Page images
PDF
EPUB

have made no active movement since the United States declared its intentions with regard to San Domingo.

S. Ex. Doc. 34, 41 Cong. 3 sess. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Resolutions offered in the Senate by Mr. Sumner, condemnatory of the orders given to the Navy in this instance, as involving an unlawful assumption by the President of the war-making power, were laid on the table, March 29, 1871, by a vote of 39 to 16. (Cong. Globe, 42 Cong. 1 sess. (1871), part 1, pp. 232, 250, 294, 305, et seq.; also, Appendix, pp. 51 et seq.)

"Negotiations are pending between the United States and President Baez of the Dominican Republic, relative to the Bay of Samana.

"It has come to the knowledge of this Department that in case of the overthrow of the government of President Salnave in Hayti, those who may succeed him may possibly be disposed to interfere with the internal peace of the Dominican Republic. This Government will look with disfavor upon any such attempt, and you will not fail to make that clear to any government that may exist in Hayti. You will also, in case it comes to your knowledge that any attempts are to be made from Hayti or elsewhere to interfere with the domestic peace of Dominica pending these negotiations, without delay communicate your information to the nearest officer in command of a vessel of war of the United States and to this Department. And you will at all times and in every way in your power, discourage any such attempts."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett, min. to Hayti, Dec. 22, 1869, MS.
Inst. Hayti, I. 172.

"Representations have been made to this Government by that of the Dominican Republic, that the Government of Hayti is constantly putting in jeopardy the tranquillity of that Republic by conniving at the organization of factions in Hayti and by furnishing war materials to Dominican insurgents. It is also represented that this is done despite professions of strict neutrality on the part of the Haytian Government.

"It is presumed that that Government must be aware that, at this juncture especially, the Government of the United States is peculiarly interested in the exemption of the Dominican Republic both from internal commotions and from invasions from abroad. If, therefore, there should be any just foundation for the complaint of the Dominican Government adverted to, this Government expects that at least so long as the relations of the United States with that Republic shall continue to be as intimate and as delicate as they now are the Haytian Government will as a proof of its good will towards us do everything which may be in its power towards avoiding any cause for such complaint.

"You will address a note to this effect to the Haytian Minister for Foreign Affairs."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett, min. to Hayti, Nov. 16, 1870, MS. Inst.
Hayti, I. 197.

(3) QUESTION AS TO ANNEXATION BY A NEUTRAL PENDING WAR.

$ 85.

"As the question may arise, how far in a state of war one of the parties can of right convey territory to a neutral power, and thereby deprive its enemy of the chance of conquest incident to war, especially when the conquest may have been actually projected, it is thought proper to observe to you, 1st, That in the present case the project of peaceable acquisition by the United States originated prior to the war, and consequently before a project of conquest could have existed. 2d, That the right of a neutral to procure for itself by a bona fide transaction property of any sort from a belligerent power ought not to be frustrated by the chance that a rightful conquest thereof might thereby be precluded. A contrary doctrine would sacrifice the just interests of peace to the unreasonable pretensions of war, and the positive rights of one nation to the possible rights of another. A restraint on the alienation of territory from a nation at war to a nation at peace is imposed only in cases where the proceeding might have a collusive reference to the existence of the war, and might be calculated to save the property from danger, by placing it in secret trust, to be reconveyed on the return of peace. No objection of this sort can be made to the acquisitions we have in view. The measures taken on this subject were taken before the existence or the appearance of war; and they will be pursued as they were planned, with the bona fide purpose of vesting the acquisition forever in the United States."

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Livingston and Monroe, plenipoten-
tiaries to France, May 28, 1803, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 562.
The discussion contained in the foregoing passage, which was written in the
expectation that a final rupture of the Peace of Amiens would take place
pending negotiations with France for the cession of New Orleans, proved
to be speculative, since the treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States
was concluded more than two weeks before the war between France and
Great Britain was renewed. The treaty of cession and the convention for
the payment of 60,000,000 francs to France, were signed in French May
2, 1803, and in English two or three days later; the convention relating
to the payment of American claims was signed on the 8th or 9th of May,
but all were antedated as of April 30. (Adams's History of the United
States, II. 42.)

See, as to Mexico's attitude with reference to Texas, supra, § 84; infra, § 103.

(4) PROPERTY THAT PASSES BY CESSION.

§ 86.

Case of Louisiana.

[ocr errors]

By Art. II. of the treaty of April 30, 1803, by which France ceded Louisiana to the United States, it was declared that the cession included the designated islands belonging to Louisiana, all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private property," as well as "the archives, papers and documents, relative to the dominion and sovereignty of Louisiana and its dependencies." The province was surrendered to the United States on December 30, 1803, and a record was made of the transaction by the commissioners who were concerned in it. The commissioners on the part of the United States were William C. C. Claiborne and James Wilkinson; the commissioner on the part of France was Peter Clément Laussart, colonial prefect. The procès verbal recited that the commissioners met at the city hall, and that, the full powers of the commissioners having been delivered, the French commissioner delivered to the commissioners of the United States "the keys of the city of New Orleans," at the same time declaring that he discharged "from their oaths of fidelity to the French Republic the citizens and inhabitants of Louisiana who should choose to remain under the dominion of the United States."

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 581–582.

Messrs. Claiborne and Wilkinson communicated the documents to Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, with a letter of Dec. 20, 1803.

In a letter of Dec. 27, 1803, Messrs. Claiborne and Wilkinson enclosed to the Secretary of State an "original copy" of the procès verbal of the delivery. They said that the "barracks, magazines, hospital, and publick storehouses" in the city of New Orleans were still in the occupancy of the Spanish authorities; they considered these buildings "as appendages of of the military posts and essential to their defense." "The public records, archives, &c., recognized in the treaty are not yet delivered. The prefect has given us assurances that these documents are now arranging and will soon be in a state for delivery. The fort at Piakemine's and the blockhouse at the Balize have been taken possession of by a detachment of our troops, and measures will immediately be taken by Genl. Wilkinson to occupy the post at Natchitoches on the Red River." In another letter of March 11, 1804, they stated that the French commissioner had declared that France had expected us to take her cannon and military stores, that being disappointed in that expectation, and the war which is now raging preventing their being transported to the territories of France, he should reserve a portion of the public storehouses and magazines for the preservation of the property of France." They proposed "to receive the cannon and military stores of France in this city by way of deposit and to keep them in safety, ready to be restored when it might be more convenient to remove them from the province. . . . He still persists in his determination to reserve a portion of the storehouses and magazines for the use of France." (MSS. Dept. of State.)

Louisiana was ceded to the United States in full sovereignty and in every respect, with all its rights and appurtenances, as it was held by the Republic of France and as it was received by that Republic from Spain.

New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662; Strother . Lucas, 12 Pet. 410.
The cession included reservations of the right to use of the soil for public pur-
poses. (Josephs v. United States, 1 Nott and H. 197; 2 id. 586.)

The Floridas.

By Art. II. of the treaty of February 22, 1819, Spain ceded to the United States "in full property and sovereignty" the territories known as East and West Florida. The cession was declared to include "the designated islands dependent on said provinces, all public lots and squares, vacant land, public edifices, fortifications, barracks, and other buildings, which are not. private property, archives and documents, which relate directly to the property and sovereignty of said provinces.”

By Art. VII. of the same treaty Spain agreed to evacuate the -territories in question within six months after the exchange of the ratifications, and to give possession to the commissioners or officers of the United States duly appointed to receive them; and it was provided that the United States should furnish the transports and escort necessary to convey the Spanish officers and troops and their baggage from Havana."

The royal order for the delivery of the territories to the United States was signed by the King of Spain October 24, 1820. This order recited the stipulations of the treaty which have just been quoted. It was addressed to the captain-general and governor of the island of Cuba and of the Floridas.

March 20, 1821, President Monroe appointed General Jackson to administer the affairs of the Floridas, on their delivery to the United States. On the 23d of the same month Mr. John Quincy Adams, his Secretary of State, addressed a letter to General Jackson, in which he adverted to the circumstance that the second article of the treaty, while it stipulated that the fortifications should be ceded to the United States, made no express mention of the cannon belonging to them. By the seventh article of the treaty, said Mr. Adams, "the United States was to furnish the transports and escort necessary to convey the Spanish officers and troops and their baggage to Havana; but no mention was made of the transportation of cannon, nor was there any express arrangement on the part of the United States to furnish provisions to the Spanish officers and troops on passage. It was," he declared, "the opinion of the President that by a fair and just construction of the treaty the cannon belonging to the fortifications were to be considered as appendages to them, included in the cession."

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 702.

On the same principle he thought that provisions for the Spanish officers and troops should be furnished by the United States, and orders had accordingly been given for them. If the Spanish commissioners should claim the cannon in the fortifications because they were not expressly named in the article, General Jackson was to insist that the United States was not bound to furnish the provisions and would claim reimbursement for them.

The question anticipated by Mr. Adams actually arose in the delivery of East Florida. The formal act of cession was performed at St. Augustine, July 10, 1821, by Colonel Robert Butler on the part of the United States, and Colonel José Coppinger on the part of Spain. The documents relating to the transaction were transmitted by Col. Butler to Mr. Adams, July 30, 1821."

During the discussions at St. Augustine, the Spanish commissioner took the ground that the "artillery, ammunition, and ordnance stores' did not go with the fortifications as part of the cession. The word fortifications, he maintained, comprehended, as his instructions advised him, "solely the material and immovable parts," but not the arms, ammunition, and ordnance stores, which were to be placed in the same category as the cots, furniture, and utensils used by the troops and to be taken away. He added that it was well known that on the delivery of this province by Great Britain to Spain, the former withdrew all the above-mentioned effects as being the practice in similar cases unless otherwise stipulated."

The American commissioner replied that his Government laid no claim to the ammunition and ordnance stores," but considered the artillery in the fortifications "was appendant to and should remain with them." For this view he also found support both in the order of the captain-general of Cuba, which did not require the removal of the artillery, and also in the 7th article of the treaty, which obliged the United States to furnish the transports and escort necessary to convey the Spanish officers and troops and their baggage to the Havana." Should the artillery be left behind, he would engage to furnish a reasonable proportion of the transportation for the ammunition and ordnance stores; but in case it should be removed, he was obliged to protest against the measure, and to declare not only that the United States was not bound to furnish either transportation or escort for the artillery, ammunition, and ordnance stores, but also that his Government would have a claim against Spain as well for the artillery as for the articles which it had provided for the subsistence of the Spanish troops on the way to the Havana, should those articles be made use of.

a Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 749.

C

Gov. Coppinger to Adj. Gen. Butler, June 14, 1821, MSS. Dept. of State.

c Adj. Gen. Butler to Gov. Coppinger, June 15, 1821, MSS. Dept. of State.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »