Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 v. 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.

67

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »