Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Bates, At. Gen., 1864, 11 Op. 52.

For the proceedings under the convention of 1863, see Moore, Int. Arbi-
trations, II. 1615 et seq.

For the proceedings under the convention of 1868, see id. 1639 et seq.
The opinion of Attorney-General Bates was held to be unsound, and an
award was made in favor of the claimant (Montano) for the gold
value of the award. (Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1638, 1649.)

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."

66

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 General 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.
The suggestion that the United States would become a party to the league
composing the armed neutrality was in fact impracticable, since the
league was in its nature as well as by its terms a combination of
neutral powers for the enforcement of neutral rights; and the United
States was a belligerent. A provisional peace with Great Britain
was signed by the United States on November 30, 1782, and, on the
20th of the following January, Great Britain concluded preliminaries
of peace with the other belligerent powers, except the Netherlands,

[ocr errors]

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 à 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,
1864, on the reception to the Russian admiral, 4 Everett's Orations,
696 et seq.

The passage here quoted from Prince Gortschakoff, when standing alone,
seems somewhat ambiguous. As appears by the context, it refers
not to the relations between the United States and Russia, but solely
to the relations between the States of the United States. The full
text of the communication may be found in Dip. Cor. 1861, 292.
In 1898 the legation of the United States at St. Petersburg and the Russian
legation at Washington were respectively raised to the rank of em-
bassies. (President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

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.

As to Russia's claim to Northwestern Pacific, see 2 Lyman's Diplomacy of
the United States, ch. xi.

As to the treaty of 1832 and its bearing on the question of citizenship, see
Kie v. United States, 27 Fed. Rep. 351.

As to the treaty of 1824 and the Fur Seal Arbitration, see Moore, Int.
Arbitrations, I. 755 et seq.

"From the commencement of their intercourse with Russia, the United States have specifically and prominently had in view:

"1. The negotiation of a treaty or convention of commerce and navigation upon those principles of liberal reciprocity which we have been so anxious to establish with all other nations; and

"2. The establishment, by similar conventional stipulations, of rules for regulating the rights of the respective parties, in the following relations:

"First, where the one is at war and the other neutral;

66

66

Secondly, where both are at war with the same power;

Thirdly, where they are unfortunately at war with each other. "For a considerable time our desire in regard to both of these principal points was frustrated by the Russian Government uniformly declining to treat upon the subjects involved in them.

"The main points here adverted to, however, were not necessarily connected; and in the year 1832, Mr. Buchanan, who arrived at St. Petersburg in the month of June of that year, 'perceiving the Russian government not unfavorable to the first object of his mission, promptly entered upon the negotiation of a commercial treaty, with a degree of zeal and ability which happily crowned his efforts with success, and finally resulted in the conclusion of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Russia on the 18th December, 1832. The treaty was ratified by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the 8th April, 1833, the ratifications were exchanged at Washington on the eleventh day of May following, and by this instrument, thus finally concluded, the first principal point I have already adverted to may be considered as entirely disposed of, and as requiring no further attention on your part.

"Mr. Buchanan applied himself with equal promptitude to the second point of his mission; but the imperial government declining at that time to entertain any propositions relative to the conclusion of a treaty upon this subject, he returned with the leave of the President to the United States."

Mr. McLane, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dickerson, June 26, 1834, MS. Inst.
Russia, XIV. 15.

"The use of the lands on which stood the buildings, once allowed to the Russian-American Company, was extinguished by the treaty. of 1867."

Williams, At. Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 302.

As to permission for curates of the Greek Church to reside on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, under Art. III. of the treaty of 1867, see Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, July 14, 1871, 90 MS. Dom. Let. 249.

By the treaty between the United States and Russia, by which Alaska was acquired by the United States, the territory was incorporated into the United States and the Constitution became applicable to it; consequently an act of Congress depriving persons accused of a misdemeanor in Alaska of a right to trial by a commonlaw jury is unconstitutional and void.

Rassmussen v. United States (1905), 197 U. S. 516.

XXXV. SAMOAN ISLANDS.

$881.

As to treaty relations with and concerning the Samoan Islands, and the final partition of the group, see supra, § 110, I. 536.

XXXVI. SIAM.

§ 882.

The first treaty between the United States and Siam, of March 20, 1833, was concluded by Edmund Roberts, who, as we have seen under the head of Japan, was appointed by President Jackson January 27, 1832, as agent for the purpose of examining in the Indian Ocean the means of extending the commerce of the United States by commercial arrangements with the powers whose dominions bordered on those seas. Siam was visited by Commodore Perry in 1853. In a letter to the King, March 14, 1853, he referred to the kindness extended to Mr. Roberts in 1836. The King replied that he held in pleasant remembrance his intercourse with Mr. Roberts and with the officers of the U. S. ships Peacock and Enterprise during their stay.

Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 1380-1381; H. Ex. Doc. 8, 35 Cong. 2 sess.

September 12, 1855, Townsend Harris, who had been appointed consul-general of the United States at Simoda, Japan, was instructed to deviate from the direct route to Simoda and proceed to Bangkok with a view to obtain amendments to the treaty of 1833. He was furnished with a letter from the President to the King of Siam and with full power to negotiate a treaty. Some of the objects which

« PředchozíPokračovat »