any action at all, as to the reception of the deputation from the socalled Confederate States. It had been the custom both in France and here to receive such persons unofficially for a long time back. Poles, Hungarians, Italians, etc., etc., had been allowed interviews to hear what they had to say. But this did not imply recognition in their case any more than in ours. He added that he had seen the gentlemen once some time ago, and once more some time since; he had no expectation of seeing them any more. * * * "I shall continue my relations here until I discover some action apparently in conflict with it, or receive specific orders from the Department dictating an opposite course."a In a note to Mr. Adams, November 26, 1861, Earl Russell said: "Her Majesty's Government hold it to be an undoubted principle of international law, that when the persons or the property of the subjects or citizens of a state are injured by a de facto government, the state so aggrieved has a right to claim from the de facto government redress and reparation; and also that in cases of apprehended losses or injury to their subjects states may lawfully enter into communication with de facto governments to provide for the temporary security of the persons and property of their subjects. * * * "It may be necessary in future, for the protection of the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in the vast extent of country which resists the authority of the United States, to have further communications both with the central authority at Richmond and with the governors of the separate States, and in such cases such communications will continue to be made, but such communications will not imply any acknowledgment of the Confederates as an independent state." In a despatch to Mr. Seward, September 13, 1862, Mr. Dayton, United States minister at Paris, adverts to the frequent references in the press to conferences between Mr. Slidell, as diplomatic agent of the Confederate States, and M. Thouvenel, French minister of foreign affairs. Mr. Dayton, in conversation with M. Thouvenel, asked that "if any propositions or suggestions had come or should come, from any source, affecting the interests of the United States, and which should be entertained or considered by the French Government," he might be advised of them. M. Thouvenel, says Mr. Dayton, "immediately said that he had seen Mr. Slidell once, when he arrived in Paris, about which we knew everything; that afterwards, about the time that Mr. Mason last applied to Earl Russell, and for a like purpose, Mr. Slidell applied to him; that these were the only occasions upon which he had seen Mr. Slidell, and he much doubted. if the latter felt greatly flattered by his reception.' a Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, June 14, 1861, Dip. Cor. 1861, 87, 88; "Messrs. Yancey, Rost, and Mann were not again received at the foreign office." (Adams, Life of Charles Francis Adams, 198.) Dip. Cor. 1862, 8-9. H. Doc. 551-14 Dip. Cor. 1862, 389. Mr. Seward continued to affirm that the informal reception of Confederate emissaries by the officials of foreign governments was improper; but, while he governed his own conduct, so far as unofficial missions from other countries were concerned, by the principle which he advocated, he left untried the policy of retaliatory nonintercourse proposed in his instruction No. 10 to Mr. Adams. Writing to Mr. Bigelow, then United States minister to France, March 13, 1865, Mr. Seward narrated his refusal to admit to an "informal interview" an agent of Maximilian, on the ground that it was the "settled position' of the United States to hold no interview, public or private, with persons coming from any country other than the agents duly accredited by the authority of that country which is recognized by this Government;" and he added, "This Government has insisted that the opposite position, which to some extent is held in other states, and under which Mason, Slidell, and Mann, insurgent emissaries from this country, are admitted to unofficial conferences, is unfriendly and injurious to the United States. Thus we govern ourselves in our intercourse with other states by the principles that we claim ought to govern them in their relations with the United States.”a Letter of His Holiness the Pope. In 1863 Mr. Davis sent to the Pope, through Mr. A. Dudley Mann, who was a member of the commission sent abroad to secure the recognition of the Confederate States by European powers, a letter of thanks for the feeling shown by His Holiness in certain open communications to the archbishops of New York and New Orleans, urging all possible efforts toward the restoration of peace. Mr. Mann was instructed to take the letter to Rome, and to that end was commissioned as a special envoy to the Holy See. He reached Rome November 9, 1863, and obtaining, through the Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, a Dip. Cor. 1865, part 3, p. 378. See also H. Ex. Doc. 20, 39 Cong. 1 sess.; Dana's Wheaton, note 41, § 76, p. 131; Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, April 5, 1881, MS. Inst., Switzerland, holding that the recognition of a person as a "political agent" of Switzerland did not invest him with a diplomatic character. Wharton, Int. Law Digest, I. 514, referring to Mr. Seward's position, says: "But when a belligerent is recognized as such, this implies an intercourse, at least between agents, in reference to terms of belligerency. This intercourse may be very informal, and, when between belligerents who are parties to a civil war, may for a time be limited to negotiations for exchange of prisoners and for cognate objects. But, as in the case of the late civil war in the United States, the sovereign against whom the insurrection is directed, will, from the necessity of the case, hear informally and unofficially agents from belligerent insurgents as to terms of surrender." In his Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, II. 370, the same eminent author, in discussing the attitude of Frederick the Great toward the mission of Arthur Lee to Berlin in 1777, goes further and takes the ground that insurgents who have been recognized as belligerents are "entitled to have agents" near the governments by which they have been so recognized, an interview with the Pope, read him the letter. His Holiness promised to write a reply "of such a character that it may be published for general perusal." The reply, translated from the Latin, is as follows: "Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting: We have received with fitting kindness the gentleman sent by Your Excellency to deliver us your letters, bearing date the 23d of September last. We experienced indeed no small