fact and the right combined can alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new and disputed sovereignty. The neutral may, indeed, infer the right from the fact, but not the fact from the right. If Buenos Ayres confined its demand of recognition to the provinces of which it is in actual possession, and if it would assert its entire independence by agreeing to place the United States upon the footing of the most favored nation, * * I should think the time now arrived when its government might be recognized without a breach of neutrality." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to the President, Aug. 24, 1818, Monroe MSS., Dept. of State. * In 1818 Mr. David C. De Forest, a citizen of the United States, applied for recognition as consul-general of the United Provinces of South America. This recognition was refused." Refusal to receive a consul. "The equality of rights to which the two parties to a civil war are entitled, in their relations with neutral powers, does not extend to the rights enjoyed by one of them, by virtue of treaty stipulations contracted before the war; neither can it extend to rights, the enjoyment of which essentially depends upon the issue of the war. That Spain is a sovereign and independent power, is not contested by Buenos Ayres, and is recognized by the United States, who are bound by treaty to receive her consuls. Mr. De Forest's credential letter asks that he may be received by virtue of a stipulation in supposed articles concluded by Mr. Worthington,' but which he was not authorized to make; so that the reception of Mr. De Forest, upon the credential on which he founds his claim would imply a recognition not only of the government of the Supreme Director, Pueyrredon, but a compact as binding upon the United States, which is a mere nullity. "Consuls are, indeed, received by the United States from acknowledged sovereign powers with whom they have no treaty. But the exequatur for a consul-general can obviously not be granted without recognizing the authority from whom his appointment proceeds as sovereign. The consul,' says Vattel (book 2, chap. 2, § 34), ‘is not a public minister; but as he is charged with a commission from his sovereign, and received in that quality by him where he resides, he should enjoy, to a certain extent, the protection of the law of nations.' "If, from this state of things, the inhabitants of Buenos Ayres can not enjoy the advantage of being officially represented before the courts of the United States by a consul, while the subjects of Spain are entitled to that privilege, it is an inequality resulting from the nature of the contest in which they are engaged, and not from any a Am. St. Pap., For. Rel. IV. 413. Mr. W. G. D. Worthington, agent of the United States at Buenos Ayres, negotiated certain articles which he neither had nor pretended to have any power to negotiate. viceroyalty of La Plata." When asked whether this did not include Montevideo, and the territory occupied by the Portuguese; the Banda Oriental, understood to be under the government of Artigas, and several provinces still in the undisputed possession of Spain, he replied that it did, but that Artigas, though hostile to the government of Buenos Ayres, supported the cause of independence, and that Portugal could not ultimately maintain possession of Montevideo. Mr. Adams stated that any acknowledgment of the government of La Plata was deemed by the President to be for the time inexpedient." "In the draft of a letter to Mr. Aguirre Opinion of Mr. I have stated to him the grounds upon which the Government of the United States have been deterred from an acknowledg ment of that of Buenos Ayres as including the dominion of the whole viceroyalty of the La Plata. The result of the late campaign in Venezuela, by comparing the royal and the republican bulletins, has been so far disadvantageous to the latter that they have undoubtedly failed in obtaining possession of any part of the coast. They have, therefore, at least one more campaign to contest, to go through, for which they will need several months of preparation. Bolivar appears to have resigned the chief military command to Paez, and the army is to be reorganized. But the royalists do not appear to have gained any ground, and are evidently too much weakened by their losses to act upon the offensive. In this state the independence of Venezuela can scarcely be considered in a condition to claim the recognition of neutral powers. But there is a stage in such contests when the parties struggling for independence have, as I conceive, a right to demand its acknowledgment by neutral parties, and when the acknowledgment may be granted without departure from the obligations of neutrality. It is the stage when independence is established as a matter of fact so as to leave the chances of the opposite party to recover their dominion utterly desperate. The neutral nation must, of course, judge for itself when this period has arrived; and as the belligerent nation has the same right to judge for itself, it is very likely to judge differently from the neutral and to make it a cause or pretext for war, as Great Britain did expressly against France in our Revolution, and substantially against Holland. If war thus results in point of fact from the measure of recognizing a contested independence, the moral right or wrong of the war depends upon the justice and sincerity and prudence with which the recognizing nation took the step. I am satisfied that the cause of the South Americans, so far as it consists in the assertion of independence against Spain, is just. But the justice of a cause, however it may enlist individual feelings in its favor, is not sufficient to justify third parties in siding with it. The a Am. St. Pap., For. Rel. IV. 173–183. fact and the right combined can alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new and disputed sovereignty. The neutral may, indeed, infer the right from the fact, but not the fact from the right. If Buenos Ayres confined its demand of recognition to the provinces of which it is in actual possession, and if it would assert its entire independence by agreeing to place the United States upon the footing of the most. favored nation, * * I should think the time now arrived when its government might be recognized without a breach of neutrality." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to the President, Aug. 24, 1818, Monroe MSS., Dept. of State. * In 1818 Mr. David C. De Forest, a citizen of the United States, applied for recognition as consul-general of the United Provinces of South America. This recognition was refused." Refusal to receive a consul. "The equality of rights to which the two parties to a civil war are entitled, in their relations with neutral powers, does not extend to the rights enjoyed by one of them, by virtue of treaty stipulations contracted before the war; neither can it extend to rights, the enjoyment of which essentially depends upon the issue of the war. That Spain is a sovereign and independent power, is not contested by Buenos Ayres, and is recognized by the United States, who are bound by treaty to receive her consuls. Mr. De Forest's credential letter asks that he may be received by virtue of a stipulation in supposed articles concluded by Mr. Worthington,' but which he was not authorized to make; so that the reception of Mr. De Forest, upon the credential on which he founds his claim would imply a recognition not only of the government of the Supreme Director, Pueyrredon, but a compact as binding upon the United States, which is a mere nullity. "Consuls are, indeed, received by the United States from acknowledged sovereign powers with whom they have no treaty. But the exequatur for a consul-general can obviously not be granted without recognizing the authority from whom his appointment proceeds as sovereign. The consul,' says Vattel (book 2, chap. 2, § 34), 'is not a public minister; but as he is charged with a commission from his sovereign, and received in that quality by him where he resides, he should enjoy, to a certain extent, the protection of the law of nations.' "If, from this state of things, the inhabitants of Buenos Ayres can not enjoy the advantage of being officially represented before the courts of the United States by a consul, while the subjects of Spain are entitled to that privilege, it is an inequality resulting from the nature of the contest in which they are engaged, and not from any a Am. St. Pap., For. Rel. IV. 413. Mr. W. G. D. Worthington, agent of the United States at Buenos Ayres, negotiated certain articles which he neither had nor pretended to have any power to negotiate. denial of their rights as parties to a civil war. The recognition of them as such, and the consequent admission of their vessels into the ports of the United States, operate with an inequality against the other party to that contest, and in their favor.' Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 28, 1819, Am. St. Pap., For. After the recognition of the South American governments, Mr. Adams refused 4. CHILE. § 31. The revolutionary movement in Chile began in 1810. There was formed on November 15, 1811, a junta, which exercised the functions of government. A constitution was proclaimed in 1812. Two years afterwards the battle of Rancagua brought disaster to the revolutionary forces; but, subsequently reorganized, they gained at Chacabuco, February 12, 1817, a decisive victory. Just a year later independence was proclaimed.a 5. COLOMBIA. $ 32. The reconquest in the campaign of 1819 of New Granada to the revolutionary cause was followed by the formation of the Republic of Colombia, consisting of the three great divisions of the former Spanish government-Venezuela, Cundinamarca, and Quito. In November, 1820, was concluded the armistice between Generals Morillo and Bolivar, and by a subsequent treaty it was stipulated that, in case of a renewal of the war, the parties would conduct it in a manner consistent with the modern law of nations. February 20, 1821, Don Manuel Torres, as agent of the Republic of Colombia, notified the United States of the formation of that government, and asked for its recognition. The request he renewed on November 30, 1821, and again on January 2, 1822. Meanwhile, the general congress of the new republic had assembled and formed a constitution, founded on the principles of popular representation; this government was organized and was in full operation, and the principal remnant of the Spanish force was destroyed in the battle of Carabobo, the last fragments being confined to Porto Cabello and Panama." a Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 4329, 4330. Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, minister to Colombia, May 27, 1823, MS. Inst. to U. S. Ministers, IX. 274. 6. MEXICO. § 33. August 24, 1821, General O'Donojú, commander of the armies of Spain, and Señor Don Agustin Iturbide, then leader of the movement for Mexican independence, signed a treaty of peace by which it was stipulated that Mexico should be recognized as an independent nation and in future be called the Mexican Empire. It was stated in the treaty that the Spanish government then held in Mexico only the fortresses of Vera Cruz and Acapulco, which had not the means of resisting a well-directed siege. On the 14th of the ensuing November a provisional junta invested Iturbide with the title and powers of Emperor, and on May 19, 1822, a constituent congress declared his election to that office. The Spanish Cortes refused to ratify the treaty of peace." 7. PERU. $ 34. Owing to the opposition of the landed proprietors, who, as slaveholders, not only feared the loss of their property, but also a social upheaval such as had taken place in San Domingo, no revolutionary movement took place in Peru till 1819-20. The Peruvians even sent an army into Chile in 1813 to reestablish the Spanish government. General San Martin, however, with an army from Buenos Ayres, drove out the Peruvians in 1821, and, entering Peru itself, took Lima and Callao. The independence of Peru was proclaimed July 5, 1821. 8. COURSE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1815-1822. $ 35. During and after 1816 much consideration was given to the question of recognizing the South American governments. Commission of Inquiry, 1817. In 1817 a commission, consisting of Cæsar A. Rodney, John Graham, and Theodoric Bland, with Henry M. Brackenridge as secretary, was sent out to examine into the conditions existing in South America, and particularly in Buenos Ayres and Chile. The views of the commissioners, which in many respects differed, were embodied in separate reports. These reports were duly transmitted to Congress, as was also a special report obtained from Mr. Poinsett, formerly agent at Buenos Ayres." The a Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1209; Br. and For. St. Pap. VIII. 1238; IX. 431, 434, 799. Sen. Doc. 56, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 53. Messages of Nov. 17 and Dec. 15, 1818, Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. IV. 217–348, d Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. IV. 323, |