Page images
PDF
EPUB

(13) TURKEY, TRIPOLI, AND TUNIS.

§ 68a.

Citizens of the United States, in common with all other foreign Christians, enjoy the privileges of extraterritoriality in Turkey, including Egypt, as well as in the Turkish regencies of Tripoli and Tunis, and also in the independent Arabic states of Morocco and Muscat.

Status of Americans in Turkey, 7 Op., 565, Cushing, 1855.

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

As to right of asylum in, § 104.

As to treaties with, § 165.

V.-RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENCY.

§ 69.

"It is a well-known fact that the vessels of the South American provinces were admitted into the ports of the United States under their own or any other flags, from the commencement of the Revolution, and it is equally true that throughout the various civil contests that have taken place at different periods among the states that sprung from that Revolution, the vessels of each of the contending parties have been alike permitted to enter the ports of this country. It has never been held necessary, as a preliminary to the extension of the rights of hospitality to either, that the chances of the war should be balanced and the probability of eventual success determined. For this purpose it has been deemed sufficient that the party had declared its independence and at the time was actually maintaining it. Such having been the course hitherto pursued by this Government, however important it might be to consider the probability of success, if a question should arise as to the recognition of the independence of Texas, it is not to be expected that it should be made a prerequisite to the mere exercise of hospitality implied by the admission of the vessels of that country into our ports. The declaration of neutrality by the President in regard to the existing contest between Mexico and Texas was not intended to be confined to the limits of that province or of the theater of war,' within which it was hardly to be presumed that any collision would occur or any question on the subject arise, but it was designed to extend everywhere and to include as well the United States and their ports as the territories of the conflicting parties. The exclusion of the vessels of Texas, while those of Mexico are admitted, is not deemed compatible with the strict neutrality which it is the desire and the determination of this Government to observe in respect to the present contest between those countries; nor is it thought necessary to scrutinize the character or authority of the flag under which they may sail, or the validity of the commission under which they may be commanded, when the rights of this

country and its citizens are respected and observed. In this frank expression of the views and policy of the United States in regard to a matter of so much interest as the war now waging between Mexico and its revolted province, it is hoped that new evidence will be perceived, not only of the consistency and impartiality of this Government in its relations with foreign countries, but of the sincere desire which is entertained, by such an exposition of its course, to cherish and perpetuate that friendly feeling, which will see in the scrupulous regard that is paid to the rights of other, and even of rival, parties, one of the surest guarantees that its own will continue to be respected."

Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gorostiza, Sept. 20, 1836. MSS. Notes, Mex. If citizens of the United States, enlisted in the service of an insur gent power whom the United States acknowledges as belligerent, but which is not so acknowledged by the parent state, should be treated when captured by the parent state otherwise than as prisoners of war, and their release, when demanded by the United States, should be refused, "consequences of the most serious character would certainly ensue."

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, Apr. 5, 1842. MSS. Inst., Mex.
See further infra, § 381.

For Mr. Webster's Hülsemann note of Dec. 21, 1850, as to Hungarian interven-
tion, see supra, § 47.

"I am not aware that in this country any solemn proceeding, either legislative or executive, has been adopted for the purpose of declaring the status of an insurrectionary movement abroad, and whether it is entitled to the attributes of civil war. Unless, indeed, in the formal recognition of a portion of an Empire seeking to establish its independ ence, which, in fact, does not so much admit its existence as it announces its result, at least so far as regards the nation thus proclaiming its decision. But that is the case of the admission of a new member into the family of nations."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Osma, May 22, 1858. MSS. Notes, Peru. "Mr. Osma insists, however, that a civil war in one country cannot be known to the people of another but through their own Government; that the existence or non-existence of civil war is a question not of fact but of law, which no private person has a right to decide for himself; that foreigners must regard the former state of things as still existing, unless their respective Governments have recognized the change. But I am very clearly of the opinion that an American citizen who goes to southern Peru may safely act upon the evidence of his own senses. If he sees that the former Government has been expelled or overturned by a civil revolution, and a new one set up and maintained in its place, he cannot be molested or even blamed for regulating his behavior by the laws thus established. Nay, he has no choice; the Government de facto will compel his obedience. It will not give him leave to ignore

the matter of fact while he waits for the solution of a legal problem at home. Besides, if he resists the authority of the party in possession on the ground that another has the right of possession, he departs from his neutrality, and so violates the duty he owes to both the belligerents, as well as to the laws of his own country."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, Nov. 26, 1858. MSS. Inst., Peru.

In the Br. and For. St. Pap. for 1859-'60, 1126, vol. 50, will be found the correspondence of the United States with Peru, relative to the recognition by the United States of the existence of civil war between Vivanco and Castillo. See also same work for 1860-'61, vol. 51.

In an article entitled "A famous diplomatic dispatch," in the North American Review for April, 1886, Mr. Rice gives an account of the instruction of May 21, 1861, sent by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, United States minister at London, in relation to the recognition by Great Britain of the belligerency of the Southern Confederacy. Mr. Lincoln's interlineations and corrections in Mr. Seward's draft, a fac-similie of which accompanies the article, show with what care he avoided all unneces sary disclosures of policy, and all remarks which might give unneces sary offense or provoke hostility.

As to protests against recognition by Great Britain and France of belligerency of Confederate States, see Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, May 30, 1861. MSS. Inst., France. See also same to same, June 17, July 6, Oct. 30, 1861; Apr. 15, 1862; Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, Aug. 10, 1865. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit.

The recognition by Great Britain of Southern belligerency is discussed by Goldwin Smith in 13 Macmillan's Mag., 169.

