
 usual and necessary coverings of the same, as above described, 
 shall be admitted free of duty into the Dominion of Canada and 
 Newfoundland. 
 
 And upon such removal of duties, and while the aforesaid 
 articles are allowed to be brought into the United States by Brit- 
 ish subjects, without duty being reimposed thereon, the privilege 
 of entering the ports, bays, and harbors of the aforesaid coasts of 
 Canada and Newfoundland shall be accorded to United States 
 fishing vessels by annual licenses, free of charge, for the follow- 
 ing purposes, namely : — 
 
 1. The purchase of provisions, bait, ice, seines, lines, and all 
 other supplies and outfits. 
 
 2. Transshipment of catch, for transport by any means of con- 
 veyance. 
 
 3. Shipping of crews. 
 
 Supplies shall not be obtained by barter, but bait may be so 
 obtained. 
 
 The like privileges shall be continued or given to fishing vessels 
 of Canada and of Newfoundland on the Atlantic coasts of the 
 United States. 
 
 Article XVI. 
 
 This Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United 
 States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and by 
 Her Britannic Majesty, having received the assent of the Parlia- 
 ment of Canada and of the Legislature of Newfoundland, and the 
 ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington els soon as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have 
 signed this Treaty, and have hereunto afilxed our seals. 
 
 Done in duplicate, at Washington, this fifteenth day of Febru- 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 467 
 
 ary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 
 eighty-eight. 
 
 (Signed) T. F. BAYARD, [seal] 
 
 " WILLIAM L. PUTNAM, [seal] 
 
 " JAMES B. ANGELL, [seal] 
 
 " J. CHAMBERLAIN, [seal] 
 
 " L. S. SACKVILLE WEST, [seal] 
 
 " CHARLES TUPPER. [seal] 
 
 MODUS VIVENDI. 
 
 The British negotiators offered to make the following tem- 
 porary arrangement or modus vivendi, pending the ratification 
 of the treaty : — 
 
 "1. For a period not exceeding two years from the present 
 date, the privilege of entering the bays and harbors of the At- 
 lantic coasts of Canada and Newfoundland shall be granted to 
 the United States fishing vessels by annual licenses at a fee of 
 $li per ton — for the following purposes : 
 
 " The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies 
 and outfits. 
 
 ' ' Transshipment of catch and shipping of crews. 
 
 "2. If, during the continuance of this arrangement, the United 
 States should remove the duties on fish, fish-oil, whale and seal- 
 oil (and their coverings, packages, etc.), the said licenses shaU 
 be issued free of charge. 
 
 " 3. United States fishing vessels entering the bays and harbors 
 of the Atlantic coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland for any of 
 the four purposes mentioned in Article I. of the convention of 
 October 20, 1818, and not remaining therein more than twenty- 
 four hours, shall not be required to enter or clear at the custom 
 house, providing that they do not communicate with the shore. 
 
 " 4. Forfeiture to be exacted only for the ofEenses of fishing or 
 preparing to fish in territorial waters. 
 
 "5. This arrangement to take effect as soon as the necessary 
 measures can be completed by the colonial authorities. 
 
 "Washington, February 15, 1888." 
 
 The American commissioners accepted this agreement, and 
 it has been since that time, by renewal, the fisheries arrange- 
 ment between the two countries. 
 
468 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 In some respects the rejected treaty of 1888 was not so 
 favorable to United States fishermen as the earlier reciprocity 
 treaties, which permitted them to take fish in all the bays and 
 marginal waters of the British provinces. Even if the duty on 
 fish in the United States be removed, our fishermen would be 
 accorded commercial privileges only. Yet if a general recipocity 
 treaty is impossible, some such arrangement as that treaty 
 offered would doubtless be better than the uncertain condition 
 of the fisheries under the treaty of 1818. The real difficulty in 
 the way of a settlement of the fisheries controversy on broad 
 lines is the tariff system of the United States ; until that is 
 modified there can be little hope of a satisfactory arrangement. 
 
 Bounties and Duties in Respect of the Fisheries. 
 
 Bounties. — By an act of Congress in 1789 a bounty was allowed 
 of five cents per quintal on dried, and the same per barrel on 
 pickled fish exported from the United States ; and a duty was 
 imposed of fifty cents per quintal and of seventy-five cents per 
 barrel on foreign fish imported. 
 
 In 1792 the bounty on dried and pickled fish exported was abol- 
 ished, and in lieu thereof a specific sum was granted to vessels 
 employed in the cod-fishery (but only in case the fish were to be 
 dried or dry-cured) , graduated according to the size of the ves- 
 sels. Boats between five and twenty tons burden were entitled 
 to receive one dollar per ton annually ; those between twenty and 
 thirty tons, fifty cents additional ; and to those more than thirty 
 tons, the allowance was fixed at two dollars and fifty cents per 
 ton; but no vessel could receive more than one hundred and 
 seventy dollars in one season. By a subsequent act the same 
 year, these rates were increased one-fifth, to commence in 
 January, 1793, to continue seven years, and thence to the end of 
 the next session of Congress. 
 
 By the act of July 29, 1813: " There shall be paid on the last 
 day of December, annually, to the owner of every vessel or his 
 agent, by the collector of the district where such vessel may be- 
 long, that shall be qualified agreeably to law for carrying on the 
 bank and other cod- fisheries, and that shall actually have been 
 employed therein at sea for the term of four months, at the least, 
 of the fishing season next preceding, which season is accounted 
 
THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 469 
 
 to be from the last day of February to the last day of November 
 in every year, for each and every ton of such vessel's burthen ac- 
 cording to her admeasurement as licensed or enrolled, if of twenty 
 tons and not exceeding thirty tons, two dollars and forty cents; 
 and if above thirty tons four dollars ; of which allowance aforesaid 
 three-eighth parts shall accrue and belong to the owner of such 
 fishing vessel, and the other five-eighths thereof shall be divided 
 by him * * * to and among the several fishermen who shall have 
 been employed in such vessel during the season aforesaid, * * » 
 in such proportions as the fish they shall respectively have taken 
 may bear to the whole quantity of fish taken on board such vessel 
 during such season: Provided, that the allowance aforesaid on 
 any one vessel for one season shall not exceed two hundred and 
 seventy-two dollars." 
 
 On boats of a tonnage of over five and less than twfenty tons, 
 the allowance was one doUar and sixty cents, to be accounted a 
 part of the proceeds of the fares and divided accordingly. 
 
 By act of March 1, 1817, to receive bounty under the law, it 
 must be shown that the officers and three-fourths of the crew of 
 the vessel are American citizens. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1819, increased the bounties to some ex- 
 tent. Vessels of more than five and not exceeding thirty tons 
 were to receive three dollars and fifty cents per ton, above thirty 
 tons, four dollars ; and the maximum limit was raised to three 
 hundred and sixty dollars. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1865, extended the provisions of the act 
 of 1813 in respect of bounties " to the master or skipper and 
 seamen of vessels of the burden of twenty tons or upwards, 
 qualified according to law for carrying on the mackerel fisheries." 
 
 Licenses to vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery were first 
 granted by the act of May 24, 1828 ; and it was not till 1865 that 
 such vessels were given the benefit of the bounty. But this 
 privilege was of short duration, for the next year (July 28, 1866) 
 Congress enacted : 
 
 "That all laws and parts allowing fishing boimties to vessels 
 hereafter licensed to engage in the fisheries be and the same are 
 hereby repealed." 
 
 Duties. — The tariff of 1816 imposed a duty of one dollar per 
 quintal on foreign dried or smoked fish imported into the United 
 States, two dollars per barrel on salmon, one dollar and fifty 
 cents per barrel on mackerel, and one dollar per barrel on all 
 other kinds of pickled fish. The tariffs of 1824, 1828, and 1832 
 
470 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 did not change these duties. They were of course subject to the 
 Clp-y compromise tariff of 1833 ; and by the Walker tariff of 
 1846, the specific duties on fish were repealed, and a uniform 
 twenty per cent, ad valorem rate substituted. 
 
 In the tariff of March 3, 1861, a specific duty is reimposed as 
 follows : 
 
 " On mackerel, two dollars per barrel ; on herrings, pickled or 
 salted, one dollar per barrel ; on pickled salmon, three dollars 
 per barrel ; on aU other fish pickled in barrels, one dollar and 
 fifty cents per barrel ; on all other foreign caught fish imported 
 otherwise than in barrels or half-barrels, or whether fresh, 
 smoked or dried, salted or pickled, not otherwise provided for, 
 fifty cents per hundred pounds." 
 
 In 1874 (or about that time) ' ' fish, fresh, for immediate con- 
 sumption, and fish for bait " were put on the free list. 
 
 Under the McEinley Act of October 6, 1890, " fish, pickled, in 
 barrels or half -barrels, and mackerel or salmon, pickled or salted, 
 one cent per pound. 
 
 "Fish, smoked, dried, salted, pickled, frozen, packed in ice, 
 or otherwise prepared for preservation ; and fresh fish, not 
 specially provided for in this act, three-fourths of one cent per 
 pound. 
 
 " Herrings, pickled or salted, one-half of one cent per pound ; 
 herrings, fresh, one-fourth of one cent per pound." 
 
 During the periods of the reciprocity treaties of 1854 and 1871 
 the duties were not in force. ^ 
 
 1 References. — The treaties with England on the subject of the fisheries 
 may be found in this volume in their chronological order. 
 
 Charles B. Elliott : " The United States and the Northeastern Fisheries," 
 1887, p. 151, being a history of the fisheries question. 
 
 Charles Isham : " The Fishery Question, its Origin, History and Present 
 Situation," 1887, p. 89. 
 
 Lorenzo Sabine : " Eeport on the Principal Fisheries of the American 
 Seas," 1853, p. 317. Submitted by Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury, 
 as a part of his annual report on the finances. 
 
 John Quincy Adams : " The Fisheries and the Mississippi," 1823, p. 223. 
 Documents, with a discussion relating to transactions at the negotiation of 
 Ghent. 
 
 Theodore Lyman : " The Diplomacy of the United States," 1828, Vol. IL, 
 pp. 86-101. 
 
 Francis Wharton : " A Digest of International Law," Vol. III., §§ 299- 
 309. 
 
 Eugene Schuyler : "American Diplomacy," 1886, pp. 404-420. 
 
THE BEHKISG SEA AKBITKATION. 471 
 
 THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION. 
 
 The controversy which ended in the arbitration of 1893 had 
 its origin in the disputed claims in respect of the northwestern 
 coast of America. 
 
 In 1790, Spain claimed all the northwestern coast of America 
 as far north as Prince William's Sound in latitude 61°, upon 
 the ground of prior discovery and long possession. England 
 disputed this claim, upon the principle that the earth is the 
 common inheritance of mankind, of which each individual and 
 each nation has a right to appropriate a share, by occupation 
 and cultivation. This dispute was terminated by a convention 
 between the two powers, known as the Nookta Sound Con- 
 vention, stipulating that their respective subjects should not 
 be disturbed in their navigation and fisheries in the Pacific 
 Ocean or the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of those 
 seas, not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their 
 commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settle- 
 ments there, subject to the condition that British subjects 
 should not navigate or fish within the space of ten marine 
 leagues from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain ; 
 and that where the subjects of either of the two powers should 
 have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or 
 should thereafter make any, the subjects of the other should 
 have free access, and should carry on their trade without any 
 disturbance or molestation. — {Dana's Edition of WheatorCs 
 International Law, p. 242.) 
 
 In 1799, the Emperor Paul of Russia granted by charter to 
 the Russian American Company the exclusive right of hunt- 
 ing, trade, and the discovery of new land on the northwestern 
 coast of America, from Behring's Strait to the flfty-fiith 
 degree of north latitude, with permission to extend their dis- 
 
 The Eecords of the Halifax Commission contain a presentation of the 
 arguments on the whole question of the fisheries. 
 
 Public Documents : In Elliott's history of the Fisheries may be found a 
 list of public documents relating to the fisheries ; and also a list of other 
 authorities. 
 
472 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 coveries to the south and to form establishments there, 
 provided they did not encroach upon the territory occupied by 
 other powers. — {Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 456.) 
 
 On the 4th of September, 1821, the Emperor Alexander I. 
 of Russia issued the following ukase : — 
 
 " Section I. — The transaction of commerce, and the pursuit of 
 whaling and fishiag, or any other industry on the islands, in the 
 harbors and inlets, and, in general, all along the northwestern 
 coast of America from Behring Strait to the fifty-first parallel of 
 northern latitude, and likewise on the Aleutian Islands and along 
 the eastern coast of Siberia, and on the KurUe Islands ; that is, 
 from Behring Strait to the southern promontory of the Island of 
 Urup, viz., as far south as latitude forty-five degrees and fifty 
 minutes north, are exclusively reserved to subjects of the Russian 
 Empire. 
 
