Page images
PDF
EPUB

to interfere with the national affairs of the Indians, farther than to keep out the agents of foreign powers, who might seduce them into foreign alliances. The British government purchased the alliance and dependence of the Indian nations by subsidies, and purchased their lands, when they were willing to sell, at the price they were willing to take, but it never coerced a surrender of them. The British crown considered them as nations, competent to maintain the relations of peace and war, and of governing themselves under its protection. The United States, who succeeded to the rights of the British crown, in respect to the Indians, did the same, and no more; and the protection stipulated to be afforded to the Indians, and claimed by them, was understood by all parties as only binding the Indians to the United States, as dependent allies. A weak power does not surrender its independence and right to self-government, by associating with a stronger and taking its protection. This was the settled doctrine of the Law of Nations; and the Supreme Court therefore concluded and adjudged, that the Cherokee nation was a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, within which the laws of Georgia could not rightfully have any force, and into which the citizens of that State had no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress.1 (a)

1 Kent's Comment. on American Law, vol. iii. p. 383.

(a) [The native tribes, who were found on the American continent at the time of its discovery, have never been acknowledged or treated as independent nations by the European governments, nor regarded as the owners of the territories they respectively occupied. On the contrary, the whole continent was divided and parcelled out, and granted by the governments of Europe, as if it had been vacant and unoccupied land, and the Indians continually held to be and treated as subject to their dominion and control. The United States have maintained the doctrines upon this subject which had been previously established by other nations, and insisted upon the same powers and dominion within their territory. It is too firmly and clearly established to admit of dispute, that the Indian tribes residing within the territorial limits of the United States are subject to their. authority; and, where the country occupied by them is not within the limits of one of the States, Congress may, by law, punish any offence committed there, no matter whether the offender be a white man or an Indian. Howard's Rep. vol. iv. p. 572. The United States v. Rogers. The same rules, applicable to the aborigines elsewhere on the American continent, are supposed to govern in

States may be either single, or may be united toge- § 15. Sinther under a common sovereign prince, or by a federal States. compact.

§ 16. Personal union,

under the

same soV

1. If this union under a common sovereign is not an incorporate union, that is to say, if it is only personal in the reigning sovereign; or even if it is real, yet if the ereign. different component parts are united with a perfect equality of rights, the sovereignty of each State remains unimpaired.1

Thus, the kingdom of Hanover was formerly held by the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, separately from his insular dominions. Hanover and the United Kingdom were subject to the same prince, without any dependence on each other, both kingdoms retaining their respective national rights of sovereignty. It is thus that the King of Prussia is also sovereign prince of Neufchatel, one of the Swiss Cantons; which does not, on that account, cease to maintain its relations with the Confederation, nor is it united with the Prussian monarchy.

So, also, the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway are united under one crowned head, each kingdom retaining its separate

the case of the Mosquito Indians, within the territorial limits of the republic of Nicaragua; to whom the United States deny any claim of sovereignty, or any other title than the Indian right of occupancy, to be extinguished at the will of the discoverer, though a species of undefined protectorate has, several times, been claimed over them by Great Britain. This subject has given rise to much discussion, on account of the contiguity of the territory to the proposed inter-oceanic communication; to promote which a Convention was concluded between the United States and Great Britain, on 19th April, 1850. In that Convention there is no reference to the Mosquito protectorate; though, by a subsequent agreement between these powers, dated 30th April, 1852, to be proposed to the acceptance of the Mosquito king, as well as of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, there is a reservation of a district therein described to these Indians. But Nicaragua refused to enter into the arrangement, and protested against all foreign intervention in her affairs. Congressional Globe, 1852-3, vol. xxvi. p. 268. Id. vol. xxvii. p. 252, 286. U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. viii. p. 174. Annuaire des Deux Mondes, 1852-3, p. 741. Appendix, p. 922. See, also, for negotiations with Great Britain, subsequent to the Inter-Oceanic Treaty, Cong. Doc. 32d Cong. 2d Sess. Senate Ex. Doc. Nos. 12 and 27. Id. 33d Cong. 1st Sess. Senate, Ex. Doc. Nos. 8 and 13.]

1 Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac. Pac. lib. ii. cap. 9, §§ 8, 9. Kluber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, Part. I. cap. 1, § 27. Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht, $20.

constitution, laws, and civil administration, the external sovereignty of each being represented by the king.

the same

§ 17. Real The union of the different States composing the union under Austrian monarchy is a real union. The hereditary sovereign. dominions of the House of Austria, the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, and other States, are all indissolubly united under the same sceptre, but with distinct fundamental laws, and other political institutions.

It appears to be an intelligible distinction between such a union as that of the Austrian States, and all other unions which are merely personal under the same crowned head, that, in the case of a real union, though the separate sovereignty of each State may still subsist internally, in respect to its coördinate States and in respect to the imperial crown, yet the sovereignty of each is merged in the general sovereignty of the empire, as to their international relations with foreign powers. The political unity of the States which compose the Austrian Empire forms what the German publicists call a community of States, (Gesammtstaat); a community which reposes on historical antecedents. It is connected with the natural progress of things, in the same way as the empire was formed, by an agglomeration of various nationalities, which defended, as long as possible, their ancient constitutions, and only yielded, finally, to the overwhelming influence of superior force. (a)

§ 18. Incorporate

union.

2. An incorporate union is such as that which subsists between Scotland and England, and between Great Britain and Ireland; forming out of the three kingdoms an empire, united under one crown and one legislature, although each may have distinct laws and a separate administration. The sovereignty, internal and external, of each original kingdom

(a) [In 1849, a uniform Constitution for all the States was established, and the charter for the one and indivisible Empire of Austria proclaimed. Annual Register, 1849, p. 317. By the patent of the 31st December, 1851, the fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution of the 4th of March, 1849, were abolished, while centralization was maintained, and provision made for uniform municipal legislation. Annuaire des Deux Mondes, 1852-3, pp. 541-545.]

is completely merged in the united kingdom, thus formed by their successive unions.

between

3. The union established by the Congress of Vienna, 19. Union between the empire of Russia and the kingdom of Russia and Poland, is of a more anomalous character. By the final Poland. act of the congress, the duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the provinces and districts otherwise disposed of, was reunited to the Russian Empire; and it was stipulated that it should be irrevocably connected with that empire by its constitution, to be possessed by his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, his heirs and successors in perpetuity, with the title of King of Poland; his Majesty reserving the right to give to this State, enjoying a distinct administration, such interior extension as he should judge proper; and that the Poles, subject respectively to Russia, Austria, and Prussia, should obtain a representation and national institutions, regulated according to that mode of political existence which each government, to whom they belong, should think useful and proper to grant.1

Charter

accorded by

Alexander

land, in

In pursuance of these stipulations, the Emperor Alexander granted a constitutional charter to the kingdom the Emperor of Poland, on 15th (27th) November, 1815. By the to the kingprovisions of this charter, the kingdom of Poland was dom of Podeclared to be united to the Russian Empire by its con- 1815. stitution; the sovereign authority in Poland was to be exercised only in conformity to it; the coronation of the King of Poland was to take place in the Polish capital, where he was bound to take an oath to observe the charter. The Polish nation was to

Π

1 "Le Duché de Varsovie, à l'exception des provinces et districts, dont il a été autrement disposé dans les articles suivans, est réuni à l'Empire de Russie. y sera lié irrévocablement par sa Constitution, pour étre possédé par S. M. l'Empereur de toutes les Russies, ses héritiers et ses successeurs à perpétuité. Sa Majesté Impériale se reserve de donner à cet état, jouissant d'une administration distincte, l'extension intérieure qu'elle jugera convenable. Elle prendra, avec ses autres titres celui de Czar, Roi de Pologne, conformément au protocole usité et consacré par les titres attachés à ses autres possessions.

"Les Polonais, sujets respectifs de la Russie, de l'Autriche, et de la Prusse, obtiendront une représentation et des institutions nationales, réglées d'après la mode d'existence politique que chacun des Gouvernemens auxquelles ils appartiennent jugera utile et convenable de leur accorder." · Art. 1.

have a perpetual representation, composed of the king and the two chambers forming the Diet; in which body the legislative power was to be vested, including that of taxation. A distinct Polish national army and coinage, and distinct military orders, were to be preserved in the kingdom.

Manifesto peror Nicholas, 1832.

In consequence of the revolution and reconquest of Poland by Russia, a manifesto was issued by the Emperor Nicholas, on the 14th (26th) of February, 1832, by which the kingdom of Poland was declared to be perpetually united (réuni) to the Russian Empire, and to form an integral part thereof; the coronation of the emperors of Russia and kings of Poland hereafter to take place at Moscow, by one and the same act; the Diet to be abolished, and the army of the empire and of the kingdom to form one army, without distinction of Russian or Polish troops; Poland to be separately administered by a Governor General and Council of Administration, appointed by the emperor, and to preserve its civil and criminal code, subject to alteration and revision by laws and ordinances prepared in the Polish Council of State, and subsequently examined and confirmed in the Section of the Council of State of the Russian Empire, called The Section for the Affairs of Poland; consultative Provincial States to be established in the different Polish provinces, to deliberate upon such affairs concerning the general interest of the kingdom of Poland as might be submitted to their consideration; the Assemblies of the Nobles, Communal Assemblies, and Council of the Waiwodes to be continued as formerly. Great Britain and France protested against this measure of the Russian government, as an infraction of the spirit if not of the letter of the treaties of Vienna.1

20. Federal union.

4. Sovereign States permanently united together by a federal compact, either form a system of confederated States, (properly so called,) or a supreme federal government, which has been sometimes called a compositive State.2 (a)

Wheaton's History of the Law of Nations, p. 434.

2 These two species of federal compacts are very appropriately expressed in the German language, by the respective terms of Staatenbund and Bundesstaat. (a) [The Confederation of 1778 and the existing Constitution of the United States, are examples of the two classes of cases referred to in the text.]

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »