fact and the right combined can alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new and disputed sovereignty. The neutral may, indeed, infer the right from the fact, but not the fact from the right. If Buenos Ayres confined its demand of recognition to the provinces of which it is in actual possession, and if it would assert its entire independence by agreeing to place the United States upon the footing of the most favored nation, * I should think the time now arrived when its government might be recognized without a breach of neutrality." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to the President, Aug. 24, 1818, Monroe MSS., Dept. of State. * In 1818 Mr. David C. De Forest, a citizen of the United States, applied for recognition as consul-general of the United Provinces of South America. This recognition was refused." Refusal to receive a consul. "The equality of rights to which the two parties to a civil war are entitled, in their relations with neutral powers, does not extend to the rights enjoyed by one of them, by virtue of treaty stipulations contracted before the war; neither can it extend to rights, the enjoyment of which essentially depends upon the issue of the war. That Spain is a sovereign and independent power, is not contested by Buenos Ayres, and is recognized by the United States, who are bound by treaty to receive her consuls. Mr. De Forest's credential letter asks that he may be received by virtue of a stipulation in supposed articles concluded by Mr. Worthington, but which he was not authorized to make; so that the reception of Mr. De Forest, upon the credential on which he founds his claim would imply a recognition not only of the government of the Supreme Director, Pueyrredon, but a compact as binding upon the United States, which is a mere nullity. "Consuls are, indeed, received by the United States from acknowledged sovereign powers with whom they have no treaty. But the exequatur for a consul-general can obviously not be granted without recognizing the authority from whom his appointment proceeds assovereign. The consul,' says Vattel (book 2, chap. 2, § 34), 'is not a public minister; but as he is charged with a commission from his sovereign, and received in that quality by him where he resides, he should enjoy, to a certain extent, the protection of the law of nations.' "If, from this state of things, the inhabitants of Buenos Ayres can not enjoy the advantage of being officially represented before the courts of the United States by a consul, while the subjects of Spain are entitled to that privilege, it is an inequality resulting from the nature of the contest in which they are engaged, and not from any a Am. St. Pap., For. Rel. IV. 413. Mr. W. G. D. Worthington, agent of the United States at Buenos Ayres, negotiated certain articles which he neither had nor pretended to have any power to negotiate. denial of their rights as parties to a civil war. The recognition of them as such, and the consequent admission of their vessels into the ports of the United States, operate with an inequality against the other party to that contest, and in their favor." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 28, 1819, Am. St. Pap., For. After the recognition of the South American governments, Mr. Adams refused 4. CHILE. § 31. The revolutionary movement in Chile began in 1810. There was formed on November 15, 1811, a junta, which exercised the functions of government. A constitution was proclaimed in 1812. Two years afterwards the battle of Rancagua brought disaster to the revolutionary forces; but, subsequently reorganized, they gained at Chacabuco, February 12, 1817, a decisive victory. Just a year later independence was proclaimed." 5. COLOMBIA. $ 32. The reconquest in the campaign of 1819 of New Granada to the revolutionary cause was followed by the formation of the Republic of Colombia, consisting of the three great divisions of the former Spanish government-Venezuela, Cundinamarca, and Quito. In November, 1820, was concluded the armistice between Generals Morillo and Bolivar, and by a subsequent treaty it was stipulated that, in case of a renewal of the war, the parties would conduct it in a manner consistent with the modern law of nations. February 20, 1821, Don Manuel Torres, as agent of the Republic of Colombia, notified the United States of the formation of that government, and asked for its recognition. The request he renewed on November 30, 1821, and again on January 2, 1822. Meanwhile, the general congress of the new republic had assembled and formed a constitution, founded on the principles of popular representation; this government was organized and was in full operation, and the principal remnant of the Spanish force was destroyed in the battle of Carabobo, the last fragments being confined to Porto Cabello and Panama." a Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 4329, 4330. Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, minister to Colombia, May 27, 1823, MS. Inst. to U. S. Ministers, IX. 274. 6. MEXICO. § 33. August 24, 1821, General O'Donojú, commander of the armies of Spain, and Señor Don Agustin Iturbide, then leader of the movement for Mexican independence, signed a treaty of peace by which it was stipulated that Mexico should be recognized as an independent nation and in future be called the Mexican Empire. It was stated in the treaty that the Spanish government then held in Mexico only the fortresses of Vera Cruz and Acapulco, which had not the means of resisting a well-directed siege. On the 14th of the ensuing November a provisional junta invested Iturbide with the title and powers of Emperor, and on May 19, 1822, a constituent congress declared his election to that office. The Spanish Cortes refused to ratify the treaty of peace." 7. PERU. § 34. Owing to the opposition of the landed proprietors, who, as slaveholders, not only feared the loss of their property, but also a social upheaval such as had taken place in San Domingo, no revolutionary movement took place in Peru till 1819-20. The Peruvians even sent an army into Chile in 1813 to reestablish the Spanish government. General San Martin, however, with an army from Buenos Ayres, drove out the Peruvians in 1821, and, entering Peru itself, took Lima and Callao. The independence of Peru was proclaimed July 5, 1821. 