 "Sbotion II. — Accordingly, no foreign vessel shall be allowed 
 either to put to shore at any of the coasts and islands under Rus- 
 sian dominion as specified in the preceding section, or even to ap- 
 proach the same to within a distance of less than one hundred 
 Italian miles. Any vessel contravening this provision shall be 
 subject to confiscation with her whole cargo." — {Foreign Rela- 
 tions, 1890, p. 439.) 
 
 Both the United States and England, having undefined 
 claims to territory on the northwest coast of America, pro- 
 tested against this extension of Russian jurisdiction. 
 
 In a communication to Poletica, the Russian Minister at 
 Washington, February 25, 1822, Mr J. Q. Adams, Secretary of 
 State, said : — 
 
 " I am directed by the President of the United States to inform 
 you that he has seen with surprise, in this edict, the assertion of 
 a territorial claim on the part of Russia, extending to the fifty- 
 first degree of north latitude on this continent, and a regulation 
 interdicting to aU commercial vessels other than Russian, upon 
 the penalty of seizure and confiscation, the approach upon the 
 high seas within one hundred Italian miles of the shores to which 
 that claim is made to apply. * * * j^ ^g^ expected before any act 
 which should define the boundaries between the United States and 
 Russia on this continent, that the same would have been arranged 
 by treaty between the parties. To exclude the vessels of our 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 473 
 
 citizens from the shore, beyond the ordinary distance to which 
 the territorial jurisdiction extends, has excited still greater sur- 
 prise." — {American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV., 871.) 
 
 On the 28th of February, 1822, Poletica replied to Adams : — 
 
 ' ' I shall be more succinct, sir, in the exposition of the motives 
 which determined the Imperial Government to prohibit foreign 
 vessels from approaching the northwest coast of America belong- 
 ing to Russia within the distance of at least one hundred Italian 
 miles. This measure, however severe it may at first view appear, 
 is, after all, but a measure of prevention. It is exclusively 
 directed against the culpable enterprises of foreign adventurers, 
 who, not content with exercising upon the coasts above mentioned 
 an illicit trade very prejudicial to the rights reserved entirely to the 
 Russian- American Company, take upon them besides to furnish 
 arms and amuraunition to the natives in the Russian possessions 
 in America, exciting them likewise in every manner to resistance 
 and revolt against the authorities there established. * * * Pacific 
 means not having brought any alleviation to the just grievances 
 of the Russian- American Company against foreign navigators in 
 the waters which environ their establishments on the northwest 
 coast of America, the Imperial Government saw itself imder the 
 necessity of having recourse to the means of coercion, and of 
 measuring the rigor according to the inveterate character of the 
 evil to which it is wished to put a Stop. * * * 
 
 " I ought, m the last place, to request you to consider, sir, that 
 the Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean extend, on the north- 
 west coast of America, from Behring Strait to the fifty -first degree 
 of north latitude, and on the opposite side of Asia, and the islands 
 adjacent, from the same strait to the forty-fifth degree. The ex- 
 tent of sea, of which these possessions form the limits, compre- 
 hends all the conditions which are ordinarily attached to shut 
 seas (mers fermees), and the Russian Government might conse- 
 quently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right 
 of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the en- 
 trance of foreigners. But it preferred only asserting its essential 
 rights, without taking any advantage of localities," — {American 
 State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV., 862.) 
 
 In reply Adams said on the 30th of March, 1822 : — 
 
 " This pretension is to be considered not only with reference to 
 
474 TOPICS IN AMEKICAJSr DIPLOMACY. 
 
 the question of territorial right, but also to that prohibition to the 
 vessels of other nations, including those of the United States, to 
 approach within one hundred Italian mUes of the coasts. From 
 the period of the existence of the United States as an independ- 
 ent nation, their vessels have freely navigated those seas, and 
 the right to navigate them is a part of that independence. 
 
 ' ' With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Governhient 
 might have exercised the right of sovereignty over the Pacific 
 Ocean as a close sea, because it claims territory both on its 
 American and Asiatic shores, it may suflSce to say that the dis- 
 tance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitude 51° north, is not 
 less than ninety degrees of longitude, or four thousand miles. 
 
 ' ' As little can the United States accede to the justice of the 
 reason assigned for the prohibition above mentioned. The right 
 of the citizens of the United States to hold commerce with the 
 aboriginal natives of the northwest coast of America, without 
 the territorial jurisdiction of other nations, even in arms and 
 munitions of war, is as clear and indisputable as that of navigating 
 the seas." — {American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV., 863.) 
 
 Under date of November 1, 1822, Adams writes in Journal: 
 
 " I received a dispatch from H. Middleton, our minister at St. 
 Petersburg, dated 20th August, relating entirely to the North- 
 west Coast controversy. The Baron de Tuyl is coming out as 
 minister from Russia, charged with a proposal for negotiating on 
 the subject. Speransky, now Governor-General of Siberia, told 
 Middleton that they had at first thought of declaring the North- 
 ern Pacific Ocean a " mare clausum," but afterward took the 
 one hundred Italian miles from the thirty leagues in the Treaty 
 of Utrecht, which is an exclusion only from a fishery, and not 
 from navigation." 
 
 On July 17, 1823, Adams wrote : 
 
 " Baron Tuyl came, * * * I told him especially that we should 
 contest the right of Russia to any territorial establishment on 
 this continent, and that we should assume distinctly the prinbiple 
 that the American continents are no longer subjects for any new 
 European colonial establishments. We had a conversation of an 
 hour or more, at the close of which he said that although there 
 would be difficulties in the negotiation, he did not foresee that 
 they would be insurmountable." — {Memoirs, VI., 163.) 
 
THE BEHKING SEA AEBITEATION. 475 
 
 In writing to Middleton, July 22, 1823, Adams said :— 
 
 " The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their 
 right of navigation and of fishing is perfect, and has been in con- 
 stant exercise from the earliest times, after the peace of 1783, 
 throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only 
 to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial 
 jurisdictions, which, so far as Russian rights are concerned, 
 are confined to certain islands north of the fifty-fifth de- 
 gree of latitude, and have no existence on the continent of 
 America." — {American StatePapers, Foreign Relations, V., 436.) 
 
 The protests of the English government were quite as vigor- 
 ous as those of the United States. On the 28th of November, 
 1822, the Duke ot Wellington expressed the English objections 
 in the following letter : — 
 
 " M. LE CoMTE, — Having considered the paper which your Ex- 
 cellency gave me last night, on the part of his Excellency Count 
 Nesselrode, on the subject of our discussions on the Russian 
 Ukase, I must inform you that I cannot consent, on the part of 
 my government, to found on that paper the negotiation for the 
 settlement of the question which has arisen between the two 
 Governments on this subject. 
 
 "We object to the ukase on two grounds : (1) That His Imperial 
 Majesty assumes thereby an exclusive sovereignty in North 
 America, of which we are not prepared to acknowledge the exist- 
 ence or the extent ; upon this point, however, the memoir of 
 Count Nesselrode does afford the means of negotiation ; and my 
 government will.be ready to discuss it, either in London or St. 
 Petersburg, whenever the state of the discussions on the other 
 question arising out of the ukase will allow of the discussion. 
 
 ' ' The second ground on which we object to the ukase is that His 
 Imperial Majesty thereby excludes from a certain considerable 
 extent of the open sea vessels of other nations. We contend that 
 the assumption of this power is contrary to the law of nations ; 
 and we cannot found a negotiation upon a paper in which it is 
 again broadly asserted. We contend that no power whatever 
 can exclude another from the use of the open sea ; a power can 
 exclude itself from the navigation of a certain coast, sea, etc., by 
 its own act or engagement, but it cannot by right be excluded by 
 another. This we consider as the law of nations ; and we cannot 
 
476 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 negotiate upon a paper in which a right is asserted inconsistent 
 with this principle. 
 
 " I think, therefore, that the best mode of proceeding would be 
 that you should state your readiness to negotiate upon the whole 
 subject, without restating the objectionable principle of the ukase 
 which we cannot admit." 
 
 Russia finally withdrew the exaggerated claims of the Ukase 
 of 1821, and entered into treaties with the United States and 
 England, by which her territorial possessions on the northwest 
 coast of America were limited on the south by the parallel of 
 fifty-four degrees and forty minutes ; and the freedom of the 
 PacLflc Ocean was conceded. The treaty with the United 
 States of April 17, 1824, is given in full on page 132 of this 
 volume. 
 
 The treaty with England was signed the 28th of February, 
 1825, and was similar to that with the United States, with the 
 exception of the stipulations in respect of boundaries between 
 British America and Alaska. 
 
 When the period of ten years established by the 4th article 
 Of the treaty with the United States had expired, the Russian 
 government refused to renew it. American vessels were con- 
 sequently prohibited from trading on the unoccupied parts of 
 the coast, north of the parallel of fifty-four degrees and forty 
 minutes. The American government protested against this 
 prohibition, but the government of Russia adhered to its 
 position ; the other articles of the treaty, however, in respect 
 of the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, still remained in force. 
 
 The controversy between the United States and England in 
 respect of the Oregon boundary was settled by treaty in 1846, 
 making the 49th parallel the dividing line. 
 
 On the 30th of March, 1867, Russia ceded by treaty all her 
 possessions in North America to the United States.^ The first 
 article of the treaty defines the boundary of the cession ; and 
 among other descriptions of boundary, declares that " the west- 
 ern limit within which the territories conveyed are contained, 
 passes through, etc. * * * so as to include in the territory con- 
 veyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian." 
 The question afterwards arose whether this description was 
 
 1 For the treaty of cession see page 135, supra. 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 477 
 
 intended to included all the waters of Behring Sea east of the 
 meridian mentioned, or whether it referred only to the lands 
 and islands within those limits and to the ordinary territorial 
 waters connected therewith. 
 
 By act of Congress, July 27, 1868 : 
 
 ' ' The laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce 
 and navigation, are extended to and over all the mainland, islands, 
 and waters of the territory ceded to the United States by the Em- 
 peror of Russia by treaty concluded at Washington on the thirtieth 
 day of March a. d. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, 
 so far as the same may be applicable thereto." — {Revised Stat- 
 utes, section 1954.) 
 
 " No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur- 
 seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska 
 Territory, or in the waters thereof. * * * " — (lb., section 1956.) 
 
 On July 1, 1870, Congress enacted : — 
 
 " That it shall be unlawful to kUl any fur-seal upon the islands 
 of St. Paul and St. George, or in the waters adjacent thereto, ex- 
 cept during the months of June, July, September, and October in 
 each year ; and it shall be unlawful to kill such seals at any time 
 by the use of flre-arms, or use of other means tendiug to drive the 
 seals away from the said islands : Provided, That the natives of 
 said islands shall have the privilege of killing such young seals 
 as may be necessary for their own food and clothing during other 
 months. * * * The Secretary of the Treasury shall lease, for the 
 rental mentioned in Section six of this act, to proper and respon- 
 sible parties, to the best advantage of the United States, having 
 due regard to the interests of the Government, the native inhabit- 
 ants, the parties heretofore engaged in trade, and the protection 
 to the seal fisheries, for a term of twenty years from the first day 
 of May, eighteen hundred and seventy, the right to engage in the 
 business of taking fur-seals on the islands of St. Paul and St. 
 George."— (Uw^ed States Statutes at Large, XVI., 180, 181.) 
 
 In accordance with this act the Secretary of the Treasury 
 leased the said privilege to the Alaska Commercial Company. 
 
 The view of the Treasury Department at this time in respect 
 of the jurisdiction of the United States over Behring Sea 
 is shown by the following letter of Secretary Boutwell to the 
 collector at San Francisco, dated April 19, 1872 : — 
 
478 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 "Your letter of the 25th ultimo was duly received, calling the 
 attention of the Department to certain rumors circulating in San 
 Francisco, to the effect that expeditions are to start from Australia 
 and the Hawaiian Islands, to take fur-seals on their annual migra- 
 tion to the islands of St. Paul and St. George through the narrow- 
 pass of Oonimak. You recommend, to cut off the possibility of 
 evil resulting to the interests of the United States from these ex- 
 peditions, that a revenue cutter be sent to the region of Oonimak 
 Pass, by the 15th of May next. * * * I do not see that the United 
 States would have the jurisdiction or power to drive off parties 
 going up there for that purpose, unless they made such attempt 
 within a marine league of the shore." — (Senate Executive Docu- 
 ments, 60 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 106, pp. 139, 140.) 
 
 The opinion of the Department would seem to have under- 
 gone a change in 1881. In that year, acting Secretary French 
 wrote to Collector D'Ancona, March 12, 1881 : — 
 
 ' ' You inquire into the interpretation of the terms ' waters 
 thereof and 'waters adjacent thereto,' as used in the law, and 
 how far the jurisdiction of the United States is to be understood 
 as extending. 
 
 " Presuming your inquiry to relate more especially to the waters 
 of western Alaska, you are informed that the treaty with Russia 
 of March 30, 1870, by which the Territory of Alaska was ceded 
 to the United States, defines the boundary of the territory so ceded. 
 This treaty is found on pages 671 to 673 of the volume of treaties 
 of the Revised Statutes. It will be seen therefrom that the limit 
 of the cession extends from a line starting from the Arctic Ocean 
 and running through Behring Strait to the north of St. Lawrence 
 Islands. The line runs thence in a southwesterly direction, so as 
 to pass midway between the island of Attou and Copper Island of 
 the Komandorski couplet or group in the North Pacific Ocean, to 
 meridian of 198 of west longitude. All the waters within that 
 boundary to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and 
 chain of islands are considered as comprised within the waters 
 of Alaska Territory." — (Senate Executive Documents, 50 Cong., 
 2 Sess., No. 106, p. 281.) 
 
 In 1886, March 6, Secretary Manning affirmed this ruling in 
 a letter to Collector Hagan'^ He called the collector's attention 
 to the above instructions to D'Ancona, and said : " this com- 
 munication is addressed to you, inasmuch as it is understood 
 
THE BBHRING SEA AEBITEATION. 479 
 
 that certain parties at your port contemplate the fitting out of 
 expeditions to kill seals in these waters. You are requested 
 to give due publicity to such letters, in order that such parties 
 may be informed of the construction placed by this Depart- 
 ment upon the provision of law referred to." 
 
 In August, 1886, three British vessels the Onward^ Carolena 
 and Thornton, were seized in Behring Sea, by the United 
 States cruiser Corwin for taking seals in that sea, the 
 seizures being made from forty-flve to one hundred and fifteen 
 miles from land. 
 
 In the case of the Onward, Judge Dawson of the District 
 Court of Alaska, delivered the following charge to the jury 
 October 4, 1886 :— 
 
 " All the waters within the boundary set forth in this treaty to 
 the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and the chain of 
 islands are to be considered as comprised within the waters of 
 Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by law against the killing 
 of fur-bearing animals must therefore attach against any viola- 
 tion of law within the limits heretofore described. 
 
 ' ' If, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the de- 
 fendants by themselves or in conjunction with others did, on or 
 about the time charged in the information, kill any otter, mink, 
 marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal or animals, 
 on the shores of Alaska or in the Behring Sea, east of the 193d 
 degree of west longitude, the jury should find the defendants 
 guilty." — (Stanton, The Behring Sea Controversy, 7.) 
 
 The British government entered a formal protest against 
 these seizures ; and on the 26th of January, 1887, Attorney 
 General Garland sent the following despatch to Judge Daw- 
 son : — 
 
 ."I am directed by jhe President to instruct you to discontinue 
 any further proceeding in the matter of the seizure of the British 
 vessels Carolena, Onward, and Thornton, and discharge all vessels 
 now held under such seizure and release all persons that may be 
 under arrest in connection therewith." — {Foreign Relations, 1888, 
 p. 1801.) 
 
 This order would seem to have been delayed, or not acted 
 on, and during the summer of 1887, the seizure of Canadian 
 
480 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 vessels continued. The United States. revenue cutter Richard 
 Hush captured the schooners W. P- Sayward, Dolphin, Grace, 
 Anna Heck, and Alfred Adams, all far beyond the three-mile 
 zone. By order of the Treasury Department, no captures were 
 made during the summer of 1888. 
 
 On the 19th of August, 1887, Mr. Bayard proposed an inter- 
 national regulation of the fur-seal fisheries, sending com- 
 munications to that effect to the governments of Great Britain, 
 France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and Norway and Sweden. 
 
 While stopping the seizures and proposing international 
 agreement, the government of the United States was careful 
 not to formally renounce its right of jurisdiction over Behring 
 Sea. In the circular of August 19, Mr. Bayard, said : — 
 
 " Without raising any question as to the exceptional measures 
 which the peculiar character of the property in question might 
 justify this Government in taking, without reference to any ex- 
 ceptional marine jurisdiction that might properly be claimed for 
 that end, it is deemed advisable — and I am instructed by the 
 President so to inform you — to attain the desired ends by interna- 
 tional co-operation." 
 
 Of the States to whom this proposal was submitted, Ger- 
 many made no answer ; the others sent favorable replies. But 
 further proceedings for the holding of an international con- 
 ference were suspended, June, 1888, on account of objections 
 made by the government of Canada, without whose assent 
 Lord Salisbury would not go forward. 
 
 Ou the 27th of February, 1889, a bill for the regulation of the 
 salmon fisheries in Alaska passed the Senate, and on the next 
 day was amended in the House by the addition of the follow- 
 ing clause : — 
 
 " § 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
 States was intended to include and apply, and is hereby declared 
 to apply, to all the waters of Behring Sea in Alaska embraced 
 within the boundary lines mentioned and described in the treaty 
 with Russia, dated March 30, 1867, by which the Territory of 
 Alaska was ceded to the United States. * * * " 
 
 The Senate disagreed to this amendment; and in con- 
 
TBLE BEHEING SEA AEBITEATION. 481 
 
 ference committee, it was changed to the form in which it 
 appears in the act of March 2, 1889 : — 
 
 " That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
 is hereby declared to include and apply, to all the Dominion of 
 the United States in the waters of Behring Sea." 
 
 This act left the question of dominion as unsettled as it was 
 before. President Harrison, on March 22, 1889, issued a 
 proclamation in conformity with the act, and during the sum- 
 mer of that year the revenue cutter Rush renewed the practice 
 of seizing Canadian sealing vessels. 
 
 It was evident that up to this time, our State Department 
 realized the inconsistency of the position of treating Behring 
 Sea as a mare clavsum, in face of the unbroken policy of the 
 government since its foundation, in insisting upon the freedom 
 of the seas. And it was not surprising, therefore, that other 
 grounds for protecting the seals were sought for. 
 
 Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote. 
 
 "Washington, January 22, 1890. 
 ' Sir : Several weeks have elapsed since I had the honor to re- 
 ceive through the hands of Mr. Ewardes copies of two dispatches 
 from Lord Salisbury complaining of the course of the United 
 States revenue cutter Rush in intercepting Canadian vessels sail- 
 ing under the British flag and engaged in taking fur-seals in 
 the waters of the Behring Sea. 
 
 ' ' Subjects which could not be postponed have engaged the at- 
 tention of this Department and have rendered it impossible to 
 give a formal answer to Lord Salisbury until the presenftime. 
 
 ' ' In the opinion of the President, the Canadian vessels arrested 
 and detained in the Behring Sea were engaged in a pursuit that 
 was in itself contra bonos mores, a pursuit which of necessity in- 
 volves a serious and permanent injury to the rights of the Gov- 
 ernment and people of the United States. To establish this 
 ground it is not necessary to argue the question of the extent and 
 nature of the sovereignty of this Government over the waters of 
 the Behring Sea ; it is not necessary to explain, certainly not to 
 define, the powers and privileges ceded by His Imperial Majesty 
 the Emperor of Russia in the treaty by which the Alaskan terri- 
 tory was transferred to the United states. The weighty consider- 
 31 
 
482 TOPICS iisr American diplomacy. 
 
 ations growing out of the acquisition of that territory, with all 
 the rights on land and sea inseparably connected therewith, may 
 be safely left out of view, while the grounds are set forth upon 
 which this Government rests its justification for the action com-; 
 plained of by Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 " It cannot be unknown to Her Majesty's Government that one 
 of the most valuable sources of revenue from the Alaskan pos- 
 sessions is the fur-seal fisheries of the Behring Sea. Those fisher- 
 ies had been exclusively controlled by the Government of Russia, 
 without interference or without question, from their original dis- 
 covery untn the cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867. 
 From 1867 to 1886 the possession in which Russia had been undis- 
 turbed was enjoyed by this Government also. There was no inter- 
 ruption and no intrusion from any source. Vessels from other 
 nations passing from time to time through Behring Sea to the 
 Arctic Ocean in pursuit of whales had always abstained from 
 taking part in the capture of seals. 
 
 ' ' This uniform avoidance of all attempts to take fur-seal in 
 those waters had been a constant recognition of the right held 
 and exercised first by Russia and subsequently by this Govern- 
 ment. It has also been the recognition of a fact now held beyond 
 denial or doubt that the taking of seals in the open sea rapidly 
 leads to their extinction. This is not only the well-known opinion 
 of experts, both British and American, based upon prolonged ob- 
 servation and investigation, but the fact had also been demon- 
 strated in a wide sense by the well-nigh total destruction of all 
 seal fisheries except the one in the Behring Sea, which the Govern- 
 ment of the United States is now striving to preserve, not alto- 
 gether for the use of the American people but for the use of the 
 world at large. 
 
 " ThekUliag of seals in the open sea involves the destruction of 
 the female in common with the male. The slaughter of the female 
 seal is reckoned as an immediate loss of three seals, besides the 
 future loss of the whole number which the bearing seal may pro- 
 duce in the successive years of life. The destruction which re- 
 sults from killing seals in the open sea proceeds, therefore, by a 
 ratio which constantly and rapidly increases, and insures the 
 total extermination of the species within a very brief period. It 
 has thus become known that the only proper time for the slaugh- 
 ter of seals is at the season when they betake themselves to the 
 land, because the land is the only place where the necessary dis- 
 crimination can be made as to the age and sex of the seal. It 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 483 
 
 would seem, then, by fair reasoning, that nations not possessing 
 the territory upon which seals can increase their numbers by 
 natural growth, and thus afford an annual supply of skins for 
 the use of mankind, should refrain from the slaughter in open 
 sea where the destruction of the species is sure and swift. 
 
 " After the acquisition of Alaska the Government of the United 
 States, through competent agents working under the direction of 
 the best experts, gave careful attention to the improvement of 
 the seal fisheries. Proceeding by a close obedience to the laws of 
 nature, and rigidly limiting the number to be annually slaughter- 
 ed, the Government succeeded in increasing the total number of 
 seals and adding correspondingly and largely to the value of the 
 fisheries. In the course of a few years of intelligent and interest- 
 ing experiment the number that could be safely slaughtered was 
 fixed at 100, 000 annually. The company to which the administra- 
 tion of the fisheries was intrusted by a lease' from this Govern- 
 ment has paid a rental of $50,000 per annum, and in addition 
 thereto $2.62i per skin for the total number taken. The skins 
 were regularly transported to London to be dressed and prepared 
 for the markets of the wprld, and the business had grown so 
 large that the earnings of English laborers, since Alaska was 
 transferred to the United States, amount in the aggregate to more 
 than twelve millions of dollars. 
 
 " The entire business was then conducted peacefully, lawfully, 
 and profitably — profitably to the United States, for the rental was 
 yielding a moderate interest on the large sum which this Govern- 
 ment had paid for Alaska, including the rights now at issue ; 
 profitably to the Alaskan Company, which, under governmental 
 direction and restriction, had given unwearied pains to the care 
 and development of the fisheries ; profitably to the Aleuts, who 
 were receiving a fair pecuniary reward for their labors, and were 
 elevated from semi-savagery to civilization and to the enjoyment 
 of schools and churches provided for their benefit by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States ; and, last of all, profitably to a large 
 body of English laborers who had constant employment and re- 
 ceived good wages. 
 
 ' ' This, in brief, was the condition of the Alaska fur-seal fish- 
 eries down to the year 1886. The precedents, customs, and rights 
 had been established and enjoyed, either by Russia or the United 
 States, for nearly a century. The two nations were the only 
 powers that owned a foot of land on the continents that bordered, 
 or on the islands included within, the Behring waters where the 
 
484 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 seals resort to breed. Into this peaceful and secluded field of 
 labor, whose benefits were so equitably shared by the native Aleuts 
 of the Pribylov Islands, by the United States, and by England, 
 certain Canadian vessels in 1886 asserted their right to enter, 
 and by their ruthless course to destroy the fisheries and with 
 them to destroy also the resulting industries which are so valu- 
 able. The Government of the United States at once proceeded to 
 check this movement, which, unchecked, was sure to do great 
 and irreparable harm. 
 
 ' ' It was cause of unfeigned surprise to the United States that 
 Her Majesty's Government should immediately interfere to de- 
 fend and encourage (surely to encourage by defending) the course 
 of the Canadians in disturbing an industry which had been care- 
 fully developed for more than ninety years under the flags of 
 Russia and the United States — developed in such manner as not 
 to interfere with the public rights or the private industries of any 
 other people or any other person. 
 
 "Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 
 1886 that which they had refrained from doing for more than 
 ninety years ? Upon what grounds did Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the Behring 
 Sea which she had carefully avoided ever since the discovery of 
 that sea ? By what reasoning did Her Majesty's Government 
 conclude that an act may be committed with impunity against 
 the rights of the United States which had never been attempted 
 against the same rights when held by the Eussian Empire ? 
 
 ' ' So great has been the injury to the fisheries from the irregu- 
 lar and destructive slaughter of seals in the open waters of the 
 Behring Sea by Canadian vessels, that whereas the Government 
 had allowed one hundred thousand to be taken annually for a 
 series of years, it is now compelled to reduce the number to sixty 
 thousand. If four years of this violation of natural law and 
 neighbor's rights has reduced the annual slaughter of seal by 40 
 per cent., it is easy to see how short a period will be required to 
 work the total destruction of the fisheries. 
 
