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objected to a berat, or firman, containing a clause which seemed to imply that the treaty with Tripoli, of 1805, was no longer in force, and declared that, unless a berat or firman should be granted in the usual form, the consul would be recalled and the consulate discontinued.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 its clauses, it has been fulfilled by the United States, is willing to overlook the departure from the strict letter of the instrument involved in the premature notice given in Mr. Chaves' note, and to receive said notice as if given in accordance with the terms of the treaty at the expiration of the twelve years."" Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1250. For the correspondence in the negotiation of the treaty, see House Ex. As to commercial discriminations formerly practised in Brazil, see Mr. By the commercial arrangement between the United States and Brazil of January 31, 1891, it was provided that no increased export tax should be levied in Brazil on any article admitted free into the United States. On the strength of this provision the United States protested against the imposition by the State of Bahia, January 11, 1892, of a duty of 19 per cent on skins exported to the United States; and by the State of Pernambuco, February 1, 1892, of an additional export tax on sugars sent to the United States. The government of Bahia decided that the tax on skins could not be levied, and the refund of the moneys already collected was promised. The governor of Pernambuco engaged to recommend to the State legislature similar action. For. Rel. 1893, 26–31. The United States also protested against the collection in Brazilian custom-houses of an expediente tax on wheat flour imported from the United States, on the ground that the tax constituted a violation of the stipulated free entry of the article in question under the reciprocity arrangement of January 31, 1891. The tax was ultimately refunded. For. Rel. 1893, 36–38; For. Rel. 1894, 73-76. "The Empire of Brazil, in abolishing the last vestige of slavery among Christian nations, called forth the earnest congratulations of this government in expression of the cordial sympathies of our people." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, xv. "The recent political disturbances in the Republic of Brazil have excited regret and solicitude. The information we possessed was too meager to enable us to form a satisfactory judgment of the causes leading to the temporary assumption of supreme power by President Fonseca; but this government did not fail to express to him its anxious solicitude for the peace of Brazil and for the maintenance of the free political institutions which had recently been established there, nor to offer our advice that great moderation should be observed in the clash of parties and the contest for leadership. These counsels were received in the most friendly spirit, and the latest information is that constitutional government has been reestablished without bloodshed." 66 President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 9, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, v. The termination of the civil war in Brazil has been followed by the general prevalence of peace and order. It appearing at an early stage of the insurrection that its course would call for unusual watchfulness on the part of this government, our naval force in the harbor of Rio de Janeiro was strengthened. This precaution, I am satisfied, tended to restrict the issue to a simple trial of strength between the Brazilian government and the insurgents, and to avert complications which at times seemed imminent. Our firm attitude of neutrality was maintained to the end. The insurgents received no encouragement of eventual asylum from our commanders, and such opposition as they encountered was for the protection of our commerce and was clearly justified by public law." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, vii. As to the visit of the South Atlantic Squadron of the United States to By a decreee of Sept. 5, 1895, regulations were adopted with regard to foreign life insurance companies operating in Brazil. For. Rel. 1895, I. 59-63. By a Brazilian law of Nov. 14, 1899, the use of trade-marks written wholly or partly in a foreign language was forbidden to national factories, and it was also forbidden to import goods made abroad |