influence than anything else. It is not known that the Tripolitan government ever objected to receiving such a credence or the government at Constantinople to its being bestowed. Had this been the the case, it certainly would have been discontinued.” Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Vidal, consul to Tripoli, "There can be no doubt that the treaty of 1805, between the United Our relations with Tunis and Tripoli are defined by treaties. The treaty with Tunis was concluded in 1797 and altered in 1824; that with Tripoli was concluded in 1805. During the long term of years that has elapsed since the conclusion of these treaties they have been referred to and have controlled the settlement of all differences and all questions that have arisen between the high contracting parties to them. They have been acquiesced in without dissent, and if the Porte has at any time complained, either of the continued obligation of those treaties or of their provisions, the fact of such complaint does not at present, occur to me. "I am not aware that the United States have ever been asked to renounce either of the treaties, or that they have either in terms or by implication renounced either their obligations or their rights under them. Nor am I aware that any facts or change of condition or of the organization of either of those governments have been brought to the notice of this government which would direct its attention to the consideration of the effect which such change might produce upon the further observance or requirement by this government of the terms of the treaties. "In August last an outrage was committed and the terms of our treaty with Tripoli violated by an insult to our consul stationed at the port of Tripoli. As is the custom and right and duty of this government, prompt measures were taken for the protection of the conand the maintenance of the honor and dignity of this government, and also to secure reparation and satisfaction for this insult. These measures were effectual, and it is a source of satisfaction that an ample apology, with the assurances against a recurrence of a similar indignity which was demanded by the United States was accorded by the Tripolitan authorities. It is with much satisfaction that the President learns that the Porte promptly interposed the authority which it may exercise in Tripoli to the effect that reparation should be made; but this fact does not appear in the correspondence between the United States consul and the governor of Tripoli." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Oct. 8, 1875, "I have carefully considered the question presented by you in your notes of the 9th and 30th of December, in regard to the recognition of the sovereignty of the Porte over Tripoli. The United States has never formally acknowledged such sovereignty nor has it ever formally denied it. The question was never officially presented to this government until it was referred to in your conversation with me in May last. The affair at Tripoli has emphasized the request made by you at that time for formal recognition of the fact that Tripoli is a province under the government of the Porte, and the request that a decision may be arrived at in the matter seems to be reasonable and proper. The decision of this question, however, in the manner desired by your government, involves the virtual abrogation of a treaty which has been in force and has governed the relations of the United States with Tripoli for nearly three quarters of a century. The subject is an important one in itself and on account of the principle involved, and it is believed can only be properly disposed of by a convention between the two powers. Consequently, as the Porte has proposed that there shall be a convention for the revision of the treaty between the United States and Turkey, I have the honor to suggest for the consideration of the Ottoman government the propriety of deferring all matters bearing upon the treaty with Tripoli, so far as they may affect the relations between the United States and the Porte, until that convention shall be considered." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., May 3, 1876, MS. At the close of the eighteenth, and for some time after the beginning of the nineteenth, century Tripoli was one of the four countries in Africa bordering on the Mediterranean which did not scruple to send forth armed vessels under their respective flags to capture, without any declaration or ostensible cause of war, peaceable merchantmen and to imprison and enslave their crews. The United States for a time obtained protection from such captures under the treaty with Tripoli of November 4, 1796. What the relations between the Porte and Tripoli then were does not distinctly appear. But it is certain that the United States did not hold the Ottoman government accountable for the acts of the Bey of Tripoli. In spite, however, of the treaty of 1796, the flag of the United States was still disregarded by the Tripolitan cruisers, and at length Congress passed the act of February 2, 1802, for the protection of the commerce and seamen of the United States against those cruisers. This was virtually a declaration of war against Tripoli. No trace of objection to it on the part of the Ottoman government, either as a sovereign or ally of Tripoli, is found in the archives of the United States. The manner in which the war was prosecuted by the United States is well known. Peace was restored by the treaty of June 4, 1805. The Ottoman government took no part either in the war or in its conclusion, so far as the United States is aware. In 1835 hostilities were waged by the Ottoman government against the authorities of Tripoli, and these hostilities are understood to have resulted in the success