 " The ground upon which Her Majesty's Government justifies, 
 or at least defends the course of the Canadian vessels, rests upon 
 the fact that they are committing their acts of destruction on the 
 high seas, viz., more than 3 marine miles from the shore-line. It 
 is- doubtful whether Her Majesty's Government would abide by 
 this rule if the attempt were made to interfere with the pearl 
 fisheries of Ceylon, which extend more than 20 miles from the 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 485 
 
 shore-line and have been enjoyed by England without molestation 
 ever since their acquisition. So well recognized is the British own- 
 ership of those fisheries, regardless of the limit of the three-mile 
 line, that Her Majesty's Government feels authorized to sell the 
 pearl-fishing right from year to year to the highest bidder. Nor 
 is it credible that modes of fishing on the Grand Banks, altogether 
 practicable but highly destructive, would be justified or even 
 permitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious acts were 
 committed more than 3 miles from shore. * * * 
 
 ' ' In the judgment of this Government the law of the sea is not 
 lawlessness. Nor can the law of the sea and the liberty which it 
 confers and which it protects, be perverted to justify acts which 
 are immoral in themselves, which inevitably tend to results 
 against the interests and against the welfare of mankind. One 
 step beyond that which Her Majesty's Government has taken in 
 this contention, and piracy finds its justification. The President 
 does not conceive it possible that Her Majesty's Government 
 could in fact be less indiffierent to these evil results than is the 
 Government of the United States. But he hopes that Her 
 Majesty's Government will, after this frank expression of views, 
 more readily comprehend the position of the Government of the 
 United States touching this serious question. This Government 
 has been ready to concede much in order to adjust all differences 
 of view, and has, in the judgment of the President, already pro- 
 posed a solution not only equitable but generous. Thus far Her 
 Majesty's Government has declined to accept the proposal of the 
 United States. The President now awaits with deep interest, not 
 unmixed with solicitude, any proposition for reasonable adjust- 
 ment which Her Majesty's Government may submit. The forcible 
 resistance to which this Government is constrained in the Behring 
 Sea is, in the President's judgment, demanded not only by the 
 necessity of defending the traditional and long-established rights 
 of the United States, but also the rights of good government and 
 of good morals the world over. 
 
 ' ' In this contention the Government of the Unitpd States has 
 no occasion and no desire to withdraw or modify the positions 
 which it has at any time maintained against the claims of the 
 Imperial Government of Russia. The United States will not with- 
 hold from any nation the privileges which it demanded for itself 
 when Alaska was part of the Russian Empire. Nor is the Govern- 
 ment of the United States disposed to exercise in those possessions 
 any less power or authority than it was willing to concede to 
 
486 TOPICS inr American diplomacy. 
 
 the Imperial Government of Russia, when its sovereignty ex- 
 tended over them. The President is persuaded that all friendly- 
 nations will concede to the United States the same rights and 
 privileges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which the 
 same friendly nations always conceded to the Empire of Russia. 
 
 " I have, etc., 
 
 " James G. Blaine." 
 
 The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. 
 
 " Foreign Office, May 22, 1890. 
 
 " Sm : I received in due course your dispatch No. 9, of the 23d 
 January, inclosing copy of Mr. Blaine's note of the 22d of that 
 month, in answer to the protest made on behalf of Her Majesty's 
 Government on the 12th October last, against the seizure of 
 Canadian vessels by the United States revenue-cutter Rush in 
 Behring Sea. 
 
 " The importance of the subject necessitated a reference to the 
 Government of Canada, whose reply has only recently reached 
 Her Majesty's Government. The negotiations which have taken 
 place between Mr. Blaine and yourself afford strong reason to 
 hope that the difficulties attending this question are in a fair way 
 towards an adjustment which will be satisfactory to both Govern- 
 ments. I think it right, however, to place on record, as briefly 
 as possible, the views of Her Majesty's Government on the principal 
 arguments brought forward on behalf of the United States. 
 
 " Mr. Blaine's note defends the acts complained of by Her 
 Majesty's Government on the following grounds : 
 
 "1. That ' the Canadian vessels arrested, and detained in the 
 Behring Sea were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra 
 bonos mores — a pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and 
 permanent injury to the rights of the Government and people of 
 the United States.' 
 
 "2. That the fisheries had been in the undisturbed possession 
 and under the exclusive control of Russia from their discovery 
 until the cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867, and that 
 from this date onwards until 1886 they had also remained in the 
 undisturbed possession of the United States Government. 
 
 "3. That it is a fact now held beyond denial or doubt that the 
 taking of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to the extinction of 
 the species, and that therefore nations not possessing the territory 
 
THE BEHEING SEA AKBITKATION. 487 
 
 upon which seals can increase their numbers by natural growth 
 should refrain from the slaughter of them in the open sea. 
 
 ' ' Mr. Blaine further argues that the law of the sea and the 
 liberty which it confers do not justify acts which are immoral in 
 themselves, and which inevitably tend to results against the 
 interests and against the welfare of mankind ; and he proceeds to 
 justify the forcible resistance of the United States Government 
 by the necessity of defending not only their own traditional and 
 long established rights, but also the rights of good morals and of 
 good government the world over. 
 
 ' ' He declares that while the United States wUl not withhold 
 from any nation the privileges which they demanded for them- 
 selves, when Alaska was part of the Russian Empire, they are 
 not disposed to exercise in the possessions acquired from Russia 
 any less power or authority than they were wUIing to concede to 
 the imperial government of Russia when its sovereignty extended 
 over them. He claims from friendly nations a recognition of the 
 same rights and privileges on the lands and in the waters of 
 Alaska which the same friendly nations always conceded to the 
 Empire of Russia. 
 
 " With regard to the first of these arguments, namely, that 
 the seizure of the Canadian vessels in the Behring Sea was 
 justified by the fact that they were ' engaged in a pursuit that is 
 in itself contra bonos mores — a pursuit which of necessity involves 
 a serious and permanent injury to the rights of the Government 
 and people of the United States,' it is obvious that two questions 
 are involved : first, whether the pursuit and killing of fur-seals 
 in certain parts of the open sea is, from the point of view of in- 
 ternational morality, an offense contra bonos mores ; and secondly 
 whether if such be the case, this fact justifies the seizure on the 
 high seas and subsequent confiscation in time of peace of the 
 private vessels of a friendly nation. 
 
 " It is an axiom of international maritime law that such action 
 is only admissible in the case of piracy or in pursuance of special 
 international agreement. This principle has been universally 
 admitted by jurists, and was very distinctly laid down by Presi- 
 dent Tyler in his special message to Congress, dated the 27th 
 February, 1843, when, after acknowledging the right to detain 
 and search a vessel on suspicion of piracy, he goes on to say : 
 ' With this single exception, no nation has, in time of peace, any 
 authority to detain the ships of another upon the high seas, on 
 any pretext whatever, outside the territorial jurisdiction.' 
 
488 TOPICS IN AMBEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " Now, the pursuit of seals in the open sea, under whatever 
 circumstances, has never hitherto been considered as piracy by 
 any civiUzed state. Nor, even if the United States had gone so 
 far as to make the killing of fur-seals piracy by their municipal 
 law, would this have justified them in punishing offenses against 
 such law committed by any person other than their own citizens 
 outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 
 
 ' ' In the case of the slave trade, a practice which the civilized 
 world has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the right of 
 arresting the vessels of another country is exercised only by 
 special international agreement, and no one Q-overnment has been 
 allowed that general control of morals in this respect which Mr. 
 Blaine claims on behalf of the United States in regard to seal- 
 hunting. 
 
 " But her Majesty's Grovemment must question whether this 
 pursuit can of itself be regarded as contra bonos mores, unless 
 and until, for special reasons, it has been agreed by international 
 arrangement to forbid it. Fur-seals are indisputably animals 
 ferce naurce, and these have universally been regarded by jurists 
 as res nullius until they are caught ; no person, therefore, can 
 have property in them untU he has actually reduced them into 
 possession by capture. 
 
 " It requires something more than a mere declaration that the 
 Government or citizens of the United States, or even other coun- 
 tries interested in the seal trade, are losers by a certain course of 
 proceeding, to render that course an immoral one. 
 
 " Her Majesty's Government would deeply regret that the pur- 
 suit of fur-seals on the high seas by British vessels should involve 
 even the slightest injury to the people of the United States. If 
 the case be proved, they will be ready to consider what measures 
 can be properly taken for the remedy of such injury, but they 
 would be unable on that ground to depart from a principle on 
 which free commerce on the high seas depends. 
 
 " The second argument advanced by Mr. Blaine is that the ' fur- 
 seal fisheries of Behring Sea had been exclusively controlled by 
 the Government of Russia, without interference and without 
 question, from their original discovery until the cession of Alaska 
 to the United States in 1867,' and that 'from 1867 to 1886 the 
 possession, in which Russia had been undisturbed, was enjoyed 
 by the United States Government also without interruption or 
 intrusion from any source." 
 
 " I will deal with these two periods separately. 
 
THE BEHRING SEA AUBITKATION. 489 
 
 / 
 
 " First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Eussia. After 
 Russia, at the iastance of the Russian- American Fur Company, 
 claimed in 1821 the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing 
 from Behring Straits to the 51st degree of north latitude, and not 
 only prohibited all foreign vessels from landing on the coasts and 
 islands of the above waters, but also prevented them from ap- 
 proaching within 100 mUes thereof, Mr. Quincy Adams wrote as 
 follows to the United States minister in Russia : 
 
 " ' The United States can admit no part of these claims ; their 
 right of navigation and fishing is perfect, and has been in con- 
 stant exercise from the earliest times throughout the whole extent 
 of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary exceptions 
 and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions.' 
 
 ' ' That the right of fishing thus asserted included the right of 
 killing fur-bearing animals is shown by the case of the United 
 States brig Loriot. That vessel proceeded to the waters over 
 which Russia claimed exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of 
 hunting the sea-otter, the killing of which is now prohibited by 
 the United States statutes applicable to the fur-seal, and was 
 forced to abandon her voyage and leave the waters in question by 
 an armed vessel of the Russian navy. Mr. Forsyth, writing on 
 the case to the American minister at St. Petersburg on the 4th of 
 May, 1837, said : 
 
 " It is a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States, 
 immemorially exercised and secured to them as well by the law 
 of nations as by the stipulations of the first article of the conven- 
 tion of 1824, to fish in those seas, and to resort to the coast for the 
 prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already 
 occupied. 
 
 ' ' From the speech of Mr. Sumner when introducing the question 
 of the purchase of Alaska to Congress, it is equally clear that the 
 United States Government did not regard themselves as purchas- 
 ing a monopoly. Having dealt with fur-bearing animals, he went 
 on to treat of fisheries, and after alluding to the presence of dif- 
 ferent species of whales in the vicinity of the Aleutians said : ' No 
 sea is now mare clausum ; all of these may be pursued by a ship 
 under any flag, except directly on the coast or within its terri- 
 torial limit.' 
 
 " I now come to the statement that from 1867 to 1886 the pos- 
 session was enjoyed by the United States with no interruption and 
 no intrusion from any source. Her Majesty's Government cannot 
 
490 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 V 
 
 but think that Mr. Blaine has been misinformed as to the history 
 of the operations in Behring Sea during that period. 
 
 "The instances recorded in Inclosure 1 in this dispatch are 
 sufficient to prove from official United States sources that from 
 1867 to 1886 British vessels were engaged at intervals in the fur- 
 seal fisheries with the cognizance of the United States Govern- 
 ment. I will here by way of example quote but one. 
 
 ' ' In 1872 Collector Phelps reported the fitting out of expedi- 
 tions in Australia and Victoria for the purpose of taking seals in 
 Behring Sea, while passing to and from their rookerie^ on St. 
 Paul and St. George Islands, and recommended that a steam-cutter 
 should be sent to the region of Oonimak Pass and the islands of 
 St. Paul and St. George. 
 
 "Mr. Secretary Boutwell informed him, in reply, that he did 
 not consider it expedient to send a cutter to interfere with the 
 operations of foreigners, and stated : ' In addition, I do not see 
 that the United States would have the jurisdiction, or power to 
 drive off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they 
 made such d?ttempt within a marine league of the shore.' 
 
 ' ' Before leaving this part of Mr. Blaine's argument, I would 
 allude to his remark that ' vessels from other nations passing 
 from time to time through Behring Sea to the Arctic Ocean in 
 pursuit of whales have always abstained from taking part in the 
 capture of seals,' which he holds to be proof of the recognition of 
 rights held and exercised first by Russia and then by the United 
 States. 
 
 ' ' Even if the facts are as stated, it is not remarkable that 
 vessels pushing on for the short season in which whales can be 
 captured in the Arctic Ocean, and being fitted specially for the 
 whale fisheries, neglected to carry boats and hunters for fur-seals 
 or to engage in an entirely different pursuit. 
 
