Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

against American citizens, you may notify the minister for foreign affairs that, to avoid embarrassing his government, the United States will not withhold their consent. This qualified assent being given in writing will doubtless serve every purpose."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cardwell, agent and cons. gen. at
Cairo, Jan. 7, 1886, MS. Inst. Egypt, XVI. 433.

"I have received your No. 15 of the 29th of January, 1886, accepting,
on behalf of the United States, the decree of the Egyptian Govern-
ment taxing real property, belonging to foreigners, and have to ap-
prove your action." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cardwell,
March 3, 1886, MS. Inst. Egypt, XVI. 440.)

A similar adhesion was given to a proposed Khedival decree for the partial suppression of the corvée. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr.

Cardwell, No. 127, Feb. 4, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1630–1631.)

The agreement between the United States and Egypt, signed by Nubar Pasha, Egyptian minister of foreign affairs, and Mr. Comanos, United States vice-consul at Cairo, November 16, 1884, is divisible into two distinct parts. By the first, the United States consented to the application of the provisions of the Helleno-Egyptian convention of March 3, 1884, to the citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of the United States; by the second, it was stipulated that "every right, privilege, or immunity that the Egyptian Government now grants, or that it may grant in future, to the subjects or citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of whatsoever other foreign power, shall be granted to citizens of the United States, vessels, commerce, and navigation, who shall have the right to enjoy the same.” The Helleno-Egyptian convention came to an end on March 20, 1891; but there was nothing in that circumstance that could imply the cessation of the stipulation for most-favored-nation treatment. The agreement of 1884 contains no provision for termination on notice, and is indeterminate as to duration. It is in reality in the nature of a modus vivendi, which was designed to be operative pending the negotiation and conclusion of a commercial convention.

Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, No. 20, Jan. 9, 1892, 138 MS. Inst. Consuls, 308.

XVII. FRANCE.

1. TREATY RELATIONS.

§ 821.

A treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between France and the United States February 6, 1778. Immediately afterwards, on the same day, a treaty of alliance was signed. The stipulations of these treaties will be more fully examined hereafter.

January 25, 1782, the Continental Congress passed an act approving a plan for a consular convention with France. This plan was sent to Franklin, with instructions to make it the basis of a formal treaty. He signed a convention July 29, 1784, but it departed in important particulars, especially in relation to jurisdiction, from the Congressional plan, and proved to be unacceptable. The objections to it were fully set forth in a report made by Mr. Jay, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs."

Mr. Jefferson, who succeeded Franklin at the Court of Versailles, signed a new convention November 14, 1788. It was laid before the Senate by President Washington June 11, 1789, and on the 21st of the following month Mr. Jay was ordered to attend the Senate and bring with him such papers as were requested and to give full information on the subject. He appeared and gave the necessary explanations, and although he expressed the apprehension that the convention would prove more inconvenient than beneficial to the United States, he advised that it be ratified, since it adhered to the plan to which the Government was already committed." The Senate unanimously gave its consent, and a statute to carry the convention into effect was passed April 14, 1792.

Before the close of the year 1790 a controversy arose between the United States and France in regard to matters of commerce. In spite of the favors granted in France by royal decrees of December 29, 1787, and December 7, 1788, the commerce of the United States tended to revert to its former channels, so that the trade with France languished and failed, while that with England increased. The development of this tendency produced in France a feeling of dissatisfaction, which was intensified by the disposition of Congress to subject commerce with France to the same regulations as that with Great Britain. France maintained, besides, that certain legislation of Congress in regard to duties constituted an infraction of Article V. of the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778. Mr. Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, denied that this was so, but advised that the claim of the French Government should be allowed. The legislation of the United States, however, was not modified, and the National Assembly of France proceeded to the adoption of measures of retaliation. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson endeavored to bring about a new commercial convention, and to that end gave instructions to Gouverneur Morris, who had been appointed by Washington as minister pleni

a March 9, 1786, Dip. Cor. 1783-1789, I. 218.

Dip. Cor. 1783-1789, I. 232; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 89.

c1 Stat. 254.

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 116, 120.

eAs to the particulars of this controversy, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4400-4401.

potentiary to France on the 12th of January in that year. July 9, 1792, Morris proposed to the French Government the conclusion of such a convention; and he was soon afterwards advised that his proposal would be communicated to the King and to the National Assembly. On the 10th of August, however, the King was deposed. He was beheaded in the following February. The revolution radically changed the course of negotiations."

question of prizes.

In consequence of the wars in which France became involved with England, as well as with the powers of the Continent, the United States and France, instead of making new treaties, became involved in violent controversies as to the construction and enforcement of the old ones. The following stipulations were particularly involved: By Article XVII. of the treaty of amity and commerce of February 6, 1778, it was provided that the ships of war and Treaties of 1778; privateers of either party might in time of war freely carry their prizes into the ports of the other party; that such prizes should not, when so brought in, "be arrested or seized;" that they should not be subject to "search," or to "examination" as to their "lawfulness; " but that they might be taken away at any time to the places expressed in the commissions of their captors, which commissions the captors should be obliged to show. On the other hand, it was provided that "no shelter or refuge" should be given by either party to vessels which had “made prize of the subjects, people, or property" of the other party; but that such vessels, if forced in by "stress of weather, or the danger of the sea," should be required to depart " as soon as possible."