pleasure when we learned from the same gentleman and the letters of Your Excellency with what emotion of joy. and gratitude toward us you were affected, illustrious and honorable sir, when you were first made acquainted with our letters to those reverend brethren, John, Archbishop of New York, and John, Archbishop of New Orleans, written on the 18th of October of last year, in which we again and again urged and exhorted the same reverend brethren that, as behooved their distinguished piety and their episcopal charge, they should most zealously use every effort, in our name also, to bring to an end the fatal civil war that had arisen in those regions, and that those people of America might attain mutual peace and concord and be united in mutual charity. And very grateful it was to us, illustrious and honorable sir, to perceive that you and those people were animated with the same feeling of peace and tranquillity which we so earnestly inculcated in the letters mentioned as having been addressed to the aforesaid reverend brethren. And would that other people also of those regions and their rulers, seriously considering how grievous and mournful a thing is intestine war, would be pleased, with tranquil minds, to embrace and enter upon counsels of peace. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayers to beseech and pray God, the Omnipotent and All-good, to pour out the spirit of Christian charity and peace upon all those people of America, and deliver them from the evils so great with which they are afflicted. "And of the most merciful Lord of Compassion Himself we likewise pray that He may illume your excellency with the light of His grace, and may conjoin you in perfect love to ourself. "Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, December 3, in the year 1863, and of our pontificate the eighteenth. "PIUS PP. IX." See an article entitled "Relics of the Confederacy in Washington," by Mr. "Years later, Mr. Mann wrote: 'Even after this lapse of time I can not help That Mr. Benjamin's interpretation of the letter was correct is shown by state- South African Re publics. a The South African Republic, though classed as a semi-sovereign state, maintained diplomatic relations. Great Delegation of the Britain, the suzerain power, had at Pretoria a diplomatic agent, a title sometimes given to representatives to semi-sovereign states; and Portugal a chargé d'affaires. The Republic, on the other hand, sent to Europe in 1898 Dr. W. J. Leyds, who was accredited as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to various courts, and who was so received at Paris and The Hague, where he had permanent offices. The relations thus maintained were, it is needless to say, conducted impliedly if not expressly under the limitations of the London convention of 1884, by which all treaties concluded by the Republic, except with the Orange Free State, were subject to the veto of Great Britain. By its ultimatum and declaration of war of October 9, 1899, however, the Republic impliedly declared itself independent, saying that it considered the presence of the British military force near its borders “ as a threat against the independence of the South African Republic.”a The idea of entire independence was afterwards more clearly expressed by the Presidents of the South African Republic and the Orange Free State, who, in their message to Lord Salisbury, of March 5, 1900, declared that the war was "undertaken solely as a defensive measure a Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 84; supra, p. 28. Almanach de Gotha, 1900, pp. 793, 990. d Blue Book, South African Republic, October, 1899, C.-9530. to safeguard the threatened independence of the South African Republic;" that it was "only continued in order to secure and safeguard the incontestable independence of both Republics as sovereign international states," and to assure immunity to British subjects who had taken part with them in the war; and that "on these conditions, but on these conditions alone," were they "desirous of seeing peace reestablished in South Africa." a In furtherance of the cause thus defined, certain delegates were sent abroad, for the purpose, as it was understood, of seeking both recognition and intervention. In Europe, prior to their coming to the United States, they were received at The Hague, first by the minister of foreign affairs and then by the Queen. They arrived in Washington, May 12, 1900. On the 21st of the month the Department of State gave out a statement, the first paragraph of which reads as follows: "Messrs. A. Fischer, C. H. Wessels, and A. D. W. Wolmarans, the delegates in this country of the South African Republics, called to-day by appointment at the State Department. They were cordially received, and remained with the Secretary of State for more than an hour. They laid before the Secretary at much length and with great energy and eloquence the merits of the controversy in South Africa and the desire of the Boer Republics that the United States should intervene in the interest of peace and use its influence to that end with the British Government." On the following morning the delegates were received by President McKinley at the Executive Mansion, the President's secretary being the only other person present at the interview. It was afterwards announced by the press that the President had confirmed the views set forth in the reply of the Secretary of State. When the delegates arrived in Washington an announcement was made in their behalf through the press that they bore credentials as envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary from the Boer Republics, and the inscriptions on their cards so indicated. Their credentials, however, were not presented, and their reception by the President and the Secretary of State was altogether personal and unofficial. They afterwards travelled extensively in the United States « Africa, No. 2 (1900). Lord Salisbury, in his acknowledgment of the message, March 11, 1900, quoted the phrases "incontestable independence" and "sovereign international states" as the text of his reply. The statement then sets forth the reply of Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, which is given in full under the head of Mediation. May 23, 1900, the delegates were entertained by Mr. Hay, personally and unofficially, at luncheon, it being his desire, as intimated in the public prints, to show appreciation of the courtesies of the Boer people to his son, Mr. Adelbert Hay, United States consul at Pretoria. The delegates at no time offered to present their credentials, nor was the subject in any way referred to. (Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Breen, Nov. 2, 1901, 248 MS. Dom. Let. 613.) |