 "The whalers, moreover, pass through Behring Sea for the 
 fishing grounds in the Arctic Ocean in April and May as soon as 
 the ice breaks up, while the great bulk of the seals do not reach 
 the Pribylov Islands tiU June, leaving again by the time the clos- 
 ing of the ice compels the whalers to return. 
 
 " The statement that it is ' a fact now held beyond denial or 
 doubt that the taking of seals in the open sea, rapidly leads to their 
 extinction ' would admit of reply, and abundant evidence could 
 be adduced on the other side. But as it is proposed that this 
 part of the question should be examined by a committee to be 
 
THE BEHRING SEA AEBITEATION. 491 
 
 appointed by the two Govemmeiits, it is not necessary that I 
 should deal with it here. 
 
 ' ' Her Majesty's Government do not deny that if all sealing 
 were stopped in Behring Sea except on the islands in possession 
 of the lessees of the United States, the seal may increase and 
 multiply at an even more extraordinary rate than at present, 
 and the seal fishery on the island may become a monopoly of in- 
 creasing value ; but they cannot admit that this is sufficient 
 ground to justif j" the United States in forcibly depriving other 
 nations of any share in this industry in waters which, by the 
 recognized law of nations, are now free to all the world. 
 
 " It is from no disrespect that I refrain from replying specifically 
 to the subsidiary questions and arguments put forward by Mr. 
 Blaine. Till the views of the two Governments as to the obliga- 
 tions attaching, on grounds either of morality or necessity, to the 
 United States Government in this matter, have been brought into 
 closer harmony, such a course would appear needlessly to extend 
 a controversy which Her Majesty's Government are anxious to 
 keep within reasonable limits. 
 
 ' ' The negotiations now being carried on at Washington prove 
 the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to consider whether 
 any special international agreement is necessary for the protection 
 of the fur-sealing industry. In its absence they are imable to 
 admit that the case put forward on behalf of the United States 
 affords any sufiicient justification for the forcible action already 
 taken by them against peaceable subjects of Her Majesty engaged 
 in lawful operations on the high seas. 
 
 "'The President,' says Mr. Blaine, 'is persuaded that all 
 friendly nations will concede to the United States the same rights 
 and privileges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which 
 the same friendly nations always conceded to the Empire of 
 Russia.' 
 
 " Her Majesty's Government have no difficulty in making such 
 a concession. In strict accord with the views which, previous to 
 the present controversy, were consistently and successfully 
 maintained by the United States, they have, whenever occasion 
 arose, opposed all claims to exclusive privileges in the non-terri- 
 torial waters of the Behring Sea. The rights they have demanded 
 have been those of free navigation and fishing in waters which, 
 ■previous to their own acquisition of Alaska, the United States 
 declared to be free and open to all foreign vessels. 
 
 " That is the extent of their present contention and they trust 
 
492 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 that, on consideration of the arguments now presented to them, 
 the United States will recognize its justice and moderation. 
 
 "I have to request that you will read this dispatch to Mr. 
 Blaine and leave a copy of it with him should he desire it. 
 "I am, etc., 
 
 Protest. 
 
 " (Received June 14, 12.35, 1890.) 
 
 " The undersigned. Her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordi- 
 nary and minister plenipotentiary to the United States of America, 
 has the honor, by instruction of his Government, to make to the 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States, 
 the following communication : 
 
 ' ' Her Britannic Majesty's Government have learned with great 
 concern from notices which have appeared in the press, and the 
 general accuracy oE which has been confirmed by Mr. Blaine's 
 statements to the undersigned, that the Government of the United 
 States have issued instructions to their revenue cruisers about to 
 be despatched to Behring Sea, under which the vessels of British 
 subjects will again be exposed, in the prosecution of their legiti- 
 mate industry on the high seas, to unlawful interference at the 
 hands of American oflScers. 
 
 " Her Britannic Majesty's Government are anxious to co-operate 
 to the fullest extent of their power with the Government of the 
 United States in such measures as may be found to be expedient 
 for the protection of the seal fisheries. They are at the present 
 moment engaged in examining, in concert with the Government 
 of the United States, the best method of arriving at an agreement 
 upon this point. But they cannot admit the right of the United 
 States of their own sole mbtion to restrict for this purpose the 
 freedom of navigation of Behring Sea, which the United States 
 have themselves in former years convincingly, and successfully 
 vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal legislation against 
 British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their terri- 
 torial jurisdiction. 
 
 " Her Britannic Majesty's Government are therefore unable to 
 pass over without notice the public announcement of an intention 
 on the part of the Government of the United States to renew the 
 acts of interference with British vessels navigating outside the 
 
THK BEHEING SEA ARBITEKTION. 493 
 
 territorial waters of the United States, of which they have pre- 
 viously had to complain. 
 
 ' ' The undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to pro- 
 test against such interference, and to declare that Her Britannic 
 Majesty's Government must hold the Government of the United 
 States responsible for the consequences that may ensue from acts 
 which are contrary to the established principles of international 
 law. 
 
 "Julian Pauncefote. 
 
 "June 14, 1890." 
 
 In a very long despatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote, under date 
 of June 30, 1890, Mr. Blaine replied to Lord Salisbury's despatch 
 of May 22. He undertook to prove that the protests of John 
 Quincy Adams and of the British government against the 
 ukase of the Emperor Alexander, in 1821, had no reference to 
 the Behring Sea, but only to the northwest coast between the 
 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude ; and that the treaties 
 of the two governments with Russia in 1824 and 1825 respect- 
 ively, "left the Behring Sea and all its coasts and islands 
 precisely as the ukase of Alexander in 1821 left them, that is 
 with a prohibition against any vessel approaching nearer to the 
 coast than one hundred Italian miles, under danger of con- 
 fiscation." 
 
 In speaking of the ukase of 1821, Mr. Blaine said further : — 
 
 " It did not, as so many suppose, declare the Behring Sea to 
 be mare clausum. It did declare that the waters, to the extent 
 of 100 miles from the shores, were reserved for the subjects of 
 the Russian Empire. Of course many hundred miles east and 
 west, and north and south, were thus intentionally left by Russia 
 for the whale fishery and for fishing open and free to the world, 
 of which other nations took large advantage. Perhaps in pursu- 
 ing this advantage foreigners did not always keep 100 miles from 
 the shore, but the theory of right on which they conducted their 
 business unmolested was that they observed the conditions of the 
 ukase. 
 
 "But the 100-mile restriction performed the fimction for 
 which it was specially designed in preventing foreign nations 
 from molesting, disturbing, or by any possibility sharing in the 
 fur trade. * * * while, therefore, there may have been a large 
 amount of lawful whaling and fishing in the Behring Sea, the 
 
494 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 taking of furs by foreigners was always and under all circum- 
 stances illicit. * * * 
 
 " During all the time elapsing between the treaty of 1825 and 
 the cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867, Great Britain 
 never affirmed the right of her subjects to capture fur-seal in the 
 Behring Sea ; and as a matter of fact, her subjects did not, dur- 
 ing that long period, attempt to catch seals in Behring Sea. * * *" 
 —{H. B. Ex. Doc, No. 450., 51st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 78. 
 
 On the 2d of August, 1890, Lord Salisbury replied at great 
 length in a despatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote, denying Mr. 
 Blaine's conclusions on all points, and adducing a mass of 
 evidence to sustain his arguments. — {£Jx. Doc, JVo. 144, IT. It., 
 blst Cong., Id Sess., p. 2.) 
 
 On the 17th of December, 1890, Mr. Blaine replied in a letter 
 to Sir Julian Pauncefote : — 
 
 "Great Britain contends that the phrase Pacific Ocean," as 
 used in the treaties, was intended to include, and does include, 
 the body of water which is now known as the Behring Sea. The 
 United States contends that the Behring Sea was not mentioned, 
 or even referred to, in either treaty, and was in no sense included 
 in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean.' If Great Britain can maintain her 
 position that the Behring Sea at the time of the treaties with 
 Eussia of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean, the 
 Government of the United States has no well-grounded complaint 
 against her. If, on the other hand, this Government can prove 
 beyond all doubt that the Behring Sea, at the date of the treaties, 
 was understood by the three signatory Powers to be a separate 
 body of water, and was not included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean, ' 
 then the American case against Great Britain is great and 
 undeniable. 
 
 " The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase 
 ' northwest coast,' or ' northwest coast of America.' Lord Salis- 
 bury assumes that the ' northwest coast ' has but one meaning, and 
 that it includes the whole coast stretching northward to the Behr- 
 ing Straits. The contention of this Government is that by long 
 prescription the ' northwest coast ' means the coast of the Pacific 
 Ocean south of the Alaska Peninsula, or south of the sixtieth 
 parallel of north latitude ; or, to define it still more accurately, 
 the coast from the northern border of the Spanish possessions, 
 ceded to the United States in 1819, to the point where the Spanish 
 
THE BEHEING SEA AEBITEATION. 495 
 
 claims met the claims of Eussia, viz., from 42° to 60° north 
 latitude. * * * Russia practically withdrew the operation of the 
 ukase of 1821 from the waters of the northwest coast of the Pacific 
 Ocean, but the proof is conclusive that it was left in full force 
 over the waters of the Behring Sea. * * * It is easy to prove from 
 other sources that in the treaty between the United States and 
 Eussia the coast referred to was that which I have defined as 
 the ' northwest coast ' of the Pacific Ocean south of 60° north 
 latitude, or, as the Eussians for a long time believed it, 59° 3', . 
 We have in the Department of State the originals of the protocols 
 between our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. Henry Middleton, and 
 Count Nesselrode, of Eussia, who negotiated the treaty of 1824. * * * 
 We feel justified in asking His Lordship if the Government of 
 Great Britain has uniformly illustrated these precepts by example, 
 or whether she has not established at least one notable precedent 
 which would justify us in making greater demands upon Her 
 Majesty's Government touching the Behring Sea than either our 
 necessities or our desires have ever suggested. * * * Napoleon 
 was promptly sent by Great Britain to the island of St. Helena as 
 a prisoner for life. Six months after he reached St. Helena the 
 British Parliament enacted a special and extraordinary law for 
 the purpose of making his detention more secure. * * * The 
 statute * * * forbids them to ' hover within eight leagues of the 
 coast of the island.' The penalty for hovering within eight 
 leagues of the coast is the forfeiture of the ship to His Majesty 
 the King of Great Britain, on trial to be had in London, and the 
 offense to be the same as if committed in the county of 
 Middlesex. * * * 
 
 ' ' The repeated assertions that the Government of the United 
 States demands that the Behring Sea be pronounced mare clausum, 
 are without foundation. The Government has never claimed it 
 and never desired it. It, expressly disavows it. At the same 
 time the United States does not lack abundant authority, accord- 
 ing to the ablest exponents of International law, for holding a 
 small section of the Behring Sea for the protection of the fur-seals. 
 Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for the one 
 specific purpose is by no means the equivalent of declaring the 
 sea, or any part thereof , mare clausum. Nor is it by any means 
 so serious an obstruction as Great Britain assumed to make in 
 the South Atlantic, nor so groundless an interference with the 
 common law of the sea as is maintained by British authority 
 to-day in the Indian Ocean. 
 
496 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 " The President does not, however, desirea long postponement 
 which an examiuation of legal authorities from Ulpian to Phil- 
 limore and Kent would involve. He finds his own views well ex- 
 pressed by Mr. Phelps, our late minister to England, when, after 
 failing to secure a just arrangement with Great Britain touching 
 the seal fisheries, he wrote the following in his closing communi- 
 cation to his own Government, September 12, 1888 : 
 
 ' ' ' Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the 
 abstract question of the right of mare clausum. I do not con- 
 ceive it to be applicable to the present case. 
 
 " ' Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly 
 managed, permanent industry, the property of the nations on 
 whose shores it is carried on. It is proposed by the colony of a 
 foreign nation, in defiance of the joint remonstrance of all the 
 countries interested, to destroy this business by the indiscrimi- 
 nate slaughter and extermination of the animals in question, in the 
 open neighboring sea, during the period of gestation, when the 
 common dictates of humanity ought to protect them, were there 
 no interest at all involved. And it is suggested that we are pre- 
 vented from defending ourselves against such depredations be- 
 cause the sea at a certain distance from the coast is free. 
 
 ' ' ' The same line of argument would take under its protection 
 piracy and the slave trade when prosecuted in the open sea, or 
 would justify one nation in destroying the commerce of another 
 by placing dangerous obstructions and derelicts in the open sea 
 near its coasts. There are many things that cannot be allowed 
 to be done on the open sea with impunity, and against which 
 every sea is mare clausum ; and the right of self-defense as to 
 person and property prevails there as fully as elsewhere. If the fish 
 upon the Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering poison 
 in the open sea adjacent with some small profit to those engaged 
 in it, would Canada, upon the just principles of international 
 law, be held defenseless in such a case ? Yet that process would 
 be no more destructive, inhuman, and wanton than this. 
 
 " ' If precedents are wanting for a defense so necessary and 
 so proper, it is because precedents for such a course of conduct 
 are likewise unknown . The best international law has arisen from 
 precedents that have been established when the just occasion for 
 them arose, undeterred by the discussion of abstract and inade- 
 quate rules.' " {H. B. Ex. Doc, No. 144, 51st Cong., 3d Sess., p. 
 23.) 
 
THE BEHBING SEA ABBITEATION. 497 
 
 In a despatch of February 21, 1896, Lord Salisbury continued 
 the discussion, and refuted the argument of Mr. Blaine that the 
 Behring Sea was not included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean." 
 
 "Our contention is," said Lord Salisbury, "that not only 
 can it not be shown that the Government of Great Britain, at 
 any time since 1821, has admitted the soundness of the pretension 
 put forward by that ukase, but that it can be shown that it 
 has categorically denied it on more than one occasion." 
 
 Again, "I am not prepared to admit the justice of Mr. 
 Blaine's contention that the words ' Pacific Ocean ' did not 
 include Behring Sea. I believe, that in common parlance, then 
 and now, Behring Sea was and is a part of the Pacific Ocean." 
 A list of thirty works proving this point is appended 
 to the despatch. — (Sen. Ex. Doc, No. 55, bid Cong., 1st Sess., 
 p. 17.) 
 
 In view of pending negotiations for the reference of the con- 
 troversy to a tribunal of arbitration, the following modus 
 Vivendi was agreed to, June 15, 1891 : 
 
 Modus "Vivendi. 
 
 1. Her Majesty's Government will prohibit, until May next, 
 seal killing in that part of Behring Sea lying eastward of the line 
 of demarcation described in Article No. 1 of the treaty of 1867 
 between the United States and Eussia, " and will promptly use 
 its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by 
 British subjects and vessels." 
 
 2. The United States Government wiU prohibit seal killing for 
 the same period in the same part of Behring Sea, and on the shores 
 and islands thereof, the property of the United States (in excess of 
 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence and care of 
 the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the 
 observance of this prohibition by United States citizens and ves- 
 sels. 
 
 3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in 
 the said waters of Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial 
 limits of the United States, may be seized and detained by the 
 naval or other duly commissioned oflScers of either of the High 
 Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as 
 practicable to the authorities of the nation to which they respect- 
 
 32 
 
498 TOPICS IN AJVIEEICAN DIPLOMACy. 
 
 ively belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to try the offense 
 and impose the penalties for the same. * * * 
 
 4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty's 
 Government may desire to make, with a view to the presentation 
 of the case of that Government before abitrators, and in expecta- 
 tion that an agreement for arbitration may be arrived at, it is 
 agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be 
 permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain 
 upon the seal islands during the present sealing season for that 
 purpose. (Senate Ex. Doc, No. 55, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 46.) 
 
 A treaty for the settlement of the dispute by arbitration was 
 concluded, February 29, 1892 which is given on page 103, supra. 
 
 In accordance with the 9th article, commissioners were 
 appointed : Sir George Baden Powell and Dr. Dawson, by the 
 English government, and Professor Mendenhall and Dr. 
 Merriam, by the government of the United States. 
 
 In preparing its case for the tribunal of arbitration the 
 government of the United States relied upon certain Russian 
 documents to prove an exclusive right in the Behring Sea, 
 exercised by Russia, and descended to the United States by 
 the treaty of purchase. To translate these documents, a person 
 of Russian nationality was employed who, it would seem, made 
 wholly false translations or additions, in order to riake the 
 most favorable case for the United States. By these false 
 documents it appeared that Russia had rigidly excluded the 
 ships of all other nations from the seal-flsheries in the whole 
 of Behring Sea. These falsifications were not discovered till 
 the case had been made up ; and then it was found that the 
 original documents failed entirely to sustain the American 
 contention. 
 
 Under the provisions of the treaty, the tribunal met in Paris 
 in the spring of 1893. The Arbitrators were as follows :— 
 
 Baron de Courcel, France (President) ; Marquis Emilio Vis- 
 conti-Venosta, Italy; M. Gregero W. W. Gram, Sweden and 
 Norway ; Lord Hannen, and Sir John S. D. Thompson, Eng- 
 land ; and Justice John M. Harlan, and Senator John T. Morgan, 
 United States. 
 
 The counsel on the part of the United States were Messrs. 
 Edward J. Phelps, James C. Carter, Frederick R. Coudert, and 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ABBITEATION. 499 
 
 Henry Blodget ; on the part of England, Sir Charles Russell, 
 Sir Richard Webster, and others. 
 
 When the evidence was before the Tribunal, it appeared that 
 the United States had a very weak case in respect of the first 
 two points to be considered : and this was evident indeed from 
 the moment of the discovery of the false translations of certain 
 Russian documents, imposed upon the government of the 
 United States by a person employed by it. On the third 
 point, the decision was unanimous in favor of the English con- 
 tention. That being the state of the case as to the first three 
 points, the fourth was of no weight either way. 
 
 Thus the real issue before the tribunal was upon the fifth 
 point, that the United States had a right of property in the 
 seals, and a further right to protect this property on the high 
 seas, and to these points the chief weight of the American 
 argument was directed. 
 
 On the question of property in the seals, Mr. Carter said : 
 " The United States hold that the ownership of the islands 
 upon which seals breed ; that the habit of the seals in regularly 
 resorting thereto and rearing their young thereon ; that their 
 going out in search of food and regularly returning thereto, 
 and all the facts and incidents of their relation to the islands, 
 give to the United States a property interest therein ; that this 
 property interest was claimed and exercised by Russia during 
 the whole period of its sovereignty over the land and waters 
 of Alaska ; that England recognized that property interest so 
 far as recognition is implied by abstaining from all interference 
 with it during the whole period of Russia's ownership of 
 Alaska, and during the first nineteen years of the sovereignty 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Carter argued at great length to prove, from the Civil 
 Law and the Common Law, the right of property in animals 
 ferae naturae. He quoted Justinian, Savigny, PufEendorf, Brac- 
 ton, Bowyer, Vattel, Hautefeuille, Kent, and others ; and the 
 cases of The Swans, 7 Coke, 15b ; Keeble v. Hickeringill, 11 
 East, 574 ; Amory v. Flyn, 10 John., 102 ; Goff v. Kitts, 15 
 Wend., 550 ; Blades v. Higgs, 12 C. B. N. S., 512 ; Davis y. 
 Powell, Willes, 1737. 
 
 On the question of the right to protect the seals on the high 
 
500 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 seas, Mr. Phelps said, the case of the Government of the 
 United States was : 
 
 " 1st. That in view of the facts and circumstances established 
 by the evidence, it has such a property in the Alaskan seal herd, 
 as the natural product of its soil, made chiefly available by its 
 protection and expenditure, highly valuable to its people, and a 
 considerable source of public revenue, as entitles it to preserve 
 the herd from destruction in the manner complained of, by an 
 employment of such reasonable force as may be necessary. 
 
 " 2d. That irrespective of the distinct right of property, in the 
 seal herd, the United States Government has for itself and for its 
 people, an interest, an industry, and a commerce derived from 
 the legitimate and proper use of the produce of the seal herd on 
 its territory, which it is entitled, upon all principles applicable to 
 the case, to protect against wanton destruction by individuals, 
 for the sake of the small and casual profits in that way to be 
 gained ; and that no part of the high sea is or ought to be open to 
 individuals, for the purpose of accomplishing the destruction of 
 national interests of such a character and importance 
 
 "3d. That the United States, possessing, as they alone pos- 
 sess, the power of preserving and cherishing this valuable inter- 
 est, are in a most just sense the trustee thereof for the benefit of 
 mankind, and should be permitted to discharge their trust with- 
 out hindrance." 
 
 In support of this view, Mr. Phelps quoted, Grotius Kent, 
 Twiss, etc., and the following cases : The Marianna Flora, 11 
 Wheaton, 41 ; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 287, Queen v. 
 Keyn, L. R., 2 Ex. Div., 63 ; Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 287 ; 
 The Success, 1 Dod., 133 ; The Fox, Ed., 314 ; The Snipe, Ed., 382. 
 
 After a preamble stating the case submitted for decision, the 
 full text of the award runs as follows : (New York Herald, 
 August 16, 1893.) :— 
 
 " We decide and determine as to the five points mentioned in 
 article 6, as to which our award is to embrace a distinct decision 
 upon each of them : — 
 
 "As to the first of said five points, we. Baron de Courcel, 
 John M. Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John S. D. Thompson, Mar- 
 quis Emilio Visconti-Venosta and Gregero W. W. Gram, being a 
 majority of said arbitrators, do decide as follows : — 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 501 
 
 " By the ukase of 1821 Russia claimed jurisdiction in the sea 
 now known as Behring Sea to the extent of one hundred Ital- 
 ian miles from the coasts and islands belonging to her, but in the 
 course of the negotiations which led to the conclusion of the treaty 
 of 1824 with the United States and the treaty of 1825 with Great 
 Britain, Russia admitted that her jurisdiction in said sea should 
 be restricted so as to reach a cannon shot from shore. It appears, 
 that from that time up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the 
 United States, Russia never asserted in fact or exercised any ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea or any exclusive rights to the 
 seal fisheries therein beyond the ordinary limit of territorial waters. 
 
 "As to the second of the five points, we. Baron de Courcel, 
 John M. Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John S. D. Thompson, Mar- 
 quis Emilio Visconti-Venosta and Gregero W. W. Gram, being a 
 majority of* said arbitrators, decide and determine that Great 
 Britain did not recognize or concede any claim upon the part of 
 Russia to exclusive jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries in Behring 
 Sea outside the ordinary territorial waters. 
 
 " As to the third point, as to so much thereof as requires us to 
 decide whether the body of water now known as Behring Sea was 
 included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean ' as used in the treaty of 1825 
 betwteen Great Britain and Russia, we unanimously decide and 
 determine that the body of water now known as Behring Sea was 
 included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean ' as used in said treaty. 
 
 ' ' On the fourth point we decide and determine that all the 
 rights of Russia to jurisdiction and to the seal fisheries passed to 
 the United States, limited by the cession." 
 
 On the fifth point the decision of the tribunal, Justice Har- 
 lan and Senator Morgan dissenting, was as follows : — 
 
 " On the fifth point, we. Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Sir 
 John S. D. Thompson, Marquis Emilio Visconti-Venosta and 
 Gregero W. W. Gram, being the majority of said arbitrators, de- 
 cide and determine that the United States have no right to the 
 protection of or property in the seals frequenting the islarids of 
 the United States in Behring Sea when the same are found out-* 
 side the ordinary three-mile limit. 
 
 "And whereas the aforesaid determination of the foregoing 
 question as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States 
 leaves the subject in such a position that the concurrence of Great 
 Britain is necessary to the establishment of regulations for the 
 
502 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 proper protection and preservation of fur-seals habitually resort- 
 ing to Behring Sea, we, Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Marquis 
 Emilio "Visconti-Venosta and Gregero W. W. Gram, being a 
 majority of the arbitrators, assent to the whole of the nine articles 
 of the following regulations as necessary outside of the jurisdic- 
 tion limits of the respective governments, and that they should 
 extend over the waters hereinafter mentioned :— 
 
 '" Art. 1. — The United States and Great Britain shall forbid 
 their citizens and subjects respectively to kill, capture or pursue 
 at any time or in any manner whatever the animals commonly 
 called fur-seals within a zone of sixty miles around the Pribylofl 
 Islands, inclusive of the territorial water, the miles being geo- 
 graphical mUes, sixty to a degree of latitude. 
 
 "Art. 2. — The two governments shall forbid their citizens or 
 subjects to kUl, capture or pursue in any manner whatever dur- 
 ing a season extending in each year from May 1 to July 31 inclu- 
 sive fur-seals on the high part of the sea in that part of the Pacific 
 Ocean inclusive of Behring Sea, situated north of the thirty- 
 fifth degree of north latitude, or eastward of the 180th degree of 
 longitude from Greenwich until it "strikes the water boundary 
 described in article 1 of the treaty of 1867 between the United 
 States and Russia, following that line up to Behring Straits'. 
 
 ' ' Art. 3. — During the period of time in the waters in which 
 fur-sealing is allowed only sailing vessels shall be permitted to 
 carry on or take part in fur-sealing operations, They wiU, how- 
 ever, be at liberty to avail themselves of the use of such canoes 
 or undecked boats, propelled by paddles, oars or sails, as are in 
 common use as fishing boats. 
 
 "Art. 4. — Each sailing vessel authorized to carry on fur-seal- 
 ing must be provided with a special license issued for the purpose 
 by its government. Each vessel so employed shall be required 
 to carry a distinguishing flag prescribed by its government. 
 
 " Art. 5. — The masters of vessels engaged in fur-sealing shall 
 enter accurately in an official log-book the date and place of each 
 operation, the number and the sex of the seals captured daily. 
 These entries shall be communicated by each of the two govern- 
 *ments to each other at the end of each season. 
 
 " Art. 6. — The use of nets, firearms or explosives is forbidden 
 in fur-sealing. This restriction shall not apply to shotguns when 
 such are used in fishing outside of Behring Sea during the season 
 when such may lawfully be carried on. 
 
 " Art. 7. — The two governments shall take measures to control 
 
THE BEHEING SEA ARBITRATION. 503 
 
 the fitness of the men authorized to engage in sealing. These 
 men shall have been proved fit to handle with sufllcient skill the 
 weapons by means of which seal fishing is carried on. 
 
 "Art. 8. — The preceding regulations shall not apply to Indians 
 dwelling on the coast of the territories of the United States or 
 Great Britain carrying on fur-sealing in canoes or undecked boats 
 not transported by or used in connection with other vessels and 
 propelled wholly by paddles, oars or sails, and manned by not 
 more than five persons, in the way hitherto practised by the In- ' 
 dians, provided that such Indians are not employed by other 
 persons, and provided that when so hunting in canoes or undecked 
 boats the Indians shall not hunt fur-seals outside the territorial 
 waters under contract to deliver skins to anybody. This exemp- 
 tion is not to be construed to affect the municipal law of either 
 country, nor shall it extend to the waters of Behring Sea or the 
 waters around the Aleutian Islands. Nothing herein contained 
 is intended to interfere with the employment of Indians as 
 hunters or otherwise in connection with sealing vessels as here- 
 tofore. 
 
 " Art. 9. — The concurrent regulations hereby determined with 
 ayiew to the protection and preservation of the fur-seals shall re- 
 main in force until they have been wholly or in part abolished or 
 modified by a common agreement between the United States and 
 Great Britain. Said concurrent regulations shall be submitted 
 every five years to a new examination in order to enable both 
 governments to consider whether in the light of past experience 
 there is occasion to make any modification thereof." 
 
 The arbitrators make a special finding on the facts agreed upon 
 by the agents of both governments with reference to the seizure of 
 British vessels in Behring Sea in 1887 and 1889. In addition the 
 arbitrators make certain suggestions to the two governments, the 
 most important being that they should come to an understanding 
 to prohibit the killing of seals on land or sea for a period of frpm 
 one to three years, and should enact regulations to carry out the 
 findings of the arbitrators. 
 
 " And whereas the Government of her Britannic Majesty did 
 submit to the Tribunal of Arbitration by Article VII. of the said 
 treaty certain questions of fact involved in the claims referred to 
 in the said Article VIII., and did also submit to us the said 
 Tribunal a statement of the said facts as follows, that is to say: — 
 ' Findings of fact proposed by the agent of Great Britain and 
 agreed to as proved by the agent for the United States and sub- 
 mitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration for its consideration.^ 
 
504 TOPICS IN AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 "1. That the several searches and seizures, whether of ships 
 or goods, and the several arrests of masters and crews respectively 
 mentioned in the schedule to the British case, pages 1 to 60 in- 
 clusive, were made by the authority of the United States Govern- 
 ment. The questions as to the value of the said vessels or their 
 contents, or either of them, and the question as to whether the 
 vessels mentioned in the schedule to the British case or any of 
 them were wholly or in part the actual property of citizens of the 
 TJnited States have been withdrawn from and have not been con- 
 sidered by the Tribunal, it being understood that it is open to the 
 United States to raise these questions, or any of them, if they 
 think fit, in any future negotiations as to the liability of the United 
 States Government to pay the amounts mentioned in the schedule 
 to the British case ; 
 
 "2. That the seizures aforesaid, with the exception of the 
 Pathfinder^ seized at Neah Bay, were made in Behruig Sea at the 
 distances from shore mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto 
 marked ' C ' ; 
 
 "3. That the said several searches and seizures of vessels were 
 made by public armed vessels of the United States, the com- 
 manders of which had, at the several times when they were made, 
 from the Executive Department of the Government of the United 
 States instructions, a copy of one of which is annexed hereto marked 
 ' A,' and the others were in all substantial respects the same ; that 
 in all the instances in which proceedings were had in the district 
 Courts of the United States resulting in condemnation such pro- 
 ceedings were begun by the filing of libels, a copy of one of which 
 is annexed hereto marked ' B,' and that the libels in the other 
 proceedings were in all substantial respects the same ; that the 
 alleged acts or offences for which the said several searches and 
 seizures were made were in each case done or committed in 
 Behring Sea at Jhe distances from shore aforesaid ; and that in 
 each case in which sentence of condemnation was passed, except 
 in those cases where the vessels were released after condemnation, 
 the seizure was adopted by the Government of the United States ; 
 and in those cases in which the vessels were released the seizure 
 was made by the authority of the United States ; that the said 
 fines and imprisonments were for alleged breaches of the munici- 
 pal laws of the United States, which a,lleged breaches were wholly 
 committed in Behring Sea at the distances from the shore afore- 
 said ; 
 
 ' ' 4. That the several orders mentioned in the schedule, annexed 
 hereto, and marked ' 0,' warning vessels to leave or not to enter 
 
THE BEHEINa SEA AEBITKATION. 505 
 
 Behring Sea were made by public armed vessels of the United 
 States, the commanders of which had at the several times when 
 they were given like instructions as mentioned in finding 3 ; and 
 that the vessels so warned were engaged in sealing or prosecuting 
 voyages for that purpose, and that such action was adopted by 
 the Government of the United States ; 
 
 "5. That the district Courts of the United States in which any 
 proceedings were had or taken for the purpose of condemning any 
 vessel seized as mentioned in the schedule to the case of Great 
 Britain — pages 1 to 60 inclusive — had all the jurisdiction and 
 powers of Courts of Admiralty, including the prize jurisdiction, 
 but that in each case the sentence pronounced by the Court was 
 based upon the grounds set forth in the Hbel." 
 
 Ajotex a. 
 
 " Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
 April 21, 1886. • 
 ' ' Sir, — Referring to department letter of this date directing you 
 to proceed with the revenue steamer Bear under your command 
 to the seal islands, etc., you are hereby clothed with full power 
 to enforce the law contained in the provisions of section 1,956 of 
 the United States Revised Statutes, and directed to seize all vessels 
 and arrest and deliver to the proper authorities any or all persons 
 whom you may detect violating the law referred to after due 
 notice shall have been given. You will also seize any liquors or 
 firearms attempted to be introduced into the country without 
 proper permit, under the provisions of section 1,955 of the Re- 
 vised Statutes and the Proclamation of the President dated Feb- 
 ruary 4, 1870. 
 
 "C. S. Fairchild, Acting Secretary. 
 "Captain M. A. Healy, commanding revenue steamer Bear, 
 San Francisco, California." 
 
 Annex B. 
 
 " In the District Court of the United States for the District of 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 " August Special Term, 1886. 
 "To the Honorable Lafayette Dawson, Judge of said District 
 Court. 
 "The libel of information of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the 
 United States for the district of Alaska, who prosecutes on be- 
 
606 TOPICS IN AMEEICAlSr DIPLOMACY. 
 
 half of said United States, and being present here in Court in his 
 proper person in the name and on behalf of the said United States, 
 against the schooner Thornton, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, 
 and furniture, and against all persons intervening for their in- 
 terest therein in a cause of forfeiture, alleges and informs as 
 follows : — • 
 
 " That Charles A. Abbey, an ofla.cer in the revenue marine ser- 
 vice of the United States and on special duty in the waters of the 
 district of Alaska heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of August, 
 1886 , within the limits of Alaska territory and in the waters thereof 
 and within the civil and judicial district of Alaska, to wit, within 
 the waters of that portion of Behring Sea belonging to the said 
 district, on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more 
 tons burden, seized the ship or vessel commonly called a schooner, 
 the Thornton, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, 
 being the property of some person or persons to the said attorney 
 unknown, as forfeited to the United States for the following 
 causes : — ' That the said vessel or schooner was found engaged 
 in killing fur-seal within the limits of Alaska territory and in 
 the waters thereof in violation of' section 1,956 of the Revised 
 Statutes of the United States.' And the said attorney saith that 
 aU and singular the premises are and were true and within the 
 Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court, and that, by 
 reason thereof and by force of the statutes of the United States 
 in such cases made and provided, the aforementioned and de- 
 scribed schooner or vessel, being a vessel of over 20 tons burden, 
 her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, became and are 
 forfeited to the use of the said United States, and that the said 
 schooner is now within the district aforesaid ; 
 
 " Wherefore the said attorney prays that the usual process 
 and monition of this honorable Court issue in this behalf, and 
 that all persons interested in the bef orementioned and described 
 schooner or vessel may be cited in general and special to answer 
 the premises, and, all due proceedings being had, that the said 
 schooner or vessel, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furni- 
 ture may, for the cause aforesaid and others appearing, be con- 
 demned by the definite sentence and decree of this honorable 
 Court as forfeited to the use of the said United State's, according 
 to the form of the statute of the said United States in such cases 
 made and provided. 
 
 " M. D. Ball, United States District Attorney for the District of 
 
 Alaska." 
 
THE BEHRING SEA AEBITEATION. 
 
 507 
 
 Annex C. 
 ' ' The following table shows the names of the British sealing ves- 
 sels seized or warned by United States Revenue cruisers,. 1886- 
 1890, and the approximate distance from land when seized. The 
 distance assigned in the cases of the Carolena, Thorrdon, and On- 
 ward are on the authority of the United States Naval Commander 
 Abbey (see 50th Congress, 2d Session, Senate, Executive Docu- 
 ments, No. 106, pp. 20, 30, 40). The distances assigned in the 
 cases of the Anna Beck, W. P. Sayward, Dolphin, and Grace are 
 on the authority of Captain Shepard, U. S. R. M. (Blue Book, 
 United States, No. 2, 1890, pp. 80-82, see Appendix, Vol. III.) :— 
 
 Name of Vessel. 
 
 Date of Seizure. 
 
 Approximate 
 
 Distance from 
 
 Land when 
 
 Seized. 
 
 United States 
 
 Vessel 
 
 making 
 
 Seizures. 
 
 Carolena 
 Thornton . . 
 Onward 
 
 Favorite 
 
 Anna Beck. . 
 W. P. Sayward 
 Dolphin 
 Grace . . 
 Alfred Adams 
 Ada . . 
 
 Triumph . . 
 
 Juanita 
 Pathfinder . . 
 
 Triumph 
 
 Black Diamond . 
 Lily .. .. : 
 
 Ariel . 
 
 Kate . 
 Minnie 
 
 Pathfinder 
 
 Aug. 1, 1886 
 Aug. 1, 1886 
 Aug. 3, 1886 
 
 Aug. 2, 1886 
 
 July 3, 1887 
 July 9, 1887 
 July 13, 1887 
 July 17, 1887 
 Aug. 10, 1887 
 Aug. 35, 1887 
 
 Aug. 4, 1887 
 
 July 31, 1889 
 July 39, 1889 
 
 July 11, 1889 
 
 July 11, 1889 
 Aug. 6, 1889 
 
 July 30, 1889 
 
 Aug. 13, 1889 
 July 15, 1889 
 
 March 37, 1890 
 
 75 mUes 
 
 70 miles 
 115 miles 
 Warned by Cor- 
 
 win in about the 
 
 same position as 
 
 Oward 
 66 miles 
 59 miles 
 40 miles 
 96 miles 
 63 miles 
 15 mUes 
 Warned by Rush 
 
 not to enter 
 
 Behring Sea 
 
 66 miles 
 
 50 miles 
 Order out of 
 Behring Sea by 
 Rush — (?) as to 
 position when 
 warned 
 
 35 mUes 
 
 65 miles 
 
 Ordered out of 
 Behring Sea by 
 Bush 
 Ditto 
 
 65 miles 
 
 Seized in Neah 
 Bay' 
 
 Corwin 
 Oorwin 
 Corwin 
 
 Rush 
 Rush 
 Rush 
 Rush 
 Rush 
 Bear 
 
 Rush 
 
 Rush 
 Rush 
 
 Rush 
 
 ' ' ' Neah Bay is in the State of Washington and the Pathfinder was seized 
 there on charge made against her in Behring Sea in the previous year. 
 She was released two days later." 
 
508 TOPICS IN AMEEICAN DIPLOMACY. 
 
 ' ' And whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty did 
 ask the said arbitrators to find the said facts as set forth in the said 
 statement; and whereas the agent and counsel for the United 
 States Government thereupon in our presence informed us that 
 the said statement of facts was sustained by the evidence, and 
 that they had agreed with the agent and counsel for Her Britannic 
 Majesty that we, the Arbitrators, if we should think fit so to do, 
 might find the said statement of facts to be true. 
 
 ' ' Now we, the said Arbitrators, do unanimously find the facts, 
 as set forth in the said statement, to be true : 
 
 ' ' And whereas each and every question which has been con- 
 sidered by the Tribunal has been determined by a majority of all 
 the Arbitrators, 
 
 " Now we. Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Mr. Justice Harlan, 
 Sir John Thompson, Senator Morgan, the Marquis Visconti- Venosta, 
 and M. Gregero Gram, the respective minorities not withdrawing 
 their yote§, do declare this to be the final decision and award in 
 writing of this Tribunal in accordance with the treaty. 
 
