long continuing correspondence, which resulted, in 1851, in an agreement to refer the claims growing out of it to "the arbitrament of a sovereign, potentate, or chief of some nation in amity with both the high contracting parties." The President of the French Republic (afterwards Napoleon III) was selected as the arbiter. This decision was adverse to the United States.3

2

1 H. E. Doc. 53, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. Ante, 705.

3S. E. Doc. 24, 21 Sess. 32d Cong. The following is a translation of the material parts of the decision:

"Considering that it is clear, in fact, that the United States were at war with Her Britannic Majesty, and Her Most Faithful Majesty preserving her neutrality, the American brig The General Armstrong, commanded by Captain Reid, legally provided with letters of marque, and armed for privateering purposes, having sailed from the port of New York, did, on the 26th of September, 1814, cast anchor in the port of Fayal, one of the Azores Islands, constituting part of Her Most Faithful Majesty's dominions;

"That it is equally clear that, on the evening of the same day, an English squadron, commanded by Commodore Lloyd, entered the same port;

"That it is no less certain that, during the following night, regardless of the rights of sovereignty and neutrality of Her Most Faithful Majesty, a bloody encounter took place between the Americans and the English; and that on the following day, the 27th of September, one of the vessels belonging to the English squadron came to range herself near the American privateer for the purpose of cannonading her; that this demonstration, accompanied by the act, determined Captain Reid, followed by his crew, to abandon his vessel, and to destroy her;

"Considering that if it be clear that, on the night of the 26th of September, some English long-boats, commanded by Lieutenant Robert Fausset, of the British navy, approached the American brig The General Armstrong, it is not certain that the men who manned the boats aforesaid were provided with arms and ammunition;

"That it is evident, in fact, from the documents which have been exhibited, that the aforesaid long-boats, having approached the American brig, the crew of the latter, after having hailed them and summoned them to be off, immediately fired upon them, and that some men were killed on board the English boats, and others wounded-some of whom mortally-without any attempt having been made on the part of the crew of the boats to repel at once force by force;

"Considering that the report of the governor of Fayal proves that the American captain did not apply to the Portuguese government for protection until blood had already been shed, and, when the fire had ceased, the brig General Armstrong came to anchor under the castle at a distance of a stone's throw; that the said governor states that it was only then that he was informed of what was passing in the port; that he did, on several occasions, interpose with Commodore Lloyd, with a view of obtaining a cessation of hostilities, and to complain of the violation of a neutral territory;

"That he effectively prevented some American sailors, who were on land, from embarking on board the American brig for the purpose of prolonging a conflict which was contrary to the law of nations;

"That the weakness of the garrison of the island, and the constant dismantling of the forts, by the removal of the guns which guarded them, rendered all armed intervention on his part impossible;

"Considering, in this state of things, that Captain Reid, not having applied from the beginning for the intervention of the neutral sovereign, and having had recourse to arms in order to repel an unjust aggression of which he pretended to be the object, has thus failed to respect the neutrality of the territory of the foreign sovereign, and

It has been held by the Supreme Court that the Treaty of August 26, 1840, did not restrict either government from imposing discriminating duties on merchandise not the growth or production of the nation of the vessel carrying the same into the port of the other nation.1

PRUSSIA.

Overtures for a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation were made to John Adams by M. de Thulemeier, Prussian Envoy to the Hague, on the 18th of February, 1784.2 Adams replied that he "could no nothing but in concurrence with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jay, who were at Paris.” but that he thought he could answer for the good disposition of those gentlemen, as well as of his own." Frauklin and Jay concurred in desiring to negotiate such an instrument, and Adams proposed to Thulemeier that the then recently negotiated Treaty with Sweden should be taken as the model of the proposed instrument. Thulemeier adopted the suggestion, and in the following April sent Adams a projét based upon it, which Adams transmitted to the President of Congress.*

On the 7th of the following June, Adams transmitted to the President of Congress an account of the negotiations, with his observations upon the Prussian projét. On the 3d of that month, however, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson had been invested by Congress with a general power to conclude Treaties of Amity and Commerce with various Powers in Europe, among others with Prussia; and they notified Thulemeier that they were ready "to consider and complete the plan of a Treaty" which he had already transmitted."

Thulemeier communicated this to his Government, and received a "full power to conclude a Treaty of Commerce and Friendship between Prussia and the United States." The negotiations were conducted with great rapidity, under the circumstances. Franklin left Passy on the 12th of July, 1785, for America.10 The French text of the Treaty at the time of his signature had not reached Paris, and he signed only the English text." The French draught reached Paris several days later, and was copied, by Jefferson's directions, into the instruments which released that sovereign of the obligation in which he was, to afford him protection by any other means than that of a pacific intervention;

"From which it follows that the government of Her Most Faithful Majesty cannot be held responsible for the results of the collision which took place in contempt of her rights of sovereignty, in violation of the neutrality of her territory, and without the local officers or lieutenants having been required in proper time, and enabled to grant aid and protection to those having a right to the same;

"Therefore we have decided, and we declare, that the claim presented by the Government of the United States against Her Most Faithful Majesty has no foundation, and that no indemnity is due by Portugal in consequence of the loss of the American brig The General Armstrong, armed for privateering purposes."

6

7

4

Oldfield vs. Marnott, 10 How., 146. 21 D. C., 1783-9, 435. 3 Ib. Ib., 442, et seq. 5 Ib., 458, et seq. Ib., 501. Ib., 505. 8 Ib., 519. 9 Ib., 554-561, 578-582, and 593. 11 1 Jefferson's Works, 359.

10 10 Franklin's Works, 213.

Franklin had signed. Then Jefferson signed the documents, and Short took them to Adams, in London, for his signature. Short then went to the Hague to secure Thulemeier's signature to the Treaty, and its exchange.2

On the 11th of July, 1799, when this was about to expire by its own limitation, a new Treaty was concluded by John Quincy Adams, at Berlin, which his father, the President, communicated to Congress on the 22d of November, 1800.3 This also expired in ten years from the exchange of ratifications, in the midst of the wars of Napoleon.

In 1828 a new Treaty of Amity and Commerce with Prussia was concluded, which is still in force. The fourteenth article makes provision for the disposition and the succession of both personal and real estate in each country by citizens of the other. Attorney-General Cushing said of this, there is a stipulation of Treaty, constitutional in substance and form; which, as such, is the supreme law of the land; and which abrogates any incompatible law of either of the States. the circumstances suggested by the Baron von Gerolt, it is an act of mere duty and of simple good faith on our part to assure him that such is the law."4

*

In

This Treaty conferred upon consuls jurisdiction over disputes between masters and seamen. President Polk in his annual message, December 2, 1845, said, “The Prussian Consul at New Bedford, in June, 1844, applied to Mr. Justice Story to carry into effect a decision made by him between the captain and crew of the Prussian ship Borussia, but the request was refused on the ground that without previous legislation by Congress the judiciary did not possess the power to give effect to this article of the Treaty. * I have deemed it proper, therefore, to lay the subject before Congress, and to recommend such legislation as may be necessary to give effect to these Treaty obligations." No such act was passed until June 11, 1868.6

It was held by Attorney-General Evarts that the provisions of this Treaty respecting the arrest and imprisonment of deserters applies to public vessels sailing under the flag of the North German Union, and deserters from such vessels."

On the outbreak of the Franco-German war, the German Minister at Washington informed Mr. Fish that private property on the high seas was to be exempted from seizure by German vessels without regard to reciprocity. Mr. Fish replied, "The Government of the United States receives with great pleasure the renewed adherence of a great and enlightened German Government to the principle temporarily established by the Treaty of 1785, and since then advocated by this Government whenever opportunity has offered."9

Before the formation of the North German Union,10 questions were

1 Ib., 365–366. 21 D. C., 1783-'89, 597. $1 F. R. F., 54. 48 Op. At.-Gen., 417. 5 H. E. Doc. 2, 1st Sess. 29th Cong., 15. 13 St. at L., 121. 712 Op. At.-Gen., 463. F. R., 1870, 217.

