Page images
PDF
EPUB

vessel, which had fired at the boat of an American ship, to abstain from further acts of molestation, by giving evidence of his purpose to return the fire and sink her, if she persisted." He acted within his instructions; and his action, which seems to have been approved by the other naval commanders, induced the insurgents to abstain from further interference with commerce.'

Position of United
States.

"An actual condition of hostilities existing, this Government has no desire to intervene to restrict the operations of either party at the expense of its effective conduct of systematic measures against the other. Our principal and obvious duty, apart from neutrality, is to guard against needless or illegitimate interference, by either hostile party, with the innocent and legitimate neutral interests of our citizens. Interruption of their commerce can be respected as a matter of right only when it takes one of two shapes-either by so conducting offensive and defensive operations as to make it impossible to carry on commerce in the line of regular fire, or by resort to the expedient of an announced and effective blockade.

"Vexatious interference with foreign merchant shipping at a designated anchorage, or with the lighterage of neutral goods between such anchorage and a designated landing, by random firing not necessary to a regular plan of hostilities and having no other apparent object than the molestation of such commerce, is as illegitimate as it is intolerable. Hence we have a right to expect and insist that safe anchorage and time and place for loading and unloading be designated, if practicable, to be interrupted only by notice of actual intention to bombard, or by notification and effective enforcement of blockade.

"The insurgents have not been recognized as belligerents, and should they announce a blockade of the port of Rio the sole test of its validity will be their ability to make it effective."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, minister to Brazil, Jan. 11, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 99.

*

a “In no case have I interfered in the slightest way with the military operations of either side in the contest now going on, nor is it my intention to do so. American vessels must not be interfered with in any way in their movements in going to the wharves or about the harbor, it being understood, however, that they must take the consequences of getting in the line of fire where legitimate hostilities are actually in progress. * * * Until belligerent rights are accorded you, you have no right to exercise any authority whatever over American ships or property of any kind. You can not search neutral vessels or seize any portion of their cargoes, even though they be within the class which may be clearly defined as contraband of war, during hostilities between two independent governments. The forcible seizure of any such articles by those under your command would be, in your present status, an act of piracy." (Admiral Benham to Admiral da Gama, January 30, 1894, For. Rel. 1893, 122.)

For. Rel. 1893, 117, 118, 120.

Mr. Gresham, Feb. 5, 1894, cabled Mr. Thompson to inform Admiral da Gama, who had asked for the recognition of the insurgents as belligerents, that such recognition was "still considered by the President as not being justified by the situation." (For. Rel. 1893, 121.) On February 6 Mr. Thompson reported that the territorial claims of the insurgents, who professed to hold most of the States of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catharina and Parana, and a part of Sao Paulo, seemed to be exaggerated; that they held several towns, including the capital of Parana, in the south, but, so far as he was advised, had not absolute control of any State; and that, owing to dissensions among its members, their provisional government was not intact and was not improving either in organization or in effectiveness. (For. Rel. 1893, 126. See, also, pp. 275–278.) March 13, 1894, the insurgents at Rio unconditionally surrendered, with all their ships and munitions of war, da Gama and a number of his officers and men finding asylum on the Portuguese ships of war. (For. Rel. 1893, 141–142.)

13. SEMISOVEREIGN STATE AND ITS SUZERAIN.

§ 71.

The question of belligerency as between a semisovereign state and its suzerain was discussed in the case of Madagascar. Madagascar. When hostilities broke out in 1895, the relations between France and the island were regulated by the treaty between France and the Malagassy Government of Dec. 17, 1885, which was generally considered in Europe as constituting a French protectorate. The British Government treated the Malagassies not as belligerents, but as insurgents, and allowed English ships to transport materials of war for France."

Republic.

In the case of the Transvaal, however, Great Britain, though asserting rights of suzerainty, conceded to the Republic and The South African claimed for herself belligerent rights. The Republic, in its ultimatum of Oct. 9, 1899, declared that it would regard the failure of Great Britain immediately to comply with certain demands "as a formal declaration of war." The British Government deemed these demands "impossible to discuss," and referred to the Transvaal's "declaration of war." The existence of a state of war was notified by Great Britain to foreign governments, and rights of belligerency, on sea as well as on land, were exercised and conceded.

a Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 79–93.

South African Republic, 1899, C.-9530, pp. 67–70.

Correspondence respecting the action of Her Majesty's naval authorities with regard to certain foreign vessels, Africa, No. 1 (1900); Correspondence in reference to the abuse of the white flag, April, 1900, Cd. 122.

tions.

V. ACTS FALLING SHORT OF RECOGNITION.

1. OF NEW STATES.

§ 72.

As there is no exclusive mode by which recognition is given, and as governments are sometimes obliged by necessity or Acts and implica- obvious convenience to hold intercourse with communities whose independence it would not be proper to acknowledge, the question whether recognition should be predicated of a particular act may depend upon intention. Holtzendorff mentions the surrender of criminals to a new community as an act of recognition," and it is quite conceivable that it might be so done as to create such an inference; but, as Hall justly observes,' it is not clear “why the surrender of an ordinary criminal to a de facto government, in the possession of regular courts, need more necessarily constitute recognition than does recognition of belligerency," both acts merely implying the acknowledgment, on grounds of political or social convenience, of a de facto exercise of jurisdiction. "It is, of course, direct recognition to publish an acknowledgment of the sovereignty and independence of a new power. It is direct recognition to receive its ambassadors, ministers, agents, or commissioners, officially." The "official reception of diplomatic agents accredited by the new state, the dispatch of a minister to it, or even the grant of an exequatur to its consul, affords recognition by necessary implication." But neither the sending out to such state of consuls, agents of commerce, or persons to obtain information, nor the reception of its representatives, if these things be done unofficially, constitutes recognition. "In 1823 consuls were appointed by Great Britain to the South American Republics and the various governments were informed that the appointments had been made for the protection of British subjects, and for the acquisition of information which might lead to the establishment of friendly relations. The various consuls took up their appointments and acted, but were not gazetted. The earliest recognition [by Great Britain] took place in 1825." e

a

The diplomatic agents of the United States to France were permitted Unofficial inter- to reside at Paris and to hold informal intercourse with course; the the Government before the independence of the American Revo- United States was recognized. The case was the same in the Netherlands. Arthur Lee was stopped by the Spanish Government when on his way to Madrid in the spring of 1777, but afterwards Mr. Jay was allowed to reside at Madrid, it being

lution.

