proposition was sent to the Congress at Tucuman, and, after receiving its sanction, was agreed to by the supreme director and assisting members of the Congress at Buenos Ayres. The action of Colonel Devereux, though his intentions were not questioned, was disavowed, and Mr. Worthington, the agent of the United States in South America, was instructed to inform the Government of Buenos Ayres that the refusal of the United States to carry out the arrangement which was sought to be made "must be the result of its existing laws and duties in relation to the civil war between Spain and the Spanish American colonies." Robert Brent, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Worthington, April 21, 1817, 2 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 24. On July 4, 1816, at "a public feast at Baltimore," Mr. Skinner, the postmaster at that city, gave a "festive" toast supposed to reflect on the character of the then French Government. The French minister at Washington called upon Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, to cause the postmaster to be dismissed and to apologize for the alleged insult. This was refused by Mr. Monroe, who stated in reply that on matters of this character the Government of the United States exercised no control. Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gallatin, Sept. 10, 1816, MS. Inst. U. Subsequently, in retaliation for the "toast," the functions of the French consul at Baltimore were suspended by the French minister, who had taken additional offense on account of a toast given at a New York dinner to "Marshal Grouchy," who, the French minister said, was not a "marshal." Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gallatin, Nov. 2, 1816, id. 111. 66 The French Government having asked for the dismissal of Mr. Skinner in consequence of his " disrespectful" conduct, the Duke of Richelieu, minister of foreign affairs, in an interview with Mr. Gallatin, minister of the United States at Paris, said that "in asking for the dismission of Mr. Skinner there was no intention of giving offense; it was only stating the kind of reparation which appeared most natural, and which would be satisfactory. . . I am sorry to say that no explanation I could give appeared to make any impression on him. He immediately added that they would not preserve any public agent in the town where His Majesty had been publicly insulted." Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Monroe, Nov. 21, 1816, 2 Gallatin's Writings, 19. The Duke of Richelieu subsequently told Mr. Gallatin that "the refusal to dismiss the postmaster at Baltimore" would indispose the Government of Louis XVIII. to take steps towards paying for Napoleon's spoliations. Same to same, Jan. 20, 1817, id. 22. . The Government of the United States, when called upon by the minister of Russia to explain certain newspaper "calumnies" on his Government, to which the Government of the United States was intimated to have "directly or indirectly given . . . its support," answered, through the Secretary of State, that no further explanations could be given "until an imputation so injurious to the reputation of this Government, and so inconsistent with its sincere professions of amity for Russia and respect for its sovereign, shall be withdrawn." Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Sacken, Dec. 4, 1832, MS. Notes to For. Leg. V. 73. The United States Government has no power, under our Constitution and laws, to interfere with publications in the States criticising foreign governments or encouraging revolt against such governments. Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, Costa Rican min., Noy, 26, 1860, MS. As to expressions of sympathy with Ireland, see report of Mr. Banks, See Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Speed, At. Gen., April 2, 1866, 72 On July 21, 1885, Mr. Valera, Spanish minister at Washington, in a note to the Department of State, declared that "conspiracies" were carried on in various parts of the United States, especially at New York, New Orleans, and Key West, against the public peace of Spain and the integrity of her territory, by efforts "to collect funds for piratical enterprises, by forming associations for this purpose, and by holding public meetings at which Spain is outraged by all sorts of insults and calumnies, and at which those present are incited to rebellion and civil war." Mr. Valera adverted to the fact that he had, on a previous occasion been advised, in reply to his complaints, that the courts of the country were open to the representatives of Spain, but he observed that this method of obtaining satisfaction was almost always very costly and inefficient, and that another serious argument against appealing to the courts was furnished by the system of trial by jury. In this relation he adverted to the case of Carlos Agüero, a Cuban revolutionist, who, after his discharge at Key West, on an application by Spain for his extradition, was drawn in triumph through the streets of the city, several local officers joining in the procession, and was also encouraged and assisted to go to Cuba, where, after pillaging and burning, he was at length shot. Replying to these complaints, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in a note of July 31, 1885, observed that "the Executive of the United States has no authority to take cognizance of individual opinions and the manifestation thereof, even when taking the shape of revolutionary and seditious expressions directed against our own Government;" and that it was "no less incompetent to pass upon the subversive character of utterances alleged to contravene the laws of another land." Mr. Bayard adverted to the alien and sedition laws of 1798, and to their great unpopularity and brief duration. He added, however, that in passing from the mere announcement of the purpose to do an unlawful act to the overt commission thereof the domain of prohibitive law was entered. But, in such case, proceedings must be "set in motion by due information made under oath by some person cognizant of the facts alleged or possessing belief sufficient to that end," and must be so set in motion in the name, by the power, and through the officers of the United States. While the Government could not undertake to control the workings of opinion and sympathy, yet any affidavit founded even upon mere information or belief, charging a breach of any law, would lead to an examination and a prosecution by the officials of the United States wholly at the public cost, should the facts alleged be found to bring the matter within the purview of the law. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Valera, Spanish min., July 31, 1885. September 28, 1885, Mr. Valera addressed a note to Mr. Bayard stating See supra, §§ 193, 224. See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to "The second aspect of his excellency's inquiry, touching the treatment of persons who in the United States may publish their sympathy with those who oppose the rule of Turkey in Asia Minor, has been on several occasions discussed with your esteemed predecessor. Mavroyeni Bey has been repeatedly informed that while the laws of this country provide a judicial remedy for any act of armed hostility against a power with which the United States are at peace by organizing expeditions or fitting out vessels to make war against the same, the expression of opinion by speech, writing, or otherwise is free under our Constitution and laws, so that neither the act nor the actor can be held accountable by any exercise of administrative power, nor can they come within the cognizance of the courts save in case of libel or defamation, upon suit brought by the party alleging to have suffered injury. In a number of his later notes Mavroyeni Bey has expressly referred to and recognized this position, so that I may assume that it is well known to your Government, and that the inclusion of this suggestion in his excellency's telegram may have been due to his employment of a circular formula intended to be addressed principally to the governments of countries whose laws provide for administrative treatment of press offenses and where, contrary to the constitutional rule which here obtains, the discretionary power of expulsion may be used by the executive branch." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Moustapha Bey, Turkish min., Nov. 11, 1896, V. ASYLUM. 1. CONCESSION PRESUMED. § 1314. In a dispatch from Mr. Wheaton to Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, November 10, 1843, in the case of the Bergen prizes, Mr. Wheaton said: "If, then, there was no express prohibition in this case, and if there was no treaty existing between Denmark and Great Britain by which the former was bound to refuse to the enemies of the latter these privileges (and I suppose there was no such prohibition or treaty), then the American cruisers had an unquestionable right to send their prizes into Danish ports. Still more had they such right, grounded on necessity arising from stress of weather, as appears to have been the case here. When once arrived there, the neutral government of Denmark was bound to respect the military right of possession, law fully acquired in war by the captors on the high seas and continued in the neutral port into which the prize was brought.“ Mr. Wheaton, min. to Prussia, to Mr. Upshur, Sec. of State, 'No. 233, Aug. 23, 1843, H. Ex. Doc. 264, 28 Cong. 1 sess. 4, 6. See, as to the case of the Bergen prizes, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4572, citing Wharton's Dip. Cor Am. Rev. III. 385, 433, 435, 528, 534, 540, 597, 678, 744; V. 462; VI. 261, 717; act of March 28, 1806, 6 Stat. 61; H. Report 389, 25 Cong. 2 sess.; H. Ex. Doc. 264, 28 Cong. 1 sess: act of March 21, 1848, 9 Stat. 214; Lawrence's Wheaton (1863), note 16, p. 41; Mr. McLane, Sec. of State, to Mr Kennedy, Jan. 4, 1834, 26 MS. Dom. Let.(135 "France, England, and all other nations, have a right to cruise on our coasts a right, not derived from our permission, but from the law of nature. To render this more advantageous, France has secured to herself by a treaty with us (as she has done, also, by a treaty with Great Britain, in the event of a war with us, or any other nation), two special rights: (1) Admission for her prizes and privateers into our ports. This, by the seventeenth and twenty-second articles, is secured to her exclusively of her enemies, as is done for her in the like case by Great Britain, were her present war with us, instead of Great Britain. (2) Admission for her public vessels of war into our ports, in cases of stress of weather, pirates, enemies, or other urgent necessity, to refresh, victual, repair, etc. This is not exclusive. As we are bound by treaty to receive the public armed vessels of France, and are not bound to exclude those of her enemies, the Executive had never denied the same right of asylum, in our ports, to the public armed vessels of your nation. They, as well as the French, are free to come into them in all cases of weather, pirates, enemies, or other urgent necessity, and to refresh, victual, repair, etc. And so many are these urgent necessities to vessels far from their own ports, that we have thought inquiries into the nature, as well as the degree, of their necessities which drive them hither, as endless as they would be fruitless; and, therefore, have not made them. And the rather, because there is a third right, secured to neither by treaty, but due to both, on the principles of hospitality between friendly nations-that of coming into our ports, not under the pressure of urgent necessity, but whenever their comfort or convenience induced them. On this ground, also, the two nations are on a footing." 66 Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hammond, Brit. min., Sept. 9, 1793, Through every stage of the conflict [between Spain and her colonies in America] the United States have maintained an impartial neutrality, giving aid to neither of the parties in men, money, ships, or munitions of war. They have regarded the contest not in the light H. Doc. 551-vol 7-63 |