national § 11. Inter- The international effects produced by a change in the effects of a person of the sovereign or in the form of government of any State, may be considered :— change in the person of the sovereign or in the internal constitution of the State. I. As to its treaties of alliance and commerce. III. Its public domain and private rights of property. disputes relating to the crowns of Portugal and Spain, out of the revolutionary movements in those kingdoms, out of the separation of the American possessions of both from the European governments, and out of the numerous and constantly occurring struggles for dominion in Spanish America, so wisely consistent with our just principles has been the action of our government, that we have, under the most critical circumstances, avoided all censure, and encountered no other evil than that produced by a transient estrangement of good will in those against whom we have been, by force of evidence, compelled to decide." More than ordinary caution was recommended in the case of Texas, as well on account of a large portion of the civilized inhabitants being emigrants from the United States, as from the people of that country having openly resolved, on the acknowledgment of their independence, to seek for admission into the Union as one of the Federal States. Congressional Globe, 1836 – 7, p. 44. The course of the United States in the recognition of Texas, and which is placed on the same footing with that of Mexico herself, is explained and sustained in the instructions of Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Thompson, Minister to Mexico, April 15, 1842. Webster's Works, vol. vi. p. 434. And Mr. Everett says, of its subsequent annexation, "as a question of public law, there never was an extension of territory more naturally or justifiably made." Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, to the Comte de Sartiges, Dec. 1, 1852. Cong. Doc. 32 Cong. 2 Sess., Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 13, p. 20. In 1848, a provisional government was formed in Hungary, which was followed, in 1849, by an attempt to dissolve the connection between that kingdom and the empire of Austria, (with which, though having distinct fundamental laws and other political institutions, it was united under one sceptre,) and to make the Hungarian nation an independent European State. This effort would, probably, have been successful, if the parties immediately concerned had been left to themselves. The intervention of Russia, however, at the request of Austria, but which was placed by the Czar on the ground that his own safety was endangered by what was doing and preparing in Hungary, rendered useless all efforts on the part of the revolutionary government. The United States did not interfere in this contest, but they exposed themselves to the complaint of Austria by the measures which they took to be the first to welcome Hungary into the family of nations, by investing an agent in Europe, (Mr. A. Dudley Mann, now, in 1854, Assistant Secretary of State,) with power to declare their willingness to recognize the new State, in the event of its ability to sustain itself. This subject having not only been referred to in the annual message of President Taylor, in December, 1849, but the instructions of Mr. Mann having been communicated to IV. As to wrongs or injuries done to the government or citizens of another State. the Senate, by whom they were ordered to be printed, in March, 1850, the Austrian Chargé d'Affaires, (Mr. Hülsemann,) addressed, (September 30, 1850,) in conformity to the instructions of his government, a note to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Webster,) protesting as well against certain expressions in the instructions of the agent as against the steps taken by the United States to ascertain the progress and probable result of the revolutionary movements in Hungary. He furthermore remarked, that "those who did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of sending Mr. Dudley Mann on such an errand, should, independent of considerations of propriety, have borne in mind that they were exposing their emissary to be treated as a spy;" and he reminded the Secretary, that "even if the government of the United States were to think it proper to take an indirect part in the political movements of Europe, American policy would be exposed to acts of retaliation and to certain inconveniences, which could not fail to affect the commerce and industry of the two hemispheres." Mr. Webster, in his answer, (December 21, 1850,) states that the President's message to the Senate, being a communication from one department of the government to another, was in the nature of a domestic communication, and that the Austrian Cabinet, by the instructions given to Mr. Hülsemann, was itself interfering with the domestic concerns of a foreign State. "This department,” he says, "has, on former occasions, informed the ministers of foreign powers that a communication from the President to either House of Congress is regarded as a domestic communication, of which, ordinarily, no foreign State has cognizance." The note then proceeds to show the consistency of the course pursued by President Taylor with the neutral policy which has invariably guided the government of the United States in its foreign relations, as well as with the established and well settled principles