"Dispatches en route will inform you of the full recognition of the United States of Brazil, both by the President and Congress. You have been nominated and confirmed as minister plenipotentiary to the new Republic."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, telegram, Feb. 20, 1890, MS. Inst.
Brazil, XVII. 446.

Congress, by a joint resolution approved Feb. 19, 1890, congratulated the
people of Brazil "on their just and peaceful assumption of the powers,
duties, and responsibilities of self-government, based upon the free con-
sent of the governed, and in their recent adoption of a republican form
of government." (For. Rel. 1890, 21.)

This resolution was communicated to the Brazilian Government through the legation of the United States at Rio de Janeiro. (For. Rel. 1890, 22.) For the response of the Brazilian congress, Jan. 21, 1899, see For. Rel. 1891, 50-51.

"Toward the end of the past year the only independent monarchical government on the Western Continent, that of Brazil, ceased to exist and was succeeded by a Republic. Diplomatic relations were at once established with the new Government, but it was not completely recognized until an opportunity had been afforded to ascertain that it had popular approval and support. When the course of events had yielded assurance of this fact, no time was lost in extending to the new Government a full and cordial welcome into the family of American Commonwealths. It is confidently believed that the good relations of the two countries will be preserved, and that the future will witness an increased intimacy of intercourse and an expansion of their mutual commerce."

President Harrison, Annual Message, Dec. 1, 1890.

14. CHILE.

§ 56.

On the overthrow of the Balmaceda Government in Chile by the Congressionalists in 1891, the minister of the United Revolution of 1891. States at Santiago was instructed to recognize the new Government if it was accepted by the people."

Deposition of the
Monarchy.

15. HAWAII.

§ 57.

After the deposition of the monarchy in Hawaii in January, 1893, representatives of the provisional government were received at Washington, where a treaty was concluded with them on the 14th of February for the annexation of the islands to the United States.' This treaty was withdrawn from

a See For. Rel. 1891, 159.

For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 197-205.

the Senate by the succeeding Administration, but official relations with the provisional government were continued." In August, 1894, the constitutional government of the Republic of Hawaii was formally recognized.

16. SANTO DOMINGO.

§ 58.

"The neighboring island Republic of Santo Domingo has lately been the scene of revolution, following a long period. Revolution of 1899. of tranquillity. It began with the killing of President Heureaux in July last, and culminated in the relinquishment by the succeeding vice-president of the reins of government to the insurgents. The first act of the provisional government was the calling of a presidential and constituent election. Juan Isidro Jimenez, having been elected President, was inaugurated on the 14th of November. Relations have been entered into with the newly established Government."

President McKinley, Annual Message, Dec. 5, 1899.

October 19, 1899, Mr. Adee, Second Assistant Secretary, acknowledging the
receipt of a dispatch from Mr. Maxwell, U. S. consul-general at San
Domingo City, with reference to an official notification which the latter
had received of the formation of the provisional government, said:
"The Department has properly instructed Mr. Powell in the matter with a
view to his entering into full relations with the provisional government
upon his return to his post. In the meantime, and so long as the de facto
character of the government shall appear to be duly established and its
power to administer public affairs and fulfill international obligations shall
be evident, you will continue to maintain intercourse with it, so far as may
be necessary for the transaction of consular business, explaining, how-
ever, to Senor Ferreras that you will do so provisionally and subject to the
formal action to be taken in due time by the United States diplomatic
representative." (169 MS. Inst. to Consuls, 506.)

For the formal recognition of the elective government of President Jimenez,
January 17, 1900, see For. Rel., 1900, 425. See also President McKinley's
annual message, December 3, 1900.

September 1, 1899, shortly after the assassination of President Heureaux, Mr. Hay, as Secretary of State, telegraphed to the minister of the United States: "Report when effective and responsible de facto government is organized in Santo Domingo, but take no steps toward recognition without explicit instructions." (For. Rel. 1899, 248.) October 19, 1899, Mr. Hay wrote: "Upon your being satisfied that the new government of Santo Domingo is in possession of the executive forces of the nation and administering the public affairs with due regard for the obligations of international law and treaties, you will enter into full relations with it. This is

a For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 421, 431. Also, S. Doc. 40, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 5. Jan. 20, 1880, the consul of the United States at Apia was instructed to recognize Malietoa as King of Samoa. (MS. Inst. to Consuls, XCIV. 643; S. Doc. 40, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 14.)

For. Rel. 1894, 358-360. See, also, Presdent Cleveland's Annual Message, Dec. 3, 1894.

done by your addressing a note to the Dominican minister of foreign relations." (Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Powell, minister to Santo Domingo, October 19, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 248, 249.) Subsequently Mr. Powell was directed to carry out this instruction by entering into relations with the government established under President Jimenez. (Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Powell, minister to Santo Domingo, January 5, 1900, For. Rel. 1899, 253.) President Jimenez was publicly inaugurated November 15, 1899, and duly appointed a cabinet. (For. Rel. 1899, 251.) "This Government has never recognized Cabral as even entitled to the rights of a belligerent. Certainly, therefore, it can not acknowledge any claim of his to rule any part of the territory of the Dominican Republic. It is perhaps superfluous to add that this Government has no connection, direct or indirect, with the association which has bought or leased from Baez certain territory around the Bay of Samana. The enterprise adverted to has no other claims upon us than other similar enterprises of citizens of the United States in foreign countries, which must be undertaken at their own risk and subject to the laws of such countries." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett, Mar. 26, 1873, MS. Inst. Hayti, I. 287.)

IV. RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENCY.

1. CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION.

$ 59.

It is only in recent times, with the development of the system of neutrality, that the subject of the recognition of belligerency has acquired scientific precision and consistency. Where the armed conflict is between independent nations, no embarrassment arises, since the parties, whenever the existence of a state of war is duly established, immediately become entitled to the rights of belligerents. But in the case of insurrection or revolt the question is less simple. It is said to have been "the constant practice of European nations, and of the United States, to 'look upon belligerency as a fact rather than a principle,' holding with Mr. Canning that 'a certain degree of force and consistency acquired by a mass of population engaged in war entitled that population to be treated as belligerent.""a The determination, however, of the question whether such a condition has been attained involves various considerations, which will be presented below.

The mere recognition of the existence of a condition of hostilities, or war de facto, does not imply the recognition of a legal state of war, the parties to which are to be treated as belligerents." "A war de facto then [1804] unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo;” e and yet the United States not only refused to recognize the insurgents as belligerents, but also forbade intercourse with them."

a Abdy's Kent (1878), 94, citing Hansard, CLXII. 1566.

The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1.

e Marshall, C. J., Rose v. Himley (1808), 4 Cranch, 239, 272.
d Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4476–4477.

"Belligerency is recognized when a political struggle has attained a certain magnitude and affects the interests of the recognizing power; and in the instance of maritime operations recognition may be compelled, or the vessels of the insurgents, if molesting third parties, may be pursued as pirates.'

The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1, 63.

"The recognition of belligerency involves the rights of blockade, visitation, search and seizure of contraband articles on the high seas, and abandonment of claims for reparation on account of damages suffered by our citizens from the prevalence of warfare."

The Three Friends (1897), 166 U. S. 1, 63.

Recognition of belligerency "does not confer upon the community recognized all the rights of an independent state, but it grants to its government and subjects the rights and imposes upon them the obligations of an independent state in all matters relating to the war.”

Lawrence, Principles of International Law, § 162.

Whether a sovereign, who is endeavoring to reduce his revolted subjects to obedience, assumes to exercise in a particular instance the rights of sovereignty or the rights of belligerency must be determined by "the character of the act. If as a legislator he publishes a law ordaining punishments for certain offences, which law is to be applied by the courts, the nature of the law, and of the proceedings under it, will decide whether it is an exercise of belligerent rights or exclusively of his sovereign power."

Marshall, C. J., Rose v. Himely (1808), 4 Cranch, 239, 272.

"The occasion for the accordance of belligerent rights arises when a civil conflict exists within a foreign state: The reason which requires and can alone justify this step by the government of another country is that its own rights and interests are so far affected as to require a definition of its own relations to the parties. Where a parent government is seeking to subdue an insurrection by municipal force, and the insurgents claim a political nationality and belligerent rights which the parent government does not concede, a recognition by a foreign state of full belligerent rights, if not justified by necessity, is a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion and of censure upon the parent government. But the situation of a foreign state with reference to the contest, and the condition of affairs between the contending parties, may be such as to justify this act. It is important, therefore, to determine what state of affairs, and what relations of the foreign state, justify the recognition.

"It is certain that the state of things between the parent state and insurgents must amount, in fact, to a war, in the sense of international law that is, powers and rights of war must be in actual exercise; otherwise the recognition is falsified, for the recognition is of a fact. The tests to determine the question are various, and far more decisive where there is maritime war and commercial relations with foreigners. Among the tests are the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgents sufficient in character, population, and resources to constitute it, if left to itself, a state among the nations, reasonably capable of discharging the duties of a state; the actual employment of military forces on each side, acting in accordance with the rules and customs of war, such as the use of flags of truce, cartels, exchange of prisoners, and the treatment of captured insurgents by the parent state as prisoners of war; and, at sea, employment by the insurgents of commissioned cruisers, and the exercise by the parent government of the rights of blockade of insurgent ports against neutral commerce, and of stopping and searching neutral vessels at sea. If all these elements exist, the condition of things is undoubtedly war; and it may be war before they are all ripened into activity.

"As to the relation of the foreign state to the contest, if it is solely on land, and the foreign state is not contiguous, it is difficult to imagine a call for the recognition. If, for instance, the United States should formally recognize belligerent rights in an insurgent community at the center of Europe, with no seaports, it would require a hardly supposable necessity to make it else than a mere demonstration of moral support. But a case may arise where a foreign state must decide whether to hold the parent state responsible for acts done by the insurgents, or to deal with the insurgents as a de facto government. (Mr. Canning to Lord Granville on the Greek war, June 22, 1826.) If the foreign state recognizes belligerency in the insurgents, it releases the parent state from responsibility for whatever may be done by the insurgents, or not done by the parent state where the insurgent power extends. (Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, June 11, 1861, Dip. Corr., 105.) In a contest wholly upon land a contiguous state may be obliged to make the decision whether or not to regard it as a war; but, in practice, this has not been done by a general and prospective declaration, but by actual treatment of cases as they arise. Where the insurgents and the parent state are maritime, and the foreign nation has extensive commercial relations and trade at the ports of both, and the foreign nation and either or both of the contending parties have considerable naval force, and the domestic contest must extend itself over the sea, then the relations of the foreign state to this contest are far different.

"In such a state of things the liability to political complications, and the questions of right and duty to be decided at once, usually away from home, by private citizens or naval officers, seem to require an authoritative and general decision as to the status of the three parties