Page images
PDF
EPUB

(2) SUCCESSION IN CASE OF UNSUCCESSFUL REVOLT.

§ 26.

"Certain cotton, the public property of the Confederate States of America, was consigned by the Confederate government to the defendants Prioleau and others, a firm carrying on business at Liverpool, in pursuance of an agreement between the Confederate government and the defendants, whereby the defendants were entitled out of the proceeds of the cotton to recoup themselves certain charges and expenses incurred by them under the provisions of the same agreement. The Confederate government having been dissolved, and the Confederate. States having submitted to the authority of the United States government, the latter government filed a bill praying to have the cotton, which had arrived at Liverpool, delivered up to them, and for an injunction and receiver. It appeared by the evidence that the defendants had, under the agreement, a lien upon the cotton to the extent of at least 20,000 7. Upon motion for an injunction and receiver, Held, that the property in question was now the property of the United States government, but that they must take it subject to the obligations entered into respecting it by the de facto Confederate government.

"The defendant Prioleau was appointed receiver, with power to sell the cotton; but he was required to give security for its value ultra the 20,000 7., the amount of the defendants' lien."

Syllabus, Wood, V. C., United States of America v. Prioleau (July 26, 1865), 35 L. J., Chancery, N. S. 7.

While the foregoing case was-pending, Mr. Seward, in a note to Sir Frederick Bruce, June 19, 1865, took the ground that "all insurgent or piratical vessels found in ports, harbors, or waters of British dominions" should be considered as "forfeited" to the United States, and "ought to be delivered to the United States upon reasonable application." September 7, 1865, orders were issued by the colonial office for the detention of the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah in any British port she might enter. On the 6th of November she arrived at Liverpool, where she was immediately seized by the British authorities. Mr. Adams requested her delivery up, and on the 10th of November she was transferred, by order of the board of admiralty, to the custody of the United States consul, the crew having previously been landed, with their effects. The London Times, November 8, 1865, said:

"With regard to the hesitation can be felt.

Shenandoah herself, we apprehend that little
On every principle of law she belongs to that

a Dip. Cor. 1865, II. 177.

b Id., I. 657.

C Id., I. 651, 662.

government which has succeeded to all the rights and all the property of the de facto Confederate Government. This doctrine is laid down very clearly by Vice-Chancellor Page Wood in the decision which has been so much criticised of late in America; but in truth it is scarcely more than a rule of common sense. Lord Russell did not affect to override it by the provision in his dispatch for the disarming of Confederate vessels in our ports, but, on the contrary, facilitated the application of it through a resort to the proper civil tribunals. The captain-general of Cuba doubtless acted on the same view when he delivered over the Stonewall to the agents of the United States; nor, indeed, is it easy to imagine on whose behalf any counter claim could be preferred. What may be the technical formalities to be observed in the transfer is a matter of very little importance. Whether we ought to wait for a demand, or to make over the ship unasked, we hold it in trust for the United States to all intents and purposes."a While the Confederate ram Stonewall was taken possession of and delivered up to the United States by the captain-general of Cuba, with the approval of the Government at Madrid," yet, in the case of the steamer Harriet Lane and certain other property of the Confederate Government at Havana, the Spanish Government took the ground that there were questions involved of a judicial nature; and the consul of the United States at Havana was empowered to proceed in the

courts.

"Upon the suppression of a rebellion, the restored legitimate government is entitled, as of right, to all moneys, goods, and treasure which were public property of the government at the time of the outbreak, such right being in no way affected by the wrongful seizure of the property by the usurping government.

"But with respect to property which has been voluntarily contributed to, or acquired by, the insurrectionary government in the exercise of its usurped authority, and has been impressed in its hands with the character of public property, the legitimate government is not, on its restoration, entitled by title paramount, but as successor only (and to that extent recognizing the authority) of the displaced usurping government; and in seeking to recover such property from an agent of the displaced government can only do so to the same extent, and subject to the same rights and obligations, as if that government had not been displaced and was itself proceeding against the agent.

"Therefore, a bill by the United States Government, after the suppression of the rebellion, against an agent of the late Confederate Government, for an account of his dealings in respect of the Confederate loan, which he was employed to raise in this country, was dis

a Dip. Cor. 1865, I. 652.

b Id., II. 573, 574, 576, 577, 578.
Id., II. 554-555, 576, 578, 579.

H. Doc. 551-5

missed with costs, in the absence of proof that any property to which the plaintiffs were entitled in their own right, as distinguished from their right as successors of the Confederate Government, ever reached the hands of the defendant, and on the plaintiff's declining to have the account taken on the same footing as if taken between the Confederate Government and the defendant as the agent of that Government, and to pay what, on the footing of such account, might be found due from them."

