had claimed rights granted by the treaties between Colombia and foreign nations until they had substituted for such treaties treaties of their own. In support of this statement he gave several examples. Ecuador, having recognized and acted upon this principle whenever advantage could be derived from it, could not, said Mr. Hassaurek, deny it when it imposed an obligation. He therefore held, with the concurrence of the Ecuadorean commissioner, that the condemnation of the Mechanic's cargo was wrongful, and awarded an indemnity to the claimants. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 3221-3227. Mr. Hassaurek cited 1 Kent's Commentaries, 25; Bello, Principios de In 1838 the Treasury Department of the United States instructed collectors of customs to give the benefits of ArtiMexico and Texas. cles V. and VI. of the treaty of commerce between the United States and Mexico of April 5, 1831, abolishing discriminating duties, to the vessels and productions of Texas; and the government of Texas was advised that the benefits of the article would be expected for vessels and productions of the United States arriving in that country. The government of Texas, on the other hand, expressed an intention not to acknowledge the binding force of the treaty, although the Texan minister at Washington appears to have invoked certain of its stipulations touching the restraint of Indian incursions and hostilities. Discriminating tonnage duties were in fact for a time exacted in Texas upon American vessels; but the United States expressed the expectation that instructions would be given for the "exact fulfillment" of Articles V. and VI. of the Mexican treaty, and that all discriminating tonnage duties which had been levied since a certain date would be refunded. The government of Texas yielded the point. In an instruction to the chargé d'affaires of the United States in 1841, Mr. Webster said: "The treaty between the United States and Mexico, which has been held to be binding upon Texas in all its parts, contains a stipulation that either party may put an end to the commercial articles upon giving a year's notice to the other. The letter of Mr. Amory, the representative of Texas here, to me of the 19th ul timo, gives formal notice of the determination of the Texan government to take that course. The commerce between the two countries will consequently be subject to their respective laws only after the 19th of May next, and until a new and separate treaty shall be negotiated and concluded between the two governments." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. La Branche, chargé d'affaires to Texas, No. 6. Feb. 24, 1838, MS. Inst. Texas, I. 6; same to same, No. 9. May 2, 1838, id. 9; Mr. Vail, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. La Branche, No. 16, Oct. 25, 1838, id. 14; Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Eve, chargé d'affaires to Texas, No. 1, June 14, 1841, id. 31. In his instruction to Mr. La Branche of May 2, 1838, Mr. Forsyth, referring to the conclusion of the boundary convention between the United States and Texas of April 25, 1838, which recognized as obligatory the treaty of limits between the United States and Mexico of January 12, 1828, said: "The conclusion of this compact of course deprives the Texan government of all pretext for disowning the binding force as to that country of the treaty of commerce between the United States and Mexico, which we were surprised to learn was their intention." Sardinia and The Italian minister having inquired whether, in the opinion of the Department of State, Article XVIII. of the treaty of November 26, 1838, between Sardinia and the United States, might be interpreted as exempting Italians from a tax imposed in Louisiana on the transfer of real estate by inheritance to aliens, Mr. Fish replied that "a preliminary question might be raised whether inhabitants of the duchies of Parma and Modena, or of Venitia and Lombardy, though now subjects of the King of Italy, are entitled to the benefits of a treaty made with that monarch when he was King of Sardinia, and the territories just mentioned did not belong to his dominions; " but," waiving that question and assuming that the heirs" in question were "inhabitants of the former Kingdom of Sardinia," Mr. Fish added that he took pleasure in stating the course of adjudications upon the question. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Count Colobiano, Feb., 1870, MS. Notes to Case of the Netherlands. The government of the Netherlands having claimed for a Dutch line of steamers an exemption from tonnage dues in the United States under Article II. of the treaty of October 8, 1782, the government of the United States, fter a long historical exposition, informed the Dutch minister at Washington that the treaty was "no longer binding on the parties." In 1793, said Mr. Fish, a war broke out between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and France. In 1795 the Stadtholder was driven from the country and the Batavian Republic was established. This was succeeded by the Kingdom of Holland, after which the country was incorporated into the French Empire, and remained a part of that empire until the abdication of Napoleon. On the reconstruction of Europe at the Congress of Vienna a new kingdom was formed, called the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which was included the territories which had formed the United Provinces of the Nether lands. The new power opened diplomatic relations with the United States by sending a minister to Washington, who proposed "to open negotiations for a treaty of amity and commerce." Mr. Monroe replied to this in a letter already quoted. The negotiations having been suspended, the Dutch minister called the attention of Monroe to "the overtures made by Changuion for the purpose of consolidating the commercial relations between the countries by a renewal or a modification of the treaty of commerce of 1782." Mr. Monroe answered: "Mr. Changuion having intimated, by order of his government, that the treaty of 1782 was to be considered, in consequence of the events which have occurred in Holland, as no longer in force, and having proposed also to enter into a new treaty with the United States, this government has since contemplated that result. It is presumed that the former treaty cannot be revived without being again ratified and exchanged in the form that is usual in such cases, and in the manner prescribed by our Constitution." Mr. Ten Cate replied, " His Majesty will undoubtedly be disposed to enter into the views of the American government with regard to the consolidation, by some means, of the commercial relations between the two states." The negotiations failed for reasons stated in the President's message to Congress. The United States subsequently attempted to maintain that the treaty was not abrogated, but the claim was resisted, and a long correspondence ensued. The Dutch foreign minister maintained that from 1795 to 1814 “the political existence of Holland was then terminated," that "Holland had ceased for a long time to form an independent state." The United States acquiesced in this statement. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Westenberg, April 9, 1873, For. Rel. 1873, II. 720; as summarized in Davis's Treaty Notes, Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1235. While it may be true that, as a general rule, when one country is absorbed in another the treaties of perhaps the more Barbary Powers. inconsiderable of the two are often regarded as annulled, it is believed that the absorption of a state is not always attended by an admitted annulment of its treaties. The union between the United States and Texas was effected by the legislation of the parties. It necessarily canceled the treaties between Texas and foreign powers, so far at least as those treaties were inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, which requires customs duties to be uniform throughout the Union. The treaties of Algiers with other governments were also annulled by the conquest of that country by France. This conquest was made pursuant to a regular war of such notoriety that its origin, progress, and result could not fail to come to the knowledge of all the parties having treaties with Algiers and to be regularly recorded as an historical fact. Such wa not the character of the contest by which the Porte acquired the ascendancy which it afterwards claimed in Tripoli. That contest was of a comparatively obscure character, and, as was believed, had been but faintly and imperfectly recorded in the published annals of the time. The two Sicilies and certain of the States of the Church were conquered by the arms of Sardinia. The United States at the time of that conquest had a treaty of commerce with the Two Sicilies, which it did not regard as canceled thereby; nor did it regard the treaty of commerce which it had with Sardinia itself as applicable either to the Two Sicilies or to the States of the Church. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., Sept. 18, 1876, July 11, 1854, Commodore Perry entered into a treaty with Loochoo (Lew Chew), and the ratifications were duly Case of Loochoo. exchanged. It stipulated that citizens of the United States coming to Loochoo should be treated with courtesy and friendship and should be allowed to trade; that ships wrecked on the coast should be hospitably treated, and that skillful pilots should be appointed by the local government. Both China and Japan claimed to possess certain suzerain powers over the islands, and gradually Japan came to assert supreme control over them. The Japanese government issued compulsory orders that all business in Loochoo should be transacted with the Japanese department of foreign affairs, and that Japanese officials should manage all matters with foreign countries. Upon the question whether these orders interfered with the rights of the United States under the treaty with Loochoo, the Department of State said that the independence of the islands was a disputed matter in which the United States could not interfere unless its rights under treaty stipulations with any of the powers concerned in the controversy be endangered. The Department had therefore confined its instructions to guarding against any infraction of the treaty with Loochoo, in the event of a consolidation of the islands with Japan. In a note to the legation of the United States at Tokio, in 1876, the Japanese minister of foreign affairs stated that his government had not at any time interfered with the rights of the United States under the treaty with Loochoo, and that whenever any change in that treaty should become necessary due notice would be given to the legation. This declaration was not thought to be inconsistent with the stipulations of the treaty, nor were the orders of the Japanese government, above referred to, in the assertion of its surpeme control conceived to be inconsistent with the treaty. Under these circumstances it is desired that you should abstain, until otherwise instructed, from making any official representations on the part of this government, in behalf of the Loochoo Islands, to the Government of Japan. You are, however, at liberty to exert your personal friendly offices towards an amicable settlement of the pending dispute should your mediation be requested." Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, No. See, as to the final absorption of the Loochoo Islands by Japan, 5 Moore, Case of Madagascar. February 12, 1896, the French minister at Washington wrote to the Department of State that the French government, owing to the difficultiess which had arisen in the exercise of its protectorate over Madagascar, had been obliged to intervene by military force for the purpose of causing its rights to be respected and of securing guaranties for the future. The French government had thus been "led to occupy the island with its troops and to take final possession of it." This notice was acknowledged by the Department of State "with due reserve as to the effect of the action of the government of France upon the treaty rights of the United States." February 18, 1896, the French authorities in Madagascar notified the United States consul af Tamatave that, the island having become a French possession, justice would thenceforth be rendered to Americans by the French tribunals in accordance with a decree of the President of France of December 29, 1895. On the strength of these communications the United States requested of the government of France an explicit statement of its understanding as to the effect of its "definite occupation" of the island upon the treaties between the United States and Madagascar, and particularly as whether those treaties were to remain operative or were to be replaced by the treaty engagements of the United States with France. The French government replied that in its opinion the maintenance of the treaties with Madagascar was inconsistent with the new order of things which had been created in the island, and that the government of the Republic was "disposed to extend to the great African island the whole of the conventions applicable to the government or citizens of the United States in France and in French possessions." It was further stated that under the decree of December 28, 1895, French magistrates had been appointed for the island. so that the continuance of the American consular court would be unnecesary, and that it was proposed to introduce the French tariff, under which the specific duties would be higher than the duty of 10 per cent ad valorem which the native government had levied. |