An American vessel which carried the passport or sea letter prescribed by Article XXV. of the treaty with France of 1778 was entitled to be treated by French cruisers and French courts as enjoying the benefit, under Article XXIII. of the treaty, of the rule of free ships free goods, and could not properly be condemned for want of evidence of neutrality.

The James and William (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 303.

The treaty between the United States and France of 1778 enabled the subjects of France to purchase and hold lands in the United States.

Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259.

See Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181; also, 5 Lodge's Hamilton, 49.

The refusal of a district judge to issue a warrant under the 9th article of the convention between France and the United States, of 1788, can not be interfered with by the Supreme Court; the latter having no control over a district judge exercising legal discretion.

Bradford, At. Gen., 1795, 1 Op. 55.

Marshals are not required by law to execute the sentence of a French consul pronounced under the 12th article of the treaty of 1788, relating to protests of masters, etc.

Bradford, At. Gen., 1794, 1 Op. 43.

A final condemnation in an inferior court of admiralty, where a right of appeal exists and has been claimed, is not a definitive condemnation within the meaning of article 4 of the convention with France of September 30, 1800.

United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103.

Under the provisions of the convention with France of 1800, the United States are not bound to protect demands for freight where individuals have transported articles for the French government or for its citizens, since they are within no provision of the convention.

Lincoln, At. Gen., 1803, 1 Op. 136.

Incomplete Spanish titles were not rendered complete by the treaty by which Louisiana was acquired; the government of the United States succeeded to the powers and duties of the crown of Spain as to confirmation of such titles, and where there were two adverse claimants might select between them and make a perfect title to one and exclude the other.

Chouteau . Eckhart, 2 How. 344. See, also, McDonough v. Millaudon, 3 How. 693.

Article III. of the treaty with France ceding Louisiana to the United States has no bearing on the question of title of the State of Iowa to the land beneath its lakes.

Iowa v. Rood (1902), 187 U. S. 87.

The 7th article of the treaty with France of Feb. 23, 1853, has relation only to rights of inheritance subsequently acquired.

Provost v. Greneaux, 19 How. 1. See, to the same effect, Succession of
Dufour, 10 La. An. 391; Succession of Prevost, 12 id. 577.

The United States and France having differed as to whether the reciprocal arrangement of May 28, 1898, which provided that reduced rates of duty should be charged on articles "the product of the soil or industry of France," applied to Algiers, a supplemental arrangement was concluded on August 20, 1902, by which it was stipulated that the arrangement of 1898 should apply" to Algeria and the island of Porto Rico." Held, that by the supplemental arrangement France in effect abandoned the contention that the arrangement of 1898 applied to Algeria, so that the products of Algeria were entitled to the lower rates of duty only after the arrangement of 1902 took effect.

United States v. Tartar Chemical Co. (1903), 127 Fed. Rep. 944, 62 C. C. A. 576, reversing 116 Fed. Rep. 726.

66

The reciprocal commercial agreement between the United States and France of May 30, 1898, includes the cordial known as Chartreuse," the word "liqueurs" appearing in the French, though not in the English, text of the agreement.

Nicholas v. United States (1900), 122 Fed. Rep. 892.

XVIII. GERMANY.

§ 823.

6

"Overtures for a treaty of commerce and navigation were made to John Adams by M. de Thulemeier, Prussian envoy to The Hague, on the 18th of February, 1784. Adams replied that he could do nothing but in concurrence with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jay, who were at Paris, but that he thought he could answer for the good disposition of those gentlemen, as well as of his own.' Franklin and Jay concurred in desiring to negotiate such an instrument, and Adams proposed to Thulemeier that the then recently negotiated treaty with Sweden should be taken as the model of the proposed instrument. Thulemeier adopted the suggestion, and in the following April sent Adams a projét based upon it, which Adams transmitted to the President of Congress.

"On the 7th of the following June Adams transmitted to the President of Congress an account of the negotiations, with his observations upon the Prussian projét. On the 3d of that month, however, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson had been invested by Congress with a general power to conclude treaties of amity and commerce with various powers in Europe, among others with Prussia; and they notified Thulemeier that they were ready to consider and complete the plan of a treaty' which he had already transmitted.

"Thulemeier communicated this to his Government, and received a 'full power to conclude a treaty of commerce and friendship between Prussia and the United States.' The negotiations were conducted with great rapidity, under the circumstances. Franklin left Passy on the 12th of July, 1785, for America. The French text of the treaty at the time of his signature had not reached Paris, and he signed only the English text. The French draft reached Paris several days later, and was copied, by Jefferson's directions, into the instruments which Franklin had signed. Then Jefferson signed the documents, and Short took them to Adams, in London, for his signature. Short then went to The Hague to secure Thulemeier's signature to the treaty, and its exchange.

"On the 11th of July, 1799, when this was about to expire by its own limitation, a new treaty was concluded by John Quincy Adams, at Berlin, which his father, the President, communicated to Congress on the 22d of November, 1800. This also expired in ten years from the exchange of ratifications, in the midst of the wars of Napoleon.

"In 1828 a new treaty of amity and commerce with Prussia was concluded, which is still in force. The fourteenth article makes provision for the disposition and the succession of both personal and real estate in each country by citizens of the other. Attorney-General Cushing said of this, there is a stipulation of treaty, constitutional in substance and form; which, as such, is the supreme law of the land; and which abrogates any incompatible law of either of the States.

. . In the circumstances suggested by the Baron von Gerolt, it is an act of mere duty and of simple good faith on our part to assure him that such is the law.""

Davis, Notes, Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1377.

"The treaty [of 1845 with Bavaria] was submitted to the Senate, and ratified by it on the 15th of March, 1845, with an amendment striking out from the third article the words 'real and.' The copy for exchange, with this amendment, was sent to Mr. Wheaton, and a copy was transmitted by him to the Bavarian minister at Berlin; and after long deliberation the amendment was accepted by the Bavarian government."

Davis, Notes, Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1248.

In its No. 152, Oct. 23, 1897, the American embassy at Berlin made a report of a debate in the Bavarian Diet on a resolution to terminate the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty with the United States. (Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas., Nov. 8, 1897, 222 MS. Dom. Let. 287.)

The treaty between the United States and Hanover, of 1847, in providing that the citizens or subjects of each contracting party shall have free access to the tribunals of the other in their litigious affairs on the same terms as native citizens or subjects, refers only to ordinary litigation, and does not prevent the government from giving to its own citizens or subjects exclusive rights of action against itself, such as the right to maintain an action under the act of March 3, 1891, which gives the Court of Claims jurisdiction of certain claims for property of citizens of the United States" taken or destroyed by Indians belonging to a band, tribe, or nation in amity with the United States.

Valk v. United States, 29 Ct. Cl. 62.

The Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, by a treaty of March 10, 1847, acceded to the treaty of June 10, 1846, between the United States and Hanover. The latter treaty was, according to the general view of international law, annulled by the conquest of Hanover and its incorporation into Prussia in 1866, whereby, like Nassau, the state lost its separate existence. Whether the adhesion of Oldenburg to the treaty with Hanover operated to create a separate convention between the United States and Oldenburg, which survived the annulment of the original treaty with Hanover, is a question which has never been authoritatively answered.

Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hitt, M. C., Dec. 20, 1900, 249 MS.
Dom. Let. 584, enclosing copies of letters to the mayor of Dubuque,
Iowa, of Dec. 5 and 20, 1900.

"On the 14th January last the consul-general of Würtemberg at New York presented, in behalf of his government, its complaint of the construction put by the Supreme Court of the United States in Frederickson v. The State of Louisiana (23 How. 446), on the 3d article of the treaty of April 10, 1844 (8 Stat. L. 588).

"In the case referred to, a native of Würtemberg having been duly naturalized, and having died in Louisiana, bequeathing legacies to kindred residing in Würtemberg, and subjects of its King, the legacies were subjected to a tax of 10 per cent. This was under a statute of Louisiana which imposed that tax upon successions devolving on any persons not domiciled in that State, and not being a citizen of any other State or Territory of the Union. The Supreme Court held that the decedent being a citizen of the United States, his estate was

not within the provisions of the treaty, which was intended to cover only the case of a subject of Würtemberg bequeathing property in this country, or a citizen of the United States dying and leaving property in Würtemberg.

"This government, having no power, as you are aware, to act upon any other construction of the existing treaty than that adopted by the Supreme Court, signified to the consul-general of Würtemberg its readiness to negotiate a new convention in conformity to the interpretation which his government puts upon that now in force, and with a proposition to that effect which he submitted."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, Aug. 18, 1868, MS. Inst. Prussia, XV. 2.

The treaty of Dec. 11, 1871, between the United States and the German Empire, which provides (Art. XVII.) that, with regard to the marks or labels of goods, or their packages, German subjects shall enjoy in the United States the same protection as native citizens, does not give to a German subject who has acquired the right to a trade-mark in Germany a similar right to the trade-mark in the United States.

Richter v. Reynolds (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. Rep. 577.

Questions of citizenship, extradition, and to a certain extent of commerce are regulated by treaties entered into with the North German Union or with the several German States prior to the formation of the German Empire.

As to meat and cattle inspection in Germany and the examination for sanitary reasons of various articles imported into the United States, see For. Rel. 1900, 485-512.

As to trade relations between the United States and Germany, see President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 2, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, xxiv. President McKinley, annual mesage, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, lxxv.; Mr. Jackson, chargé, to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, Oct. 28, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 179.

As to the importation of American pork containing trachina, see For. Rel.
1897, 186-194.

For a discussion as to the use of poisonous paint on German toys, see
For. Rel. 1899, 305–310.

For expression of sympathy on the death of Emperor William I., see For.
Rel. 1888, I. 637.

"The Ralik group of islands in the Marshall Archipelago" "is understood to be under no foreign flag or protectorate, and to feel no foreign influence other than that of the resident consular officer, a German, and of the distant consular representatives at Samoa and Fiji, within the jurisdiction of which the Ralik Islands seem to fall." Hence this government, in desiring to aid the native government