"Mr. Adams, minister in London, in adverting, June 14, 1861, to the concession of belligerent rights to the Confederates, remarks: 'At any rate there was one compensation, the act had released the Government of the United States from responsibility for any misdeeds of the rebels towards Great Britain. If any of their people should capture or maltreat a British vessel on the ocean, the reclamation must be made only on those who had authorized the wrong. The United States would not be liable.' Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, &c., p. 89."

Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 44. See on this point infra rulings in this section, and also §§ 223 ff.

"Your dispatch of April 9, No. 297, has been submitted to the Presi dent.

"You have rightly interpreted to Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys our views concerning the issue of letters of marque. The unrestrained issue of piratical vessels from Europe to destroy our commerce, break our blockade of insurrectionary ports, and invade our loyal coast would practically be an European war against the United States none the less real or dangerous for wanting the sanction of a formal declaration. Congress has committed to the President, as a weapon of national defense, the authority to issue letters of marque. We know that it is a weapon that cannot be handled without great danger of annoyance to the neutrals and friendly commercial powers. But even that hazard must be incurred rather than quietly submit to the apprehended greater evil.

There are now, as you must have observed, indications that that appre hended greater evil may be averted through the exercise of a restraining power over the enemies of the United States in Great Britain. Hopeful of such a result, we forbear from the issue of letters of marque, and are content to have the weapon ready for use if it shall become abso lutely necessary. (See infra, § 385.)

"It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge that, beyond what we deem the original error of France in recognizing, unnecessarily, as we think, the insurgents as a belligerent, we have every reason to appreciate the just and impartial observance of neutrality which has been practiced in the ports and harbors of France by the Government of the Emperor. In any case it will be hereafter, as it has been hitherto, a pleasng duty to conduct all our belligerent proceedings so as to inflict no wrong or injury upon the Government or the people of the French Empire.

"You have also done the country a good service in explaining, in your conversations with Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys, the manner in which we have heretofore maintained our neutrality in foreign wars, by enforc ing our enlistment laws, which are in all respects the same as those of Great Britain.

"The President has received with much interest Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys's exposition of the policy of the French Government in regard to the insurrection in Poland. The Emperor of Russia seems to us to have adopted a policy of beneficent reform in domestic administration. His known sagacity and his good dispositions encourage a hope that Poland will not be denied a just share of the imperial consideration if, as seems now to be generally expected in Europe, the revolution attempted by her heroic people shall be suppressed.

"I do not care to speak often upon the war of France against Mexico. The President confidingly believes that the Emperor has no purpose of assuming, in the event of success, the Government of that Republic. Difficult as the exercise of self-government there has proved to be, it is, nevertheless, quite certain that the attempt to maintain foreign authority there would encounter insurmountable embarrassment. The country possesses immense, practically inexhaustible, resources. They invite foreign labor and capital from all foreign countries to become naturalized and incorporated with the resources of the country and of the continent, while all attempts to acquire them by force must meet with the most annoying and injurious hindrance and resistance. This is equally true of Mexico and of every portion of the American continent. It is more than a hundred years since any foreign state has successfully planted a new colony in America, or even strengthened its hold upon any one previously existing here. Through all the social disturb

ances which attend a change from the colonial state to independence, and the substitution of the democratic for the monarchical system of government, it still seems to us that the Spanish-American states are steadily advancing towards the establishment of permanent institutions of self-government. It is the interest of the United States to favor this progress, and to commend it to the patronage of other nations. It is equally the interest of all other nations, if, as we confidently believe, this progress offers to mankind the speediest and surest means of rendering available to them the natural treasures of America."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, Apr. 24, 1863. MSS. Inst., France.
Dip, Corr., 1863.

"This Government insists now in these cases, as it insisted in the beginning of our domestic strife, that the decisions of the Emperor's Government, like those of other maritime powers, by which the insurgents of this country, without a port or a ship or a court of admiralty, are recognized by France as a naval belligerent, are in derogation of the law of nations and injurious to the dignity and sovereignty of the United States, that they have never approved or acquiesced in those decrees, and that they regard these late proceedings in relation to the Florida and Georgia, like those of a similar character which have occurred in previous cases, as just subjects of complaint. The same views are entertained so far as they apply to the new maritime regulations. We claim that we are entitled to have our national vessels received in French ports with the same courtesy that we ourselves extend to French ships of war, and that all real or pretended insurgent vessels ought to be altogether excluded from French ports. We expect the time to come, and we believe it is not distant, when this claim will be acknowledged by France to be both reasonable and just."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, Mar. 21, 1864. MSS. Inst., France.
See further, as to recognition of Confederate belligerency, Senate Ex. Doc. No.
11, 41st Cong., 1st sess.; and see also 2 Phill. Int. Law (3d ed.), 25.
As sustaining the recognition of the Confederate Government as belligerent,
see speech of Sir George Corne wall Lewis, Oct. 17, 1862, cited in 1 Lawrence
.com. sur droit int., 200.

"The President does not deny, on the contrary he maintains, that every sovereign power decides for itself, on its responsibility, the question whether or not it will, at a given time, accord the status of belligerency to the insurgent subjects of another power, as also the larger question of the independence of such subjects and their accession to the family of sovereign states.

"But the rightfulness of such an act depends on the occasion and the circumstances, and it is an act, like the sovereign act of war, which the morality of the public law and practice requires should be deliberate, seasonable, and just, in reference to surrounding facts; national belligerency, indeed, like national independence, being but an existing

S. Mis. 162-YOL, I—33

513

« PreviousContinue »