Obrázky stránek

the exemption from duty of lumber cut on American territory watered by the St. John and floated down that river to the United States (Article XXXI.), and the San Juan boundary (Articles XXXIV.XLII.). The forty-third article related to the exchange of ratifications.

The Geneva Arbitration, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. chap. xiv. 495-628.
As to the claims under Arts. XII.-XVII., see id. chap. xv. (83–702.
As to the fisheries settlement, see id, chap. xvi. 703–753.
As to the San Juan water boundary, see id. chap. vii. 196–236.

Before the Geneva tribunal “the United States demanded compensation for the following classes of losses and expenditures, so far as they grew out of the acts of the cruisers, viz: 1. Direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and their cargoes. 2. “The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruisers.' 3. “The loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British Hag. 4. The enhanced payments of insurance. 5. The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. It was denied by Great Britain that a submission of all the claims to arbitration carried with it the right of the arbitrators to take into consideration all the elements of loss, and it was insisted that the tribunal had no right, under the terms of the treaty, to take classes three, four, and five into consideration in its estimate of damages. The United States denied this proposition, and contended that the tribunal was invested with power to decide the question of the extent of its jurisdiction. The tribunal, without deciding that question, held that these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal, in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon.' And in regard to the second of the above items of loss, the tribunal, in its award, decided thus: “Whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States: The tribunal is therefore of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head.' The tribunal awarded to the United States the sum of fifteen and onehalf millions of dollars in full satisfaction of the claims referred to it."

Davis' Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1334.

As to the so-called “indirect claims," the controversy concerning them,

and their exclusion from the consideration of the tribunal, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 623–647.

Under article 30 of the treaty of 1871 a British vessel may, in the course of a single voyage, ship goods at two or more successive United States ports on the Lakes, for delivery partly through Canada by land in bond, at other United States ports; and then, after completing her cargo, sail to the Canada port where the land carriage is to begin.

Williams, At. Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 310.

Under article 30 of the treaty of Washington, of 1871, and article 19 of the regulations made under the first-mentioned article to carry its provisions into execution, it is lawful to transport goods by means of British or American vessels from the ports of Chicago or Milwaukee to points in Canada, thence through Canadian territory by rail, and from the termini of the lines of railway by either British or American vessels to the ports of Oswego and Ogdensburgh, all the above-named ports being “ports on the northern frontier of the United States," within the meaning of said regulations.

Devens, At. Gen., 1878, 16 Op. 42.


$ 839.

By Article III, of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, relating to the tenure and disposition of real and personal property, signed March 2, 1899, it is stipulated that in case any citizen or subject of the one country dies in the other without having in the country of his decease any known heirs or testamentary executors, the competent local authorities shall at once " inform the nearest consular officer” of the nation to which the deceased person belonged, in order that the interested persons may be duly notified. A similar provision is contained in the treaties of the United States with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Roumania, and Servia. As a part of the supreme law of the land, it debars State and Territorial, as well as Federal officials from asserting a claim of escheat without the notification provided for.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wolcott, M. C., Feb. 3, 1900, 242 MS. Dom.

Let. 522.
As to the negotiation of the convention of March 2, 1899, see Mr. Hay.

Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, No. 1363, Feb. 27, 1899, MS.
Notes to British Leg. XXIV. 458.

By the last clause of the article above referred to, it is provided that the said consular officer shall have the right to appear personally or by delegate in all proceedings in behalf of the absent heirs or creditors, until they are duly represented.” This does not imply that consular officers have the status of attorneys or are to perform the duties of a public administrator.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wolcott, U. S. S., Feb. 3, 1900, 242 MS. Dom.

Let. 522.


$ 840.

“ In consequence of questions submitted by merchants and others, asking, in consideration of the recent alteration of the British navigation laws, on what footing the commercial relations between the United States and Great Britain will be placed on and after the first day of January next, the day on which the recent act of the British Parliament goes into operation, the Department deems it expedient, at this time, to issue the following general instructions, for the information of the officers of the customs and others interested.

First. In consequence of the alterations of the British navigation laws above referred to, British vessels, from British or other foreign ports, will (under our existing laws), after the first of January next, be allowed to enter in our ports with cargoes of the growth, manufacture, or production of any part of the world.

Second. Such vessels and their cargoes will be admitted, from and after the date before mentioned, on the same terms, as to duties, imposts, and charges as vessels of the United States and their cargoes.”