of the Turkish arms. A governor from Constantinople was appointed, but no new credentials were required of the American consul. Down to 1849 all the eight successive American consuls to Tripoli had been accredited to the Bashaw of that country. In that year Mr. Gaines, a new consul, who was accredited, as his predecessors had been, solely to the Bashaw, was notified by the governor that his letter of credence would be sent to Constantinople. It may be that as a matter of routine a similar course was followed in regard to consuls to Tripoli subsequently appointed by the United States; but neither Mr. Gaines nor his successors were authorized or instructed to apply at Constantinople for recognition, and such applications do not appear to have been either sanctioned or disapproved. They were, at any rate, never regarded by the United States as an acknowledgment that the treaty between that government and Tripoli of 1805 was thereby canceled. The salute said to have been given by the American menof-war Congress and Guerrière to the Ottoman flag at Tripoli on a certain occasion may be ascribed to inadvertance, and no undue significance should be attached to it. The treaty of 1862 between the United States and the Ottoman Porte made no express reference to Tripoli. It was indeed stipulated that its provisions should include all the possessions of the Sultan in Africa, but this left open the character of the dominion of the Porte over Tripoli. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., Sept. 8, 1876, In appointing, in 1876, a new consul at Tripoli, the United States, while applying to the Porte for his recognition, objected to a berat, or firman, containing a clause which seemed to imply that the treaty with Tripoli, of 1805, was no longer in force, and declared that, unless a berat or firman should be granted in the usual form, the consul would be recalled and the consulate discontinued. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Nov. 25, 1876, H. Doc. 551-vol 5—26 By Article IV. of the treaty between France and Tunis of May 12, 1881, by which the former assumed a protectorate over the latter, the government of the French Republic "guarantees the execution of the treaties actually existing between the government of the Regency and the different European powers." In 1896 the French government proposed to the United States the abrogation of the treaties of the latter power of 1797 and 1824 with Tunis. The United States expressed a willingness to meet the views and wishes of the French government so far as it could be done without prejudice to the rights and interests of the United States and its citizens. To this end, the United States proposed the conclusion of a convention by which the obligations of the conventions of 1797 and 1824, so far as they were not obsolete, and all other international obligations of Tunis, should be regarded as the obligations of France so long as the existing protectorate of France over Tunis should continue, and by which the provisions of the consular conventions between the United States and France, so far as they were not inconsistent with the foregoing stipulation, were to be declared to extend to Tunis. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to M. Patenôtre, French ambassador, Dec. 3, See, also, Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Gen. Porter, amb. to France, "There has as yet been no change in the old treaties, but negotiations tending to extend French treaties to the protectorate of Tunis, in lieu of the old United States treaties with the Bey, have been proposed by the French government and are now under consideration." Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Gorham, Nov. 16, 1897, 222 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hawley, Feb. 4, 1898, and IV. BELGIUM. § 788. Under Belgium the following matters, not elsewhere given, may be mentioned: Prohibition of American cattle and meats. (For. Rel. 1897, 32-37.) Regulations as to the importation of preserved and salted meats. (For. Universal Exposition at Brussels, 1897. (President McKinley, annual V. BOLIVIA. § 789. As to the imprisonment of Captain John S. Bowles, a citizen of the United States, see For. Rel. 1899, 110–112. VI. BRAZIL. § 790. "On the 26th of March, 1840, Mr. Chaves, the Brazilian minister at Washington, wrote thus to the Secretary of State: The Imperial Government is obliged not to prolong the duration of the treaty concluded between the Empire and this Republic, of December 12, 1828; therefore, by the terms contained in article 11 of the said treaty, at the expiration of twelve months from this date the said treaty will be terminated, only for the articles relating to commerce and navigation.' (MS. Records, Dept. of State.) This notice was received on the 27th of March, 1840, and was answered by Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, on the 20th of June, 1840, thus: 'Although each party has reserved to itself the right of terminating the treaty at the expiration of twelve months from the date of the notification of its intention; yet the privilege of giving such notification is so restricted that neither party can give it before the expiration of the twelve years stipulated for the duration of the treaty; that consequently the earliest date at which the notice intended to be conveyed by Mr. Chaves' note can be given, is the 12th of December of this year, and that the earliest period at which, under any circumstances, the treaty can cease to be operative, is the 12th of December of the year 1841. The President, however, anxious at once to gratify the wishes of the Brazilian Government, and to show, by his readiness to comply with the spirit of the treaty, the sincerity of the disposition with which, in all |