enemies of that country and of Russia. (38 Brit. & For. State Papers, 1099-1100.) "History is full of broken guarantees and alliances and of disputes about the casus foederis, which have not arisen from bad faith, nor from the common uncertainties of language, but are peculiar to this class of compacts, and against which no precision of phrase can ever completely guard. Multiply engagements as you will; clinch them as firmly as you may; but never count on them to make a nation draw sword in a quarrel it deems unjust, and for objects in which it is to have no share. The successive coalitions against the first Napoleon showed how hard a task it is to induce several powers to act steadily together even in presence of a general, instant, formidable danger.' Bernard, Lectures on Diplomacy, 85. 4. CHANGES IN SOVEREIGNTY AND GOVERNMENT. § 773. As to the treaties between the United States and France and the French Revolution, see the preceding section. bia. With reference to the question whether Colombia during her war for independence was bound by the stipulation that Spain and Colom- free ships make free goods in the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded in 1795, when Colombia was a part of the Spanish empire, John Quincy Adams said: "It is asserted that by her declaration of independence, Colombia has been entirely released from all the obligations, by which, as a part of the Spanish nation, she was bound to other nations. This principle is not tenable. To all the engagements of Spain with other nations, affecting their rights and interests, Colombia, so far as she was affected by them, remains bound in honor and in justice. The stipulation now referred to is of that character; and the United States, besides the natural rights of protecting by force, in their vessels on the seas, the property of their friends, though enemies of the Republic of Colombia, have the additional claim to the benfit of the principle by an express compact with Spain, made when Colombia was a Spanish country." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, min. to Colombia, May 27, 1823, 13 Brit. & For. State Papers, 459, 480-481. A question arose as to whether the stipulation in the treaty between the United States and Colombia of 1824, that free ships should make free goods, was applicable to the capture of the Mechanic, which was made prior to the exchange of ratifications. The Department of State maintained that it was, but added that even if it were not so, the similar stipulation in the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1795 would meet the case. The treaty of 1795, except as to parts obviously temporary in their nature, was, said the Department, "unlimited in duration. The article containing the stipulation adverted to having, therefore, been agreed to while Colombia was a Spainsh possession, continued obligatory upon that country not only so long as it remained subject to Spain, but after it had achieved its independence and had been acknowledged by the United States. It is presumed that the government of New Granada will not deny the correctness of this doctrine, as it has so recently given a practical acknowledgment of it by assenting to the operation within its territory of the treaty between the United States and Colombia, after the dissolution of the Colombian confederacy and until that covenant. expired by its own limitation" Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Semple, chargé d'affaires to New Granada, No. 7, Feb. 12, 1839, MS. Inst. Colombia, XV. 58. See the statement of the case of the Mechanic, infra. In May, 1824, the American schooner Mechanic, while on a voyage to Tampico, Mexico, with a general cargo, was captured by the Colombian privateer General Santander and carried into Puerto Cabello, where the entire cargo was condemned as Spanish property, Colombia being then at war with Spain. A claim was made by the American insurers for indemnity, and in support of their claim they cited Article XV. of the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1795, by which the principle of free ships free goods was established between those countries. At that time Colombia was a part of the Spanish empire. It was contended, however, that by her subsequent declaration of independence she freed herself from the obligations which the treaty imposed on the Spanish nation. So much of the claim as represented Ecuador's proportion of the liability for the obligations of the old Republic of Colombia came before the mixed commission under the convention between the United States and Ecuador of November 25, 1862. Mr. Hassaurek, commissioner on the part of the United States, held that the government of the United States had the right, under the circumstances, to expect that the Colombian cruisers and prize courts would respect property covered by the American flag. In this relation, he cited the instructions of Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, to Mr. Anderson, the first American minister to Colombia, of May 27, 1823, supra. The same principle, said Mr. Hassaurek, had constantly been invoked by the Republics of Ecuador, New Granada, and Venezuela, which formerly constituted the original Republic of Colombia and which had claimed rights granted by the treaties between Colombia and foreign nations until they had substituted for such treaties treaties of their own. In support of this statement he gave several examples. Ecuador, having recognized and acted upon this principle whenever advantage could be derived from it, could not, said Mr. Hassaurek, deny it when it imposed an obligation. He therefore held, with the concurrence of the Ecuadorean commissioner, that the condemnation of the Mechanic's cargo was wrongful, and awarded an indemnity to the claimants. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 3221-3227. Mr. Hassaurek cited 1 Kent's Commentaries, 25; Bello, Principios de of In 1838 the Treasury Department of the United States instructed collectors of customs to give the benefits of ArtiMexico and Texas. cles V. and VI. of the treaty of commerce between the United States and Mexico of April 5, 1831, abolishing discriminating duties, to the vessels and productions of Texas; and the government of Texas was advised that the benefits of the article would be expected for vessels and productions of the United States arriving in that country. The government of Texas, on the other hand, expressed an intention not to acknowledge the binding force of the treaty, although the Texan minister at Washington appears to have invoked certain of its stipulations touching the restraint of Indian incursions and hostilities. Discriminating tonnage duties were in fact for a time exacted in Texas upon American vessels; but the United States expressed the expectation that instructions would be given for the "exact fulfillment Articles V. and VI. of the Mexican treaty, and that all discriminating tonnage duties which had been levied since a certain date would be refunded. The government of Texas yielded the point. In an instruction to the chargé d'affaires of the United States in 1841, Mr. Webster said: "The treaty between the United States and Mexico, which has been held to be binding upon Texas in all its parts, contains a stipulation that either party may put an end to the commercial articles upon giving a year's notice to the other. The letter of Mr. Amory, the representative of Texas here, to me of the 19th ultimo, gives formal notice of the determination of the Texan government to take that course. The commerce between the two countries will consequently be subject to their respective laws only after the 19th of May next, and until a new and separate treaty shall be negotiated and concluded between the two governments." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. La Branche, chargé d'affaires to Texas, No. 6, Feb. 24, 1838, MS. Inst. Texas, I. 6; same to same, No. 9, May 2, 1838, id. 9; Mr. Vail, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. La Branche, No. 16, Oct. 25, 1838, id. 14; Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Eve, chargé d'affaires to Texas, No. 1, June 14, 1841, id. 31. In his instruction to Mr. La Branche of May 2, 1838, Mr. Forsyth, referring to the conclusion of the boundary convention between the United States and Texas of April 25, 1838, which recognized as obligatory the treaty of limits between the United States and Mexico of January 12, 1828, said: "The conclusion of this compact of course deprives the Texan government of all pretext for disowning the binding force as to that country of the treaty of commerce between the United States and Mexico, which we were surprised to learn was their intention." Sardinia and The Italian minister having inquired whether, in the opinion of the Department of State, Article XVIII. of the treaty of November 26, 1838, between Sardinia and the United States, might be interpreted as exempting Italians from a táx imposed in Louisiana on the transfer of real estate by inheritance to aliens, Mr. Fish replied that "a preliminary question might be raised whether inhabitants of the duchies of Parma and Modena, or of Venitia and Lombardy, though now subjects of the King of Italy, are entitled to the benefits of a treaty made with that monarch when he was King of Sardinia, and the territories just mentioned did not belong to his dominions; " but, "waiving that question and assuming that the heirs" in question were "inhabitants of the former Kingdom of Sardinia," Mr. Fish added that he took pleasure in stating the course of adjudications upon the question. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Count Colobiano, Feb., 1870, MS. Notes to Case of the Netherlands. The government of the Netherlands having claimed for a Dutch line of steamers an exemption from tonnage dues in the United States under Article II. of the treaty of October 8, 1782, the government of the United States, fter a long historical exposition, informed the Dutch minister at Washington that the treaty was "no longer binding on the parties.” In 1793, said Mr. Fish, a war broke out between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and France. In 1795 the Stadtholder was driven from the country and the Batavian Republic was established. This was succeeded by the Kingdom of Holland, after which the country was incorporated into the French Empire, and remained a part of that empire until the abdication of Napoleon. On the reconstruction of Europe at the Congress of Vienna a new kingdom was formed, called the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which was included the territories which had formed the United Provinces of the Nether lands. The new power opened diplomatic relations with the United States by sending a minister to Washington, who proposed "to open negotiations for a treaty of amity and commerce." Mr. Monroe replied to this in a letter already quoted. The negotiations having been suspended, the Dutch minister called the attention of Monroe to "the overtures made by Changuion for the purpose of consolidating the commercial relations between the countries by a renewal or a modification of the treaty of commerce of 1782." Mr. Monroe answered: "Mr. Changuion having intimated, by order of his government, that the treaty of 1782 was to be considered, in consequence of the events. which have occurred in Holland, as no longer in force, and having proposed also to enter into a new treaty with the United States, this government has since contemplated that result. It is presumed that the former treaty cannot be revived without being again ratified and exchanged in the form that is usual in such cases, and in the manner prescribed by our Constitution." Mr. Ten Cate replied, "His Majesty will undoubtedly be disposed to enter into the views of the American government with regard to the consolidation, by some means, of the commercial relations between the two states." The negotiations failed for reasons stated in the President's message to Congress. The United States subsequently attempted to maintain that the treaty was not abrogated, but the claim was resisted, and a long correspondence ensued. The Dutch foreign minister maintained that from 1795 to 1814 "the political existence of Holland was then terminated," that "Holland had ceased for a long time to form an independent state." The United States acquiesced in this statement. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Westenberg, April 9, 1873, For. Rel. 1873, II. 720; as summarized in Davis's Treaty Notes, Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1235. While it may be true that, as a general rule, when one country is absorbed in another the treaties of perhaps the more Barbary Powers. inconsiderable of the two are often regarded as annulled, it is believed that the absorption of a state is not always attended by an admitted annulment of its treaties. The union between the United States and Texas was effected by the legislation of the parties. It necessarily canceled the treaties between Texas and foreign powers, so far at least as those treaties were inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, which requires customs duties to be uniform throughout the Union. The treaties of Algiers with other governments were also annulled by the conquest of that country by France. This conquest was made pursuant to a regular war of such notoriety that its origin, progress, and result could not fail to come to the knowledge of all the parties having treaties with |