Mr. W. M. Meredith, Sec. of Treas., to collectors of customs, Treasury

Circular, New Series, No. 24, Oct. 15, 1819, MSS. Treasury Depart

ment. This circular was kindly brought to my notice by Joseph Nimmo, jr., esq.

During the past year a suggestion was received through the British minister that the Canadian government would like to confer as to the possibility of enlarging, upon terms of mutual advantage. the commercial exchanges of Canada and of the United States, and a conference was held at Washington, with Mr. Blaine acting for this government, and the British minister at this capital and three members of the Dominion cabinet acting as commissioners on the part of Great Britain. The conference developed the fact that the Canadian government was only prepared to offer to the United States, in exchange for the concessions asked, the admission of natural products. The statement was frankly made that favored rates could not be given to the United States as against the mother country. This admission, which was foreseen, necessarily terminated the conference upon this question. The benefits of an exchange of natural products would be almost wholly with the people of Canada. Some other topics of interest were considered in the conference, and have resulted in the making of a convention for examining the Alaskan boundary and the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay adjacent to Eastport, Me., and in the initiation of an arrangement for the protection of fish life in the coterminous and neighboring waters of our northern border."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 6, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, xi.
As to the adoption of a regulation allowing merchandise in transit be-

tween United States ports through Canadian territory, when not in
sufficient quantity to fill an entire car, to be forwarded, corded, and
sealed, in an unsealed car, see Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Lord
Pauncefote, British ambass., No. 2085, Feb. 19, 1901, MS. Notes to
Brit. Leg. 462.

“ The papers touching the matters before the Anglo-American Commission which met at Quebec in the summer of 1898 and sat at Washington in the following winter] have not been published as its labors have not been concluded, and I am therefore unable to send you any printed document on the subject. The twelve questions under the consideration of the commission are as follows:

“1. Questions in respect to the fur seals:

6 2. The fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the inland waters of the frontier: “3. The delimitation and establishment of the Alaskan boundary:

4 and 5. Transit of merchandise to and from either country and across intermediate territory:

“6. The question of the alien labor laws:

“7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other:

“8. Commercial reciprocity:

“9. A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes:

“10. More complete definition and marking of the frontier lines:

“11. Conveyance of prisoners in custody of officers of one country through the territory of the other: “ 12. The question of reciprocity in wrecking and salvage.” Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, February 12, 1901, 250 MS.

Dom. Let. 638.
As to the death of Lord Herschell, the chief British commissioner, at

Washington, and the resolution of sympathy adopted by the Senate
March 1, 1899, see For. Rel. 1899, 340–341.

By a treaty signed January 24, 1903, the Alaskan boundary question was submitted to a joint commission of six members, three on each side. The tribunal met. in London Sept. 3, 1903, under the presidency of Lord Alverstone, chief justice of England, who was one of the three British members, and on the 20th of October, by a majority consisting of the three American members and Lord Alverstone, rendered a decision confirming to the United States the control of a continuous strip of the mainland shore.

President Roosevelt, annual message, Dec. 7, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, xvii.
See, supra, § 107.


$ 841.

At the Queen's jubilee (on the sixtieth anniversary of the accession of Queen Victoria), in 1897, the United States was represented by His Excellency Whitelaw Reid, as ambassador extraordinary on special mission; by Major-General Nelson A. Miles, representing the War Department, and by Rear-Admiral Joseph N. Miller, representing the Navy. There were also the usual attachés and aides.

For. Rel. 1897, 249–252.
On the death of Queen Victoria Jan. 22, 1901, besides the exchange of

condolences, resolutions were passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the same day. (For. Rel. 1901, 208, 209, 211,


$ 842. Article I. of the treaty between the United States and Greece of December 22, 1837, guarantees to the “ citizens and subjects” of the contracting parties rights of commerce and various rights incidental thereto. The Greek minister for foreign affairs having expressed a doubt whether the stipulation was applicable to joint stock companies and other business associations, a protocol was signed at Athens, January 30-February 10, 1890, by the minister of foreign affairs and the American minister, by which it was mutually declared that corporations were entitled to the benefits of the article. The American minister was authorized to join in the declaration, on the strength of opinion of Attorney-General Miller, of May 10, 1889, to the effect that corporations and business associations, if duly authorized under the laws of Greece, were entitled to pursue lawful rights and remedies in the United States, subject to the appropriate laws of the United States and the several States.

For. Rel, 1889, 480–483; For. Rel. 1890, 509-511.
The opinion of Attorney-General Miller may be found in For. Rel. 1889,

See supra, $ 745.


« PředchozíPokračovat »