As to the status of American citizens in Turkey and the solidarity of the interests of the Franks, see Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Turkey, No. 3, Nov. 29, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 609. The presence of a United States dispatch boat at Constantinople, if it were welcomed by the Porte, would merely put the United States "on the footing of the other great powers to no possible prejudice of the power or prestige of the Turkish government." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Oct. 15, 1896, XXX. PARAGUAY. $ 876. As to the treaty relations between the United States and Paraguay, see Moore, International Arbitrations, II. 1485 et seq. XXXI. PERSIA. $ 877. A treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Persia was concluded December 13, 1856. It was many years, however, before diplomatic relations between the two countries were established. President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 6, 1886, said: "The establishment, less than four years ago, of a legation at Teheran is bearing fruit in the interest exhibited by the Shah's government in the industrial activity of the United States and the opportunities of beneficial interchanges." In 1888 Persia sent a diplomatic representative to Washington, but his stay was comparatively brief and a permanent legation was not established. See Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Hadji Hossein Ghooly Khan, Persian min., Dec. 13, 1888, MS. Notes to Persia, I. 4. As to missionary troubles in Persia, see For. Rel. 1893, 487, 495, 502, 504, 505, 507; For. Rel. 1894, 486-492, 492–506, 507-508; For. Rel. 1896, 466, 467, 470, 475-480, 481. Concerning the desire of Persia to be represented in the mixed tribunals of Egypt, see For. Rel. 1894, 508-512. In 1896, on the assassination of the Shah by a revolutionary fanatic disguised as a woman, the following telegram was sent: "President directs appropriate expression of abhorrence and sincere condolence in name of American people." (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, May 1, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 488.) As to restrictions upon the importation of books into Persia, see For. Rel. 1897, 427-429. In 1898 an indemnity of 200 tomans was paid on account of the arrest of the Rev. M. Bagdasarian, a naturalized citizen of the United States, who was charged with being an Armenian revolutionist, but who was released on the interposition of the American legation. (For. Rel. 1898, 518-530.) XXXII. PERU. § 878. As to the distribution of the indemnity paid by Peru, under the convention of March 17, 1841, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4591 et seq. Under the treaty of July 26, 1851, the government of the United States is bound to pay a consul of the Peruvian government the value of property belonging to a deceased Peruvian, on whose estate the consul was entitled to administer, which may have been unjustly detained and administered by a local public administrator. Black, At. Gen., 9 Op. 383. December 9, 1862, the Peruvian minister at Washington gave notice of the termination of the treaty of July 26, 1851, the notice to take effect, as provided in the treaty, at the end of a year. The receipt of the notice was acknowledged Dec. 15, 1862. Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1373. By a convention between the United States and Peru, of December 20, 1862, it was agreed to refer the cases of the Georgiana and the Lizzie Thompson, American vessels, which had been seized by the Peruvian authorities, to the King of the Belgians, as arbitrator. By identic notes of August 27, 1863, the King was requested to accept the trust. In the following January, however, he declined it; but in a confidential conversation with Mr. Sanford, the American minister, His Majesty stated that he had looked into the case, and that if he had accepted the position of arbitrator he felt that he would have been constrained to decide it against the United States. In view of His Majesty's declination and of the reasons given for it, Mr. Seward wrote to the Peruvian minister that he was directed by the President to announce that there was no intention on the part of the United States to refer the matter to the arbitrament of any other power or to pursue the subject further. In a letter to Mr. H. E. Wilson, of September 18, 1875, Mr. Fish, as Secretary of State, expressed the opinion that the case of the Lizzie Thompson, which was on the same footing as that of the Georgiana, was barred by Article V. of the convention with Peru of December 4, 1868. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fitzgerald, Jan. 29, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 440; 2 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 1593-1614. An award under the convention with Peru of 1863 " payable in current money of the United States," may legally be paid in Treasury notes or in specie. Bates, At. Gen., 1864, 11 Op. 52. For the proceedings under the convention of 1863, see Moore, Int. Arbi- For the proceedings under the convention of 1868, see id. 1639 et seq. By Article XV. of the treaty of August 31, 1887, the citizens of the contracting parties are "not liable to imprisonment without formal commitment under a warrant signed by a legal authority, except in cases flagrantis delicti," and they must in all cases be brought "before a magistrate or other legal authority" for examination within twentyfour hours after arrest. If not so examined they must be discharged from custody. The United States construed this clause as requiring an examination before some "judicial authority as distinguished from a mere police or other legal authority." In reply to a proposal that a protocol be signed, to the effect that the article would be satisfied where the "intendant, or