9 Ib. 10 S. E. Doc. 9, 2d Sess. 40th Cong.

arising with Prussia, respecting the compulsory enlistment in the Prussian army of persons who had become naturalized as citizens of the United States. These questions were intended to be set at rest by the Treaty of Naturalization with the North German Union. Some doubts still remaining as to the proper construction of that Treaty, Prince Bismarck said, in the Diet, "The gentleman who has last spoken fears that a person who has lived five years in America, and been naturalized there, may yet, on his return here, be held to military duty. This apprehension I can designate as perfectly and absolutely unfounded. The literal observation of the Treaty includes in itself that those whom we are bound to acknowledge as American citizens cannot be held to military duty in North Germany. That is the main purpose of the Treaty. Whosoever emigrates bona fide with the purpose of residing permanently in America shall meet with no obstacle on our part to his becoming an American citizen, and his bona fides will be assumed when he shall have passed five years in that country, and, renouncing his North German nationality, shall have become an American citizen."3

RUSSIA.

The unbroken good relations between Russia and the United States happily furnish little material for "Notes."

The correspondence which was transmitted to the Senate with the Convention of 1824 may be found in volume 5 of the Folio Edition of the Foreign Relations, pages 432 to 471.

Russia, Great Britain, and the United States were each claimants of an indefinite coast line on the Pacific south of latitude 562. The claims of Russia, which extended to the high seas, are thus stated in John Quincy Adams's instructions to Henry Middleton: "The pretensions of the Imperial Government extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction. from the forty-fifth degree of north latitude on the Asiatic Coast, to the latitude of fifty one north on the Western Coast of the American Continent, and they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all other nations to the extent of one hundred miles from the whole of that coast. The United States can admit no part of these claims.* * They can in no wise admit the right of Russia to exclusive territorial possession on any part of the Continent of North America south of the 60th degree of North latitude. They will maintain the right of their citizens, enjoyed without interruption since the establishment of their independence, of free trade with the original natives of the Northwest Coast throughout its whole extent."5

The negotiations under these instructions were delayed under the

1 S. E. Doc. 38, 1st Sess. 36th Cong.; President's message May 2, 1860. Ante, 635. 3 S. E. Doc. 51, 2d Sess. 40th Cong. 45 F. R. F., 436. 5 Ib., 446.

supposition that Great Britain would take part in them. When Middleton had reason to suppose that separate negotiations were to take place between Great Britain and Russia, he made known to both sides the territorial rights of the United States.1 Soon after that he began his negotiations with Nesselrode. At the first interview he found him, "as well disposed to treat with us as ever." In less than two months from the beginning of the negotiations the Convention was signed.

The fourth article of this Treaty was to remain in force for ten years. At the expiration of that time the Russian Minister at Washington gave notice to the Secretary of State that American sea-captains were infringing upon what Russia regarded as her rights, and suggested that "the American public should be informed of the actual state of the relations on this subject," adding that he had been "ordered to invite the Government of the United States to take the most suitable measures with regard to it."3

Mr. Forsyth instructed negotiations to be opened at St. Petersburg for the purpose of an indefinite extension of the Treaty; but they proved to be fruitless. Nesselrode closed them by saying that it was "impossible for the Imperial Government to accede to the proposition. The renewal of the fourth article could hardly contribute to extend, in a reciprocally useful manner, the commercial relations between Russia and the United States of America; or, by consequence, answer the constant solicitude of the Imperial Government to cement more and more, and in a mutual interest, the friendly intelligence which it is always happy to cultivate with the Government of the Union."4

These questions were set at rest by the cession of Alaska. The Treaty was communicated to Congress on the 6th of July, 1867, with a request for necessary legislation. The steps taken in the actual transfer of the ceded territory are set forth in the President's Message of January 27, 1868. A copy of the Treaty of cession, and of the correspondence relating to it, and other correspondence, with "information in relation to Russian America," including Mr. Sumner's speech, was communicated to the House on the 17th of February, 1868.7

The subject of the appropriation to carry out this Treaty was discussed at length in the House. The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported in favor of it. The act was at last passed on the 27th of July.10

SIAM.

The first Treaty with Siam was concluded by Edmund Roberts, already alluded to, who, on the 27th of January, 1832, was made the Agent

6

1 Ib., 458. 2 Ib. 3 S. E. Doc. 1, 3d Sess. 25th Cong., 25-26. 4 + Ib., 70. 5 S. E. Doc. 17, 1st Sess. 40th Cong. H. E. Doc. 125, 2d Sess. 40th Cong. 7 H. E. Doc. 177, 2d Sess. 40th Cong.; see also part 2 same doc. 8 Globe, 2d Sess. 40th Cong. 9 H. R. 37, 2d Sess. 40th Cong. 10 15 Stat. L., 198,