8. COURSE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1815-1822. $ 35. During and after 1816 much consideration was given to the question of recognizing the South American governments. Commission of Inquiry, 1817. In 1817 a commission, consisting of Cæsar A. Rodney, John Graham, and Theodoric Bland, with Henry M. Brackenridge as secretary, was sent out to examine into the conditions existing in South America, and particularly in Buenos Ayres and Chile. The views of the commissioners, which in many respects differed, were embodied in separate reports. These reports were duly transmitted to Congress, as was also a special report obtained from Mr. Poinsett, formerly agent at Buenos Ayres." The a Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1209; Br. and For. St. Pap. VIII. 1238; IX. 431, 434, 799. Sen. Doc. 56, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 53. © Messages of Nov. 17 and Dec. 15, 1818, Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. IV. 217–348. d Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. IV. 323, H. Doc. 551 general result of these reports was that east of the Andes and south of Brazil, the government of Buenos Ayres, claiming to represent the United Provinces of South America, asserted over the whole territory a federal jurisdiction which was denied and successfully repelled by Paraguay and the Banda Oriental, and that a state of war existed between Buenos Ayres and the latter state. To the west of the Andes, Chile was in the possession of a dictator, with no representative government." Mr. Clay's Motion, 1818. In March, 1818, while the general appropriation bill was under consideration, Mr. Clay moved in the House an amendment appropriating $18,000 for an outfit and a year's salary for a minister to the government of Rio de la Plata. This motion was on March 30 rejected by a vote of 115 to 45.o "Independently of the objection to it that it had the appearance of dictating to the Executive with regard to the execution of its own duties, and of manifesting a distrust of its favorable disposition to the independence of the colonies, for which there was no cause, it was not thought advisable to adopt any measure of importance upon the imperfect information then possessed, and the motive for declining to act was the stronger from the circumstance that three commissioners had been sent to visit several parts of the South American continent, chiefly for the purpose of obtaining more precise and accurate information.”e "In August, 1818, a formal proposal was made to the British government for a concerted and contemporary recognition of the independence of Buenos Ayres, then the only one of the South American states which, having declared independence, had no Spanish force contending against it within its borders; and where it therefore most unequivocally existed in fact. Proposal to Great "The British government declined accepting the proposal themselves, without however expressing any disapprobation of it; without discussing it as a question of principle, and without assigning any reason for the refusal, other than that it did not then suit with their policy." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, minister to Colombia, May 27, 1823, MS. Inst. to U. S. Ministers, IX. 274, 278, 279. See, also, Adams' Memoirs, IV. 117–118. a Davis, Treaty Notes, Treaty Vol. 1776-1887, p. 1271. Annals, 15 Cong., 1 sess. II. 1655; Adams' Memoirs, IV. 67, 71, 72. Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gallatin, minister to France, May 19, 1818, MS. Instr. to U. S. Ministers, VIII. 185. In an instruction to Mr. Rush, minister to England, on the following day, Mr. Adams said: "The time is probably not remote when the acknowledgment of the South American independence will be an act of friendship towards Spain herself. When it will be kindness to her to put an end to that selfdelusion under which she is wasting all the remnant of her resource, in a war, infamous by the atrocities with which it is carried on, and utterly hopeless of success." Attempted Mediation of the Allies. "By a circular note, addressed by the ministers of Spain to the allied powers with whom they are respectively accredited, it appears that the allies have undertaken to mediate between Spain and the South American provinces, and that the manner and extent of their interposition would be settled by a congress which was to have met at Aix-la-Chapelle in September last. From the general policy and course of proceeding observed by the allied powers in regard to this contest, it is inferred that they will confine their interposition to the expression of their sentiments, abstaining from the application of force. I state this impression, that force will not be applied, with the greater satisfaction, because it is a course more consistent with justice, and likewise authorizes a hope that the calamities of the war will be confined to the parties only, and will be of shorter duration. "From the view taken of this subject, founded on all the information that we have been able to obtain, there is good cause to be satisfied with the course heretofore pursued by the United States with regard to this contest, and to conclude that it is proper to adhere to it, especially in the present state of affairs." Annual Message of Nov. 16, 1818, Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. IV. 215. See, also, As to the opposition of the allied powers to the recognition of the independ- * "I had upon every occasion stated that the general opinion of the United * * * "In the civil war existing between Spain and the Spanish provinces in this hemisphere the greatest care has been taken to President Monroe's enforce the laws intended to preserve an impartial Message, Dec. 7, neutrality. The progress of the war, how1819. * ever, has operated ** in favor of the colonies. Buenos Ayres still maintains unshaken the independence which it declared in 1816, and has enjoyed since 1810. Like success has also lately attended Chili, and the provinces north of the La Plata bordering on it, and likewise Venezuela. Should it become mani * * * |