and Iglesias Governments; and what is herein said on that subject is intended to inform you of the views of this Government upon the questions of international law which are involved, and not to direct you to take any anticipatory action.

"Any case arising in which American interests are found to be affected will require to be examined on its merits, to determine how far the general principle applies. But, as to the general principle, the present Government of Peru should know our position.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, minister to Peru, No. 97, Sept. 23, 1886, For. Rel. 1887, 921.

"I have received your No. 212, of February 28, containing correspondence in regard to the action of the Peruvian Congress 'declaring null all acts of the Piérola and Iglesias Governments.'

"The views of the Government of the United States having been announced as to the general principles involved in the assumptions of the Peruvian legislation, and exception in principle duly taken thereto, the matter may now rest, unless some specific case should arise affecting American interests and calling for renewed representations." (Same to same, No. 130, April 29, 1887, id. 934.)

"Government is constituted in Republic of the United States of Brazil. Monarchy deposed; imperial family left the country; provinces adhere; tranquillity and general satisfaction; executive power intrusted to Provisional Government, whose chief is Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, and myself the minister of finance; Republic respects strictly all engagements and contracts entered upon by the state."

Telegram of Mr. Ruy Barbosa, minister of finance of Provisional Government of Brazil, communicated to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, Nov. 23, 1889, For. Rel. 1889, 70.

4. SUSPENSION OF INDEPENDENCE.

§ 79.

Under the convention of July 4, 1831, France paid the United States a sum of money in settlement of claims of citizens of the latter growing out of the acts of Napoleon. To the commissioners appointed to carry this convention into effect, claims were submitted for the seizure and the sequestration or confiscation of American vessels in Dutch ports in 1809 and 1810. When the United States pressed these claims against Holland in 1815, the Dutch Government denied its responsibility on the ground that when the seizures occurred the Netherlands were under the actual government of France. The discussion continued from time to time for five years. May 26, 1820, Mr. John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, instructed the minister of the United States at The Hague to forbear for the time to press the subject further. This step was taken at the request of the Dutch Government, made through its minister at Washington, that the claims be not further pressed. As demands against the Netherlands the claims

were thus practically abandoned. The commissioners under the convention with France decided that they constituted valid demands upon the French nation. The reasoning of the commissioners, as stated by one of their number, was as follows:

"Holland, after some ten years of political changes, during which though nominally independent she was tributary to all the projects of France, had received, in the month of June, 1806, a king of the Napoleon family. But it was manifest, that in placing Louis upon the throne, his brother had not renounced his control over the affairs of that country. The form of distinct sovereignties was presented to the public eye; but the energies of the Dutch people were directed more than ever to the advancement of the imperial policy. At last, in the concluding month of 1809, a new crisis approached. At a moment when the finances of Holland were in a state of extreme embarrassment, she was required to destroy her commerce with foreign nations, which formed the principal source of her revenues. Louis ventured to remonstrate, and delayed compliance with the mandate. He was reminded in reply, that the country of which he was sovereign was a French conquest, and that his highest and imprescriptible duties were to the imperial crown;' and it was announced to him, in terms which could not be mistaken, that the project of uniting Holland to the empire was already matured, and that its consummation could only be postponed by his unqualified obedience. Among the most decided, though not the first tests of his submission, as he has since declared to the world, the pretended treaty of the 16th of March, 1810, which was in fact a capitulation, was presented to him to be ratified.' 'It was imposed,' he adds, by the emperor;' and a prisoner as Louis was at the time at Paris, he had no choice but to yield. The French armies had forcibly possessed themselves beforehand of several of the Dutch fortresses; French officers of the customs occupied all the ports and outlets of the kingdom; and Napoleon, confounding apparently his purposes with their execution, had already directed his decrees to the authorities of Holland as if it was one of the departments of France. The assent of the king however did not avail to prolong his reign. The troops of his brother continued to advance, they menaced Amsterdam, the popular feeling was inflamed, and in the vain hope of averting a new revolution, Louis abdicated on the 1st of July in favour of his son. It was unnecessary; the emperor's arrangements were already made; a decree of thirteen articles was issued on the 9th from the palace of Rambouillet, the first of which declared that Holland was united to the empire.

6

"The tenth article of the treaty of 16th March, 1810, was as follows: 'All merchandise which has arrived in American vessels in the ports of Holland since the 1st of January, 1809, shall be placed under sequestration, and shall belong to France, to be disposed of according

to circumstances and to the political relations with the United States.' It was executed in the spirit which suggested it, rather than according to its terms; every American cargo, without reference to the date of its importation, was sequestered at once. Some were afterwards released under the decree of 9th July, 1810, or by special favour; but the greater number, after more or less delay, were sold by the imperial order, and their proceeds passed into the caisse d'amortissement at Paris.

"It was for the value of these cargoes that reclamations were made before the commissioners. The brief account which has been given of the political condition of Holland from the year 1809 till it was formally merged in the French empire sufficiently explains the reason for allowing them. Holland was already a dependent kingdom, and Louis a merely nominal sovereign. The treaty was a form; in substance it was an imperial decree.”

Mr. Kane, one of the commissioners, quoted in Moore, International Arbitrations, V. 4473.

An illustration of the difference, as affecting the continuity of the state,
between the actual suppression of independence, as in the case of the
Netherlands, and the mere exercise of influence, however powerful it may
be, by one state over another, is found not only in the case of the Two
Sicilies under Murat, to which reference has been made above, but also in
the case of Denmark. From 1807 to 1811, many American vessels were
seized, and some of them were condemned by the Danes under decrees
which were practically dictated by Napoleon. The claims growing out of
these spoliations were pressed and finally settled as demands against Den-
mark. (Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4549.) The commissioners under
the convention between the United States and France of July 4, 1831, held
that they could not be charged against the latter country, for, although
the conduct of the King of Denmark may have been influenced by "his
anxiety to conciliate the favor of the French emperor," the "act was his
own: the Kingdom of Denmark was then, as now, independent." (Moore,
Int. Arbitrations, V. 4475.)

See, also, as to the suspension of the independence of the Dutch, Davis' Treaty
Notes, Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other
Powers, 1776-1887, 1235.

(1) Consent of the population. § 83.

(2) Protection of territory pending annexation. § 84.
(3) Question as to annexation by a neutral during war.
(4) Property that passes by cession. § 86.

Case of Louisiana.

The Floridas.

Alaska.

Spanish islands, 1898.

4. Conquest. § 87.

5. Prescription. § 88.
Opinions of publicists.
Judicial decisions.
Venezuelan boundary.

6. Abandonment. § 89.

II. Revolution. § 90.

III. Internal development. § 91.

IV. Effects of change of sovereignty.

1. On boundaries. § 92.

2. On public law. § 93.
3. On revenue laws. § 94.
The insular cases.
De Lima v. Bidwell.
Downes v. Bidwell.

Dooley v. United States.
Huus. Steamship Co.

Goetze v. United States.
Fourteen Diamond Rings
Second Dooley case.

Division of territory.

4. On private law. § 95.

5. On public obligations. § 96.

$ 85.

9. Hawaiian Islands. § 108.

Early relations.

Mr. Webster's letter, 1842.

President Tyler's message.

Action of Great Britain, 1843.

British-French declaration.

French intervention: American position and treaty.

Proposed annexation, 1854.

Proposals for reciprocity, 1855, 1867.

Revival of annexation project,