Syllabus, United States of America v. McRae (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 69, James,
V. C.; quoted by Phillimore, Int. Law, 3rd ed., II. 154.

In 1863 the insurgent government, styled the National Government of Poland, transferred to various persons, in exchange for arms and other supplies, bonds of the "Land Credit Company (Crédit Foncier) of the Kingdom of Poland," which the insurgent exchequer had received by way of gift or in payment of taxes. The insurrection was soon suppressed; nor was the insurgent government recognized by any foreign power, and the Russian Government subsequently claimed. paramount title to all the bonds so transferred. "It is impossible," said the Department of State, for the United States to complain of the enforcement by Russia of a rule for which they are themselves contending. All that this Government could ask in behalf of any of its citizens holding such bonds is that they should be permitted to show before the judicial tribunals of the Empire that the bonds in question are not tainted as instruments of rebellion, or that if such taint attached to them in the hands of former holders the present assignees have acquired title in the ordinary course of business and without such notice, actual or constructive, of their obnoxious quality as, under the law of Poland and Russia, may suffice to exempt such assignees from the forfeiture to which the bonds were subject in the hands of conscious aiders of rebellion. If the commercial policy of the Russian Empire does not admit such discrimination between a tortious holder of pecuniary securities and his innocent assignees, I remain of the opinion that it is the duty of the person purchasing such securities to inform himself of the law under which the securities were created, and that he must be deemed to take and hold them subject to any defense which that law sanctioned."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sheldon, Dec. 11, 1869, 82 MS. Dom. Let. 480, referring to the suits maintained by the United States in England and in France for the recovery of the public property of the Confederacy, and citing Texas. White, 7 Wall., 700–743.

CHAPTER III.

STATES: THEIR RECOGNITION AND CONTINUITY.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES, $ 27.

Right and duty.

Mode.

Premature recognition.

Conditional and limited recognition.

II. RECOGNITION OF NEW STATES.

1. Revolution in Spanish-America, § 28.

2. Venezuelan provinces, § 29.

Revolts at Caracas.

Agents to the United States.

President Madison's message, November 5, 1811.
Temporary reascendency of Spain.

Protest as to Amelia Island.

3. United Provinces of South America, § 30.

Assemblies at Buenos Ayres and Tucuman.
Demand for recognition.

Opinion of Mr. Adams.

Refusal to receive a consul.

4. Chile, § 31.

5. Colombia, § 32.

6. Mexico, § 33.

7. Peru, § 34.

8. Course of United States, 1816-1821, § 35.

Commission of inquiry, 1817.

Mr. Clay's motion, 1818.

Proposal to Great Britain.

Attempted mediation of the allies.

President Monroe's message, December 7, 1819.
Action of the House, 1820-1821.

President's message, December 3, 1821.

9. Recognition of various Latin-American States, § 36.

Message as to recognition, March 8, 1822.

Appropriation for missions.

Protest of Spanish minister.

Mr. Adams's response.

Republic of Colombia-New Granada, Ecuador, Venezuela.
Buenos Ayres; also, Uruguay, Paraguay.

Chile.

Mexico.

II. RECOGNITION OF NEW STATES-Continued.

9. Recognition of various Latin-American States, § 36-Continued.

Brazil.

Central American States.

Peru.

British recognition: Buenos Ayres, Colombia, Mexico.
Good offices with Spain.

Negotiations with Spain; attitude of United States.

10. Texas, § 37.

Report of Mr. Clay.

President Jackson's message, December 21, 1836.
Appropriation by Congress.

Act of recognition.

Reply to Mexican protest.

11. The Confederate States, § 38.

Circular of Mr. Black.

Circular of Mr. Seward.

Failure of attempts to obtain recognition.

12. Hayti and Dominican Republic, § 39.

13. Case of Cuba, § 40.

President Grant's message, December 7, 1875.
President Cleveland's message, December 7, 1896.
President McKinley's message, April 11, 1898.
Joint resolution of April 20, 1898.

14. Recognition of European States, § 41.

Belgium.

Greece.

Case of Sicily.

Case of Hungary.

Roumania.

Servia.

15. States in Africa and the East, § 42.

Liberia.

Orange Free State.

Congo.

Corea.

III. RECOGNITION OF NEW GOVERNMENTS.

1. France, § 43.

Revolution of 1792.

Jefferson to Morris, March 12, 1793.
Response to M. Ternant.

Reception of Genet.

The Empire and the Monarchy.

Revolution of 1830: Louis Philippe.

The Republic, 1848.

Revolution of 1851: Second Empire.

Mr. Webster to Mr. Rives, January 12, 1852.

The Republic, 1870.

2. The Netherlands, § 44.

Case of absorption.

Death of a sovereign.

3. Rome, and the Papal States, § 45.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »