previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.

"If the circumstances had been different, and the acts of the British Government had been in violation of that doctrine, this Government could never regard its failure to assert it as creating any liability to another power for injuries it may have sustained in consequence of the omission. *

"But it is believed that, even if it could be shown that the Argentine Republic possesses the rightful title to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, there would not be wanting ample grounds upon which the conduct of Captain Duncan in 1831 could be defended.

"On the whole, it is not seen that the United States committed any invasion of the just rights of the Government of Buenos Ayres in putting an end in 1831 to Vernet's lawless aggressions upon the persons and property of our citizens."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Quesada, Mar. 18, 1886. MSS. Notes, Arg.
Rep.

The President, in a message to Congress, and in the correspondence carried on with the Government of Buenos Ayres, having denied the jurisdiction of that country over the Falkland Islands, the courts must take the facts to be so.

Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, 13 Pet., 415.

Where an officer of the Navy, without instructions from his Govern. ment, seized property in the Falkland Islands, claimed by citizens of the United States, which, it was alleged, had been piratically taken by a person pretending to be governor of the islands, it was beld, that such officer had no right, without express direction from his Government, to enter the territoriality of a country at peace with the United States and seize property found there claimed by citizens of the United States. Application for redress should have been made to the judicial tribu nals of the country.

Davison v. Seal-skins, 2 Paine, 324.

(10) LIBERIA.
§ 66.

"The United States are not averse to having the great powers know that they publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them and Liberia, and that they are prepared to take every proper step to main. tain them. To this end, it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr. Lowell also on his return to his post from his present leave, should evince a lively interest in the movements of both Great Britain and France in

the neighborhood of Liberia, without, however, showing any undue anxiety or offensive curiosity in the matter."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoppin, Apr. 21, 1880. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. As to suggested French "protectorate of Liberia," see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, Apr. 21, 1880, and preceding instructions. MSS. Inst., France. "On the 14th instant, in a conference with me, the minister of Germany at this capital stated that in October last the German steamer Carlos, Capt. P. C. Nickelsen, with a cargo from Hamburg for Lagos, via Sasstown, fell into distress on the coast of Liberia; that the natives of the coast of the "Kronbah" tribe took advantage of the helpless condition of the vessel to plunder her of the greater part of her cargo, besides robbing and maltreating her crew, who sought to escape in the vessel's life-boats; and that the Liberian Government showed the sincerest wish to punish such proceedings, but declared itself unable to exert authority to that end over the lawless Kronbahs. Under these circumstances Mr. Von Schlözer said that the German Government had ordered the Victoria of the imperial navy to proceed to Liberia and there assist the Government of that Republic in the pursuit and punishment of the offenders, as a step in the general interest of all commercial nations. He at the same time asked that you might be informed of the occurrence, and of the purpose of his Government in the premises.

"It is not understood that the coast-dwellers who committed this injury on a peaceable foreign vessel and her crew are unsubdued rebels to the Liberian Government, or pirates in the common international acceptation of the term; but it is inferred that they are simply lawless wreckers, outside of the prompt and efficacious control of the central Government. In this view, and to the end of securing foreign life and property from inhospitable attacks on the coast in question, it is presumed that the Liberian Government would gladly avail itself of any proper and friendly aid from without in making its own laws and power felt within its own jurisdiction.

"Should the Liberian minister of state consult with you on this point in view of the attitude of advisory friendliness which this Government has constantly maintained toward that of Liberia, you are at liberty to express to him the view of the matter entertained here, adding that had the case affected an American vessel and crew, this Government would not have failed to consider in a proper spirit any request made to it by that of Liberia for aid such as Germany is now prepared to render. "It is not, however, needful for you to make any such statement in advance of the subject being brought to your attention."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth, Feb. 28, 1881. MSS. Inst., Liberia;
For. Rel., 1881.

The treaty of the United States with Liberia does not authorize or require the United States to interfere with their naval forces to preserve order or to compel obedience to law in Liberia.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth, July 12, 1879. MSS. Inst., Liberia.

Nor should the United States minister at Liberia interfere with the Government thereof by obtruding political advice.

Same to same, Jan. 7, 1880. But see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth,
June 27, 1881, ibid.

Liberia, although not a colony of the United States, began its independent career as an offshoot of this country, which bears to it a quasi parental relationship which authorizes the United States to interpose its good offices in any contest between Liberia and a foreign state, and a refusal to give the United States an opportunity to be heard for this purpose would make "an unfavorable impression in the minds of the Government and the people of the United States."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roustan, Aug. 22, 1884. MSS. Notes,
France.

Report adverse to providing means to make survey for a railroad in Liberia was
made Mar. 5, 1878. House Rep. 349, 45th Cong., 2d sess.

Memorial asking that a survey be made for a railroad in Liberia. Feb. 12, 1879. Senate Mis. Doc. 67, 45th Cong., 3d sess.

As to boundaries of Liberia, see Mr. Davis, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, Sept. 15, 1882; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, Apr. 9, 1883, Aug. 19, 1884; MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. ; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth, Dec. 21, 1882, Apr. 8, 1883 and June 19, 1883. MSS. Inst., Liberia.

Mr. Gurley's report of Feb. 15, 1850, on the then condition of Liberia is given in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 75, 31st Cong., 1st sess.

(11) CHINA.
§ 67.

For consular jurisdiction in China, see infra, § 125; as to treaties with China, infra, § 144.

President Van Buren's message of Feb. 25, 1840, introducing an elaborate report

of the Secretary of State on the state of American trade with China, is given in House Ex. Doc. No. 119, 20th Cong., 1st sess. See also House Doc. No. 170, same Congress.

President Tyler's message of Dec. 30, 1842, in relation to China and the Sandwich Islands, was written by Mr. Webster, 2 Curtis' Life of Webster, 176.

"You will state, in the fullest manner, the acknowledgment of the Government that the commercial regulations of the Empire, having become fairly and fully known, ought to be respected by all ships and all persons visiting its ports; and if citizens of the United States, under these circumstances, are found violating well known laws of trade, their Government will not interfere to protect them from the consequences of their own illegal conduct. You will, at the same time, assert and maintain, on all occasions, the equality and independence of your own country. The Chinese are apt to speak of persons coming into the Empire from other nations as tribute bearers to the Emperor.

This idea has been fostered perhaps by the costly parade embassies of England. All ideas of this kind, respecting your mission, must, should they arise, be immediately met by a declaration, not made ostentatiously, or in a manner reproachful towards others, that you are no tribute-bearer; that your Government pays tribute to none and expects tribute from none; and that even as to presents, your Government neither makes nor accepts presents.

"You will say that the Government of the United States is always controlled by a sense of religion and of honor; that nations differ in their religious opinions and observances; that you cannot do anything which the religion of your own country, or the sentiments of honor, forbid; that you have the most profound respect for His Majesty the Emperor; that you are ready to make to him all manifestations of hom. age which are consistent with your own sense; and that you are sure His Majesty is too just to desire you to violate your own duty; that you should deem yourself quite unworthy to appear before His Majesty as peace-bearer from a great and powerful nation, if you should do anything against religion or against honor, as understood by the Government and people in the country you came from. Taking care thus in no way to allow the Government or people of China to consider you as tribute-bearer from your Government, or as acknowledging its inferiority, in any respect, to that of China, or any other nation, you will bear in mind, at the same time, what is due to your own personal dig. nity and the character which you bear. You will represent to the Chinese authorities, nevertheless, that you are directed to pay to His Majesty the Emperor the same marks of respect and homage as are paid by your Government to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, or any other of the great powers of the world."

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cushing, May 8, 1843. MSS. Inst., China.

The participation, by a consul of the United States in China, in the opium trade, after notice forbidding such participation, is ground for his dismissal.

Mr. Legaré, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cushing, June 12, 1843. MSS. Inst., China.

"I entered China with the formed general conviction that the United States ought not to concede to any foreign state, under any circumstances, jurisdiction over the life and liberty of a citizen of the United States, unless that foreign state be of our own family of nations-in a word, a Christian state. In China I found that Great Britain had stipulated for the absolute exemption of her subjects from the jurisdiction of the Empire; while the Portuguese attain the same object through their own local jurisdiction at Macao. This exemption in behalf of citizens of the United States is agreed to in terms by the letter of the treaty of Wang-Hiya. By that treaty the laws of the Union follow its citizens,

447

and its banner protects them, even within the domain of the Chinese Empire."

Mr. Cushing to Mr. Calhoun, Sept. 29, 1844. MSS. Despatches China. Cited in
Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 223.

As to consular jurisdiction in China, see infra, § 125.

In cases of aggravated crimes by citizens of the United States in China after the treaty giving jurisdiction of such cases to United States consuls, but before Congressional legislation, the minister of the United States at China was instructed to send the criminals inculpated to the United States for trial.

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. A. H. Everett, Apr. 15, 1845. MSS. Inst.,
China.

When an attack is threatened on a consulate or diplomatic agency in China, it is the duty of the officers in charge to give notice to the local authorities, and, in failure of adequate aid, such officers may take their defense in their own hands. The Chinese Government will afterwards be held liable for any losses occurring from its neglect to give efficient aid. Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. A. H. Everett, Jan. 28, 1847. MSS. Inst., China.

The message of President Pierce of July 19, 1854, containing the correspondence between the Department of State and the late commissioner to China, Mr. Humphrey Marshall, is contained in House Ex. Doc. No. 123, 33d Cong., 1st sess.

"It is difficult to lay down any precise rule for regulating the trade of our citizens with the hostile sections of the people of China. While they should not traffic in the plunder that one party may have seized from the other, yet they ought not to be restricted in a free trade at any of the ports opened to them by our treaty under the pretext that such a trade is more favorable to one party than to the other. It would be well if our citizens confined themselves to their customary mode of dealing in China. The purchase of property known to be the spoils of the contending parties would undoubtedly be regarded as a species of participation in the civil conflict. It ought to be discountenanced and restrained."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Parker, Oct. 5, 1855. MSS. Inst., China. The Chinese Government having obstinately and persistently refused to pay a claim for personal damages admitted to be due a citizen of the United States, instructions were sent in 1855 to the United States minister at China, at his discretion, "to resort to the measure of withholding duties to the amount thereof."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Parker, Oct. 5, 1855. MSS. Inst., China. The display of the American flag in the attack by the British on Can- . ton in 1856 was, if the act of an American functionary, an act calling for his removal.

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Parker, Feb. 2, 1857. MSS. Inst., China.