of international intercourse and the doctrines of public law. Mr. Webster admits that the American government and people take a lively interest in the events of this remarkable age, in whatever part of the world they may be exhibited, and that they cannot suppress the thoughts or hopes which arise in men's minds in other countries from contemplating the successful example of free government. The Emperor Joseph II. is alluded to as among the first to discern this necessary consequence of the American Revolution on the sentiments and opinions of the people of Europe. The sovereigns, forming the European alliance, interfere with the political movements of foreign States and denounce the popular idea of the age, in terms so comprehensive as of necessity to include the United States. Their declaration, after the return of the Bourbons, that all popular or constitutional rights are holden no otherwise than as grants or indulgences from crowned heads; the Laybach circular, in 1821, as well as the address of Francis I. to the Hungarian Diet, in 1820, amount to nothing less than a denial of the lawfulness of the origin of the government of the United States; but that government heard these denunciations of its fundamental principles without remonstrance or the disturbance of its equanimity. The propitious influence of free institutions are Treaties. I. Treaties are divided by the text writers into personal and real. The former relate exclusively to the persons of the con exemplified in the unparalleled prosperity of the United States; but they claim no right to take part in the struggles of foreign powers; and if they wish success to countries contending for popular constitutions and national independence, it is only because they regard such constitutions and such national independence as real blessings. They claim no right, however, to take part in the struggles of foreign powers in order to promote these ends. The attention of the United States was first directed to the affairs of Hungary by the correspondence of their Chargé d'Affaires at Vienna, who being applied to by the chief of the Hungarian government for his good offices, with a view to a suspension of hostilities, was invited by the Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs to confer with the functionary specially charged with the proceedings in relation to Hungary; and by him he was "thanked for his efforts towards reconciling the existing difficulties." Questions of prudence arise in reference to new States brought by successful revolutions into the family of nations, but it is not required of neutral powers to await the recognition of the parent States. Within the last thirty years eight or ten new States have established independent governments, within the colonial dominions of Spain, and the same thing has been done by Belgium and Greece. All these governments were recognized by some of the leading powers of Europe, as well as by the United States, before they were acknowledged by the States from which they had separated themselves. If the United States had formally acknowledged the independence of Hungary, though no benefit would have resulted from it to either party, it would not have been an act against the law of nations, provided they took no part in her contest with Austria. But the United States did no such thing. Mr. Webster repudiates the idea of Mr. Mann being a spy, whom he defines to be "a person sent by one belligerent to gain secret information of the forces and defences of the other, to be used for hostile purposes." He considers the imputation as distinctly offensive to the American government; and he says, that had the government of Austria subjected Mr. Mann to the treatment of a spy, it would have placed itself out of the pale of civilized nations; and that if it had carried, or attempted to carry into effect any such lawless purpose, the spirit of the people of this country would have demanded immediate hostilities to be waged by the utmost exertion of the the power of the Republic. He reasserts that the steps taken by President Taylor, now protested against by the Austrian government, were warranted by the law of nations, and were agreeable to the usages of civilized States. He defends the language of the instructions, as being a document addressed to its agent, and in reference to which the government of the United States cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the government of His Imperial Majesty. "In respect to the honorary epithet bestowed in Mr. Mann's instructions on the late chief of the revolutionary government of Hungary, Mr. Hülsemann will bear in mind that the government of the United States cannot justly be expected in a confidential communication to its own agent, to withhold from an individual an epithet of distinction, of which a great part of the world thinks him worthy, merely on the tracting parties, such as family alliances and treaties guaranteeing the throne to a particular sovereign and his family. They ground that his own government regards him as a rebel. At an early stage of the American Revolution, while Washington was considered by the English government as a rebel chief, he was regarded on the continent of Europe as an illustrious hero. But Mr. Webster said that he would take the liberty of bringing the Cabinet of Vienna into the presence of its own predecessors, and of citing for its consideration the conduct of the Imperial Government itself. In the year 1777, the war of the American Revolution was raging all over these United States. England was prosecuting that war with a most resolute determination, and by the exertion of all her military means to the fullest extent. Germany was, at that time, at peace with England, and yet an agent of that Congress, which was looked upon by England in no other light than that of a body in open rebellion, was not only received with great respect by the Ambassador of the Empress Queen, at Paris, and by the Minister of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (who afterwards mounted the imperial throne,) but resided in Vienna for a considerable time; not, indeed, officially acknowledged, but treated with courtesy and respect; and the Emperor suffered himself to be persuaded by that agent to exert himself to prevent the German powers from furnishing troops to England to enable her to suppress the rebellion in America. Neither Mr. Hülsemann nor the Cabinet at Vienna, it is presumed, will undertake to say that any thing said or done by this government in regard to the recent war between Austria and Hungary is not borne out, and much more than borne out by this example of the Imperial Court. It is believed that the Emperor Joseph II. habitually spoke in terms of respect and admiration of the character of Washington, as he is known to have done of that of Franklin: and he deemed it no infraction of neutrality to inform himself of the progress of the revolutionury struggle in America, or to express his deep sense of the merits and the talents of those illustrious men who were then leading their country to independence and renown. In 1781, the courts of Russia and Austria proposed a diplomatic Congress of the belligerent powers, to which the commissioner of the United States should be admitted. As to the hypothetical retaliation, which Mr. Hülsemann threatened, the United States are quite willing to take their chances and abide their destiny. While performing with strict fidelity,all their neutral duties, nothing will deter either the government or the people of the United States from exercising, at their own discretion, the rights belonging to them as an independent nation, and of forming and expressing their own opinions, freely and at all times, upon the great political events, which may transpire among the civilized nations of the earth. The note concluded by expressing the President's satisfaction that, in the new Constitution of the Austrian Empire, many of the great principles of civil liberty, on which the American institutions stand, are recognized and applied. Mr. Hülsemann replied, March 11, 1851, stating that the arguments in Mr. Webster's note had not had the effect of changing the views of the Imperial Government as to Mr. Mann's mission, or the tenor or terms of his instructions, but he declined all ulterior discussion of that annoying incident as leading to no expire, of course, on the death of the king or the extinction of his family. The latter relate solely to the subject-matters of the convention, independently of the persons of the contracting parties. They continue to bind the State, whatever intervening changes may take place in its internal constitution, or in the persons of its rulers. The State continues the same, notwithstanding such change, and consequently the treaty relating to national objects remains in force so long as the nation exists as an independent State. The only exception to this general rule, as to real treaties, is where the convention relates to the form of government itself, and is intended to prevent any such change in the internal constitution of the State.1 The correctness of this distinction between personal and real treaties, laid down by Vattel, has been questioned by more modern public jurists as not being logically deduced from acknowledged principles. Still it must be admitted that certain changes in the internal constitution of one of the contracting States, or in the person of its sovereign, may have the practical result, and concluded, in these words: "President Fillmore declared in his message of the 2d of December last, that he was determined to act towards other nations as the United States desired that other nations should act towards them; and that he had adopted as a rule for his policy, good will towards foreign powers, and the abstaining from interference in their internal affairs. Austria has not demanded, and will never demand, any thing but the putting into practice of those principles; and the Imperial Government is sincerely disposed to remain in friendly relations with the government of the United States, so long as the United States shall not deviate from these principles." Mr. Webster, in acknowledging, on 15th March, 1851, the receipt of Mr. Hülsemann's note, also expressed the President's regret that his former note was not satisfactory to the Imperial Government as well as his gratification to learn that that government desired the continuance of the friendly relations between the two governments, and that the sentiments, respecting the international relations between the United States and foreign powers, contained in his last annual message, and in accordance with which he intended to act, met the approbation of Mr. Hülsemann's government. He concluded by stating that the principles and policy