chief of police, of the place" took the prisoner's statement within the twenty-four hours, and turned him over within the same space of time to the judicial authorities, when the case so required, the Department of State said: "If, as is not conceded by this Department, an intendant of police is a legal authority within the spirit and intent of the treaty, the proposed protocol would be unnecessary, while .. if the effect of the protocol would be to alter the treaty, the Department of State is not competent to make such alteration." Memorandum, Sept. 2, 1898, MS. Notes to Peruvian Leg. II. 184. "The government of Peru has given the prescribed notification of its intention to abrogate the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation concluded with this country August 31, 1887. As that treaty contains many important provisions necessary to the maintenance of commerce and good relations, which could with difficulty be replaced by the negotiation of renewed provisions within the brief twelve months intervening before the treaty terminates, I have invited suggestions by Peru as to the particular provisions it is desired to annul, in the hope of reaching an arrangement whereby the remaining articles may be provisionally saved." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, lxxxi. "Peru, I regret to say, shows symptoms of domestic disturbance, due probably to the slowness of her recuperation from the distresses of the war of 1881. Weakened in resources, her difficulties in facing international obligations invite our kindly sympathy and justify our forbearance in pressing long pending claims. I have felt constrained to testify this sympathy in connection with certain demands urgently preferred by other powers." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 2, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, xiii. XXXIII. PORTUGAL. § 879. The second article of the treaty with Portugal of August 26, 1840, did not restrict either party from laying discriminating duties on merchandise not the growth or production of the nation of the vessel carrying the same into the port of the other nation. Oldfield v. Marriott, 10 How. 146. As to the treaty of February 26, 1851, and the case of the brig Gencral Armstrong, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1071 et seq. As to the sovereignty of Portugal over Macao, see Mr. J. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Viscount das Nogueiras, August 29, 1882, MS. Notes to Portugal, VII. 54. XXXIV.-RUSSIA. § 880. On the issuance by the Empress of Russia of the circular announcing the principles that formed the basis of the armed neutrality, the Congress of the United States on October 8, 1780, passed a resolution directing the board of admiralty to prepare and report instructions for the commanders of armed vessels of the United States conformably to those principles. In December, 1780, Francis Dana, of Massachusetts, was elected minister plenipotentiary to St. Petersburg, and was authorized to accede to the convention entered into by certain of the neutral powers for the maintenance of the same principles. He was also instructed to propose a treaty of amity and commerce. Mr. Dana passed nearly a year in Russia, but was not received at court, and in August, 1783, seeing no prospect of accomplishing any of the objects of his mission, he left St. Petersburg for the United States. 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, 424, 431. 66 with which power negotiations still continued. In these circumstances it was suggested by the United Provinces that the United States should either accede to the convention of the armed neutrality or else enter into similar engagements with France, Spain, and the United Provinces, or with the United Provinces alone. Congress, holding that the true interest" of the United States required that they should be as little as possible entangled in the politics and controversies of European nations," deemed it inexpedient to give such powers to the representatives of the United States in Europe, and instructed the ministers engaged in negotiating a definitive peace with Great Britain, in case they should include in the treaty any stipulations for the recognition of belligerent rights, to avoid any engagements which should oblige the contracting parties to support those stipulations by arms. (See Wharton, Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 481-483.) Prince Gortschakoff, in a communication addressed to the Russian envoy in the United States July 10, 1861, to be communicated to the Secretary of State, said: "In spite of the diversity of their Constitutions and of their interests, perhaps even because of their diversity, Providence seems to urge the United States to draw closer the traditional bond, as the basis and very condition of their political existence. In any event the sacrifices they might impose upon themselves to maintain it [the Union of the United States] are not to be compared with those which dissolution would bring after it. United, they perfect themselves; separated from each other, they are paralyzed." Note of Prince Gortschakoff, quoted by Mr. Everett, address of June 7, The passage here quoted from Prince Gortschakoff, when standing alone, The message of President Monroe, communicating to the Senate the convention of December 15, 1824, is contained in 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 432. In this correspondence the respective titles of Russia and of Great Britain to the northwest coast of North America are discussed. The convention of April 5, 1824 (concluded April 5-17), is given in 5 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 583. For the circumstances attending the negotiation of the commercial treaty with Russia in 1832, see 1 Curtis's Buchanan, 171; 1 Benton's Thirty Years, 606. |