By Article XXII. of the same treaty it was provided that neither party should permit privateers having commissions Foreign privateers. from any prince or state in enmity with the other party to fit out in its ports, or to sell their prizes, or even to purchase victuals, except such as should be necessary for a voyage to the next home port.

Free ships, free goods.

The alliance.

By Article XXIII. it was provided that free ships should make free goods.

By Article XI. of the treaty of alliance, which was described (Article II.) as a "defensive alliance," the "essential and direct end" of which was "to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence" of the United States, "as well in matters of government as in commerce," the United States, in return for the guaranty of "their liberty, sovereignty, and independence and also their possessions," guaranteed "to His Most Christian Majesty the present possessions of the Crown of

.

aAs to Morris's proposal of a new commercial treaty, see Jefferson's Works, ed. by Washington, III. 338, 356, 449; Am. State Papers For. Rel. I. 332, 333, 334; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4402-4403.

France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace." And in order "to fix more precisely the sense and application" of this article, it was declared (Article XII.) "that in case of a rupture between France and England the reciprocal guaranty declared in the said article shall have its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out."

By Article VIII. of the consular convention of 1788, it was provided that consular officers should "exercise police Convention of 1788; over all the vessels of their respective nations," and consular powers. should "have on board the said vessels all power and jurisdiction in civil matters, in all the disputes which may there arise;" and that they should "have an entire inspection over the said vessels, their crew, and the changes and substitutions there to be made." It was, however, provided that these functions should be "confined to the interior of the vessels," and that they should not be permitted to interfere "with the police of the ports" in which the vessels might happen to be.

By Article XII. of the same convention it was provided that "all differences and suits" between Frenchmen in the United States and Americans in France, and particularly all disputes between the masters and crews of vessels, should be exclusively determined by the respective consular officers, whose sentences were to be carried into effect by the local tribunals.

In the latter part of 1792 the French Government appointed as minister to the United States M. Edmond C. Genet. His departure was attended with some parade, and Morris reported that he bore with him 300 blank commissions for privateers to be distributed among such persons as might be willing to fit out vessels in the United States to prey on British commerce."

On the 18th of April, 1793, before Morris's dispatch was received, Washington submitted to the various members of his Question as to Ge- Cabinet a series of questions touching the relations net's reception. between the United States and France. The first of these questions was whether a proclamation of neutrality should issue; the second, whether a minister from the Republic of France should be received; the third, whether, if received, it should be absolutely or with qualifications, and the fourth, whether the United States were obliged to consider the treaties previously made with France as still in force. It seems that the question whether Genet should be received was suggested by Hamilton at a meeting of the Cabinet on the 25th of February, and that the President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney-General at that time were all disposed

a Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 354, 396; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4404– 4405.

Writings of Washington, by Sparks, X. 533.

to give an affirmative answer. At a meeting of the cabinet on the 19th of April it was determined, with the concurrence of all the members, that a proclamation of neutrality should issue. It was also unanimously agreed that the minister from the French Republic should be received. On the third question, whether he should be received absolutely or with qualifications, Hamilton was supported by Knox in the opinion that the reception should be qualified. The President, Jefferson, and Randolph inclined to the opposite opinion; but the third and fourth questions were postponed for further consideration. In a subsequent written opinion Hamilton argued that the reception of Genet should be qualified by a previous declaration to the effect that the United States reserved the question whether the treaties, by which the relations between the two countries were formed, were not to be deemed temporarily and provisionally suspended. He maintained that the United States had an option so to consider them, and would eventually have a right to renounce them, if such changes should take place as could bona fide be pronounced to make a continuance of the connections which resulted from them disadvantageous and dangerous." He also thought the war plainly offensive on the part of France, while the alliance was defensive. On the other hand, Jefferson maintained that the treaties were not "between the U. S. & Louis Capet, but between the two nations of America and France," and that "the nations remaining in existence, tho' both of them have since changed their forms of government, the treaties are not annulled by these changes." He also contended that the reception of a minister had nothing to do with this question."

a Jefferson's Works, by Washington, IX. 140. Hamilton's Works, ed. by Lodge, IV. 74–79. cId. 101.

d Jefferson's Works, by Ford, VI. 219, 220. See, to the same effect, Mr. Madison, who says that "a nation, by exercising the right of changing the organ of its will, can neither disengage itself from the obligations, nor forfeit the benefit of its treaties. This is a truth of vast importance, and happily rests with sufficient firmness on its own authority. To silence or prevent cavil I insert, however, the following extract: ‘Since, then, such a treaty (a treaty not personal to the sovereign) directly relates to the body of the state, it subsists though the form of the republic happens to be changed, and though it should be even transformed into a monarchy; for the state and the nation are always the same, whatever changes are made in the form of government, and the treaty concluded with the nation remains in force as long as the nation exists.' (Vattel, B. II. § 85.) It follows that as a treaty, notwithstanding the change of a democratic government into a monarchy, continues in force with the new king, in a like manner if a monarchy becomes a republic, the treaty made with the king does not expire on that account, ‘unless it was manifeslty personal.' (Burlam. Part IV., chap. ix., § 16.) As a change of government, then, makes no change in the obligations or rights of the party to a treaty, it is clear that the Executive (of the United States) can have no more right to suspend or prevent the operation of a treaty on account of the change than to suspend or prevent

« PředchozíPokračovat »