 " Made in duplicate at Paris, and signed by us the 15th day of 
 August, in the year 1893. 
 
 ' ' And we do certify this English version thereof to be true and 
 accurate. 
 
 ' ' The Arbitrators then append the following declarations re- 
 ferred to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain 
 for their consideration. 
 
 "1. The Arbitrators declare that the concurrent regulations as 
 deterriiined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration by virtue of Article 
 VII. of the Treaty of the 29th of February, 1892, being applicable 
 to the high sea only should, in their opinion, be supplemented by 
 other regulations applicable within the limits of the sovereignty 
 of each of the two powers interested and to be settled by their 
 common agreement. 
 
 "2. In view of the critical condition to which it appears certain 
 that the race of fur-seals is now reduced in consequence of circum- 
 stances not fully known, the Arbitrators think fit to recommend 
 both Governments to come to an understanding in order to pro- 
 hibit any killing of fur-seals, either on land or at sea, for a period 
 of two or three years, or at least one year subject to such excep- 
 tions as the two Governments might think proper to admit of. 
 
 " Such a measure might be recurred to at occasional intervals 
 if found beneficial. 
 
 " The Arbitrators declare, moreover, that, in their opinion, the 
 
THE BEHEING SEA AEBITEATION. 509 
 
 carrying out of the regulations determined upon by the Tribunal 
 of Arbitration should be assured by a system of stipulations and 
 measures to be enacted by the two Powers, and that the Tribunal 
 must in consequence leave it to the two Powers to decide upon 
 the means for giving effect to the regulations determined upon 
 by it. 
 
 " We do certify this English version to be true and accurate, 
 and have signed the same at Paris this 15th day of August, 
 1893." 1 
 
 1 The history of the Behring Sea controversy may be found in full in the 
 U. S. Executive Documents referred to above, and in the U. S. Foreign Re- 
 lations (annual volumes) from 1886 to 1893. 
 
 The proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration contain the cases and 
 counter cases of the two governments, and the arguments of counsel. 
 
 The Journal des Dibats said, after the decision : — "If on the main ques- 
 tion the United States has been nonsuited, the precautions taken to prevent 
 the destruction of the seals has been well received on the other side of the 
 Atlantic. Two parties, each congratulating itself on the decision of the 
 Judges, is a spectacle seen too seldom not to be agreeable. It affords us 
 peculiar satisfaction, when we consider the great interest at stake, to think 
 that Prance, which presided at these solemn assizes, has been able to con- 
 tribute her share to the result, which is as rare as it is reassuring." 
 
INDEX. 
 
 AT.ABitMA Claims : 
 
 Treaty for settlement of, 1871, 
 95 
 Alaska : 
 
 Treaty for cession of, 135 
 Seal-flsheries in waters of, 471 
 Algiees : 
 
 Treaty with, 154 
 Aebitration : 
 In respect to : 
 
 Slaves carried away in 
 
 1814, 81 
 Alabama Claims, 95 
 Fisheries, 1871, 1877, 98, 
 
 446 
 Northwest water boun- 
 dary, 85 
 Behring Sea Seal-flsheries, 
 471 
 Aegentine Confederation : 
 
 Treaties with, 201 
 Aubaine, Droit D' : 
 
 Treaties abolishing the, 335 
 Austria-Hungary : 
 
 Treaties with, 189, 318, 228, 
 233, 336 
 
 Behring Sea : 
 
 Controversy in respect of, 471 
 Belgium : 
 
 Treaties with, 139, 311, 333, 234 
 Bolivia : 
 
 Treaties with, 201, 303 
 
 Boundaries : 
 Alaska, 135 
 California, 185 
 Florida, 3, 6, 106, 110 
 Louisiana, 3, 46 
 Mexican boundary, 193, 196 
 Mississippi, the, and the St. 
 Croix boundaries, 68, 69, 73 
 Northern and Northeastern 
 
 boundaries, 80, 82 
 Northwestern boundary, 84, 
 
 85 
 United States, boundaries of 
 the, according to : 
 Instructions, 1779, 58 
 Report of committee, 1783, 
 
 60 
 Treaty of Peace, 1788, 64 
 Utrecht, boundaries fixed by 
 treaty of, 1, 3 
 Bounties : 
 
 On fishing vessels, 468 
 Brazil : 
 
 Treaty with, 204, 236 
 
 California : 
 
 Cession of, 1848, 185 
 Central America : 
 
 Treaty with, 1835, 201 
 Chile : 
 
 Treaties with, 301 
 China: 
 
 Treaties with, 155 
 
 511 
 
512 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 China — Continued. 
 
 Restriction of immigration 
 from, 162 
 Clayton-Bulwee Treaty, 86, 333 
 CoLTTMBiA, United States op : 
 Treaties with, and New Gren- 
 ada, 177, 217 
 Congo : 
 
 Treaties with, 174 
 Consular Treaties : 
 WHh France, 85, 305 
 " Belgium, 311 
 " other States, 317 
 Rights and duties of consuls, 
 318 
 Contraband op War : 7, 17, 39, 48, 
 
 71, 198, 114, 180, 
 Corea : 
 
 Treaty with, 1883, 174 
 Costa Rica : 
 
 Treaties with, 301 
 Cuba : 
 
 Attempts to acquire, 849 
 
 Danish Islands : 
 
 Treaty of Purchase, 860 
 Denmark : 
 
 Treaties with, 124 
 Deposit : 
 
 Right of at New Orleans, 109, 
 110 
 Duty : 
 
 On fish imported, 469 
 
 Ecuador : 
 
 Treaties with, 301 
 Extradition Treaties with 
 
 France, 219 
 
 Prussia, 330 
 
 Belgium, 223 
 
 Other States, 238 
 
 Note on extradition, 339 
 
 Fisheries : 
 
 Regulation by : 
 
 Fisheries — Continued, 
 
 Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, 1, 3 
 " " 1763, England and 
 France, 3 
 Treaty of 1783, England and 
 
 France, 5 
 British Declaration, 1783, 5 
 Plan of treaties, 1783, 13, 15 
 Treaty of 1778 with France, 38 
 Instructions, 1779, 54, 55 
 Act of Massachusetts Legisla- 
 ture, 1781, 57 
 Report of Committee of Con- 
 gress, 1782, 57 
 Treaty of Peace, 1788, 65 
 Convention of 1818, with Eng- 
 land, 79 
 Treaty of Reciprocity, 1854, 90 
 Treaty of "Washington, 1871, 97 
 Treaty of 1888 (not ratified),461 
 History of the Fisheries Ques- 
 tion, 437-470 
 Bounties to fishing vessels, 468 
 Florida: 
 
 Cession of, by Spain to Eng- 
 land, 1763, 8. 
 Cession of, by England to 
 
 Spain, 1783, 6. 
 Cession of, by Spain to the 
 
 United States, 1819, 110 
 Boundaiy of, by treaty of 1795, 
 106, 109 
 Free Ships, Free Goods : 
 
 Treaty stipulations in respect 
 of, 8, 21, 30, 107, 114, 130 
 
 German Empire : 
 
 Treaty with, 140, 218 
 Ghent : 
 
 Treaty of, 74 
 Great Britain: 
 
 Treaties with, 53 
 Greece : 
 
 Treaty with, 140 
 Guatemala : 
 
 Treaty with, 303 
 
INDEX. 
 
 513 
 
 Halifax : 
 
 Arbitralion at, 446 
 Hanover : 
 
 Treaties with, 140 
 Hanseatic Leagxje : 
 
 Treaties with, 140 
 Hawaiian Islands : 
 
 Treaties with, 165 
 
 History of relations with, 361- 
 397 
 Hayti : 
 
 Treaties with, 303 
 Holt Alliance : 
 
 Treaty of the, 243 
 Honduras : 
 
 Treaties with, 208 
 
 International American Confer- 
 ence : 
 History of, 316-336 
 Interoceanic Canals : 
 
 History of, subject, 326-347 
 Treaty with New Granada, 
 
 1846, 183 
 Treaty with Nicaragua, 1867, 
 
 197 
 Treaty with Mexico, 1853, 193 
 
 Japan : 
 
 Treaties with, 170 
 Jay, J. : 
 
 Treaty negotiated by, 1794, 68 
 
 Liberia : 
 
 Treaty with, 175 
 Lima: 
 
 Congress of, 1847, 313 
 " 1864, 313 
 Louisiana : 
 
 Cession of by France to Spain, 
 
 1763, 3 
 Cession of by Spain to France, 
 
 1800, 46 
 Cession of by France to the 
 United States, 1803. 46 
 33 
 
 Madagascar : 
 
 Treaties with, 175 
 Mexico : 
 
 Treaties with, 185 
 Michigan, Lake : 
 
 Navigation of, 100 
 Mississippi River : 
 
 Navigg,tion pf , 4, 67, 106 
 Monroe Doctrine : 
 
 History of the, 237-394 
 
 Holy Alliance, Treaty of the, 
 243 
 
 Verona, Secret Treaty of, 245 
 
 Origin of in the United States, 
 248 
 
 Washington's Farewell Ad- 
 dress, 250 
 
 Jefferson's Letter, 1823, 273 
 
 Madison's Letter, 1823, 275 
 onroe's Message, 1828, 289 
 
 Panama Congress, 1826, 294 
 
 American Congresses, 1847- 
 1882, 313-814 
 
 International American Con- 
 ference, 1890, 816 
 
 Interoceanic Canals, 326 
 
 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 86, 333 
 
 Nicaragua Canal, 197, 844 
 
 Yucatan, 1848, 347 
 
 Cuba, 349 
 
 San Domingo, 357 
 
 Hawaiian Islands, 165, 361 
 
 Samoa, 175, 898 
 
 Remarks on Monroe Doctrine, 
 422 
 Morocco : 
 
 Treaties with, 143 
 Mosquito Coast : 
 
 Controversy concerning, 386 
 Muscat : 
 
 Treaty with, 175 
 
 Naturalization Treaties : 
 
 With the North German 
 
 Union, 230 
 With Great Britain, 233 
 
614 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Natoealization Treaties — Con- 
 Untied. 
 
 With Austria-Hungary, 233 
 
 With other States, 334 
 Netherlands : 
 
 Treaties with, 140 
 Neutrality, the Armed : 
 
 Treaty of, 1780 
 Nicaragua : 
 
 Treaties with, 197 
 
 Canal of, 197, 344 
 
 NiCKERSON, THE J. H. : 
 
 Case of, 457 
 
 Orange Free State, the : 
 Treaties with, 175 
 
 Ottoman Porte, the : 
 Treaties with, 173 
 
 Panama Congress, 1826 : 
 
 History of the, 394-313 
 Panama : 
 
 Proposed Congress of, 1881, 314 
 
 Canal of, 339 
 Paeaguay : 
 
 Treaties with, 203 
 Pearl River Harbor : 
 
 Eight to Coaling Station in, 
 169, 370, 373 
 Permit to " Touch and Trade " : 
 
 Given to fishing-vessels, 454 
 Persia : 
 
 Treaties with, 175 
 Peru: 
 
 Treaties with, 203 
 Portugal ; 
 
 Treaties with, 140 
 Prizes : 
 
 Treaty stipulations as to, 18, 
 30,72 
 
 Reciprocity Treaties : 
 
 With England, 1854, 1871, 90, 
 
 95 
 The Hawaiian Islands, 165 
 
 Roumania : 
 
 Treaties with, 141 
 Russia : 
 
 Treaties with, 132 
 
 Salvador : 
 
 (Treaties with, 203 
 Samoa : 
 
 Treaties with, 175 
 
 History of Relations with, 398 
 San Domingo : 
 
 Treaties with, 301 
 Sardinia : 
 
 Treaties with, 141 
 Scheldt Dues : 
 
 Treaty in respect of, 139 
 Servia : 
 
 Treaties with, 141 
 SlAM : 
 
 Treaties with, 175 
 Slave Trade : 
 
 Treaties in resiect of 75, 83, 
 93-94 
 Sound Dues: 
 
 Treaty in respect of, 124 
 Spain: 
 
 Treaties with, 106 
 St. Lawrence River : 
 
 Navigation of, 99 
 Sweden : 
 
 Treaties with, 141 
 Swiss Confederation : 
 
 Treaties with, 141 
 
 Texas : 
 
 Treaties with, 204 
 Tonga Islands : 
 
 Treaties with, 175 
 Trade Marks : 
 
 Treaties regulating, 336 
 
 Venezuela : 
 
 Treaties with, 304 
 
INDEX. 
 
 515 
 
 Washington : 
 
 Treaty of, 1871, 95 
 White Fawn; 
 
 Case of the, 457 
 
 Yucatan : 
 
 Question of, 1848, 347 
 
 Zanzibar : 
 
 Treaties with, 176 
 

 
 
 
 vriWiiiift 
 
 j™ 
 
 vft>!^,'*fw|:- 
 
 M 
 
 m