a Handbuch, I. § 8.

Int. Law, 4th ed. 93.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, May 21, 1861, Dip. Cor. 1861, 73.

Hall, Int. Law, 93.

Hall, Int. Law, 94.

understood that he was not "to assume a formal character, which must depend on a public acknowledgment and future treaty." For several weeks during the summer of 1777, Arthur Lee was permitted to reside at Berlin as a private individual and to hold informal relations with Count Schulenberg, the Prussian minister of foreign affairs. In the autumn of the same year, however, Count Schulenberg intimated that William Lee should not come to Berlin, and that no communication would be held with him if he did. Mr. Lee then went to Vienna, but was not received there. Mr. Dana resided at St. Petersburg for two years as a private individual; he left in August, 1783, having been unable to obtain anything beyond an informal interview with the minister for foreign affairs in the preceding April. Mr. Izard was dissuaded by the minister of the Grand Duke at Paris from proceeding to Tuscany

Revolution in Spanish America.

But while this state of things continues, an entire equality of treatment of the parties is not possible. There are circumstances arising from the nature of the contest itself which produce unavoidable inequalities. Spain, for instance, is an acknowledged sovereign power, and, as such, has ministers and other accredited and privileged agents to maintain her interest and support her rights conformably to the usages of nations. The South Americans, not being acknowledged as sovereign and independent states, can not have the benefit of such officers. We consider it, however, as among the obligations of neutrality to obviate this inequality, as far as may be practicable, without taking a side, as if the question of the war was decided. We listen, therefore, to the representations of their deputies or agents, and do them justice as much as if they were formally accredited. By acknowledging the existence of a civil war, the right of Spain, as understood by herself, is no doubt affected. She is no longer recognized as the sovereign of the provinces in revolution against her. Thus far neutrality itself operates against her, and not against the other party. This also is an inequality arising from the nature of the struggle, unavoidable, and therefore not incompatible with neutrality."

Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rush, min. to England, Jan. 1, 1819, MS. Inst. to U. S. ministers, VIII. 296.

The message of President Monroe of March 8, 1822, transmitting to the House of Representatives, in response to its resolution of the 30th of the preceding January, correspondence of the agents of the United States with the Spanish-American governments and of the agents of the latter with the Secretary of State of the United States, and proposing the recognition of the independence of those governments, is printed in the Br. and For. State Papers, IX. (1821-1822) 369, and in Am. State Pap. For. Rel. IV. 818.

a Wharton, Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. I. 292; III. 515, 516.

b Id. II. 333, 335, 369.

C Id. II. 432, 458.

d Id. II. 715.

Id. IV. 679, 696, 710; V. 209; VI. 54, 275, 392, 502, 636. f Id. II. 455.

Revolution in Yucatan.

[ocr errors]

The State of Yucatan not having been recognized by any act of this Government, it must still be considered as a component part of the Mexican Republic for all purposes connected with the execution of the law of the United States to which you refer. If, however, the Mexican consul at New Orleans should refuse to comply with the requirements of that law in respect to any vessel from Yucatan, your Department might, without giving just cause for complaint to his Government upon proof of that fact, take the same course as is customary in regard to vessels arriving at our ports where there is no Mexican consul, or in regard to the vessels of such nations, whether recognized by us or not, as have no consuls in the United States. The papers which accompanied your letter are now returned.”

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Forward, Sec. of the Treasury, Dec. 2, 1841, 32 MS. Dom. Let. 111.

The Confederate
States.

Mr. Seward, in his instructions to Mr. Adams, No. 10, May 21, 1861, took, in relation to "proposed unofficial intercourse, between the British Government and the missionaries of the insurgents," the following position: "Such intercourse would be none the less hurtful to us for being called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we should have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by it. * * * It is left doubtful here whether the proposed unofficial intercourse has yet actually begun. You will, in any event, desist from all intercourse whatever, unofficial as well as official, with the British Government, so long as it shall continue intercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies of this country." a

Mr. Adams, who was directed not to read or exhibit his instructions to the British secretary of state, but to disclose the positions taken in them as occasion might require, observed, in an interview with Earl Russell, June 12, 1861, that the continued stay of the Confederate commissioners in London, "and still more the knowledge that they had been admitted to more or less interviews with his lordship, was calculated to excite uneasiness," and that it had in fact already given great dissatisfaction to his Government. Mr. Adams continues his report of the interview as follows: "I added, as moderately as I could, that in all frankness any further protraction of this relation could scarcely fail to be viewed by us as hostile in spirit, and to require some corresponding action accordingly.

"His lordship then reviewed the course of Great Britain. He explained the mode in which they had consulted with France, prior to

a Dip. Cor. 1861, 72. See, as to the refusal of the United States, in July, 1891, to receive representatives of the Congressionalists in Chile who had not been recognized as belligerents, For. Rel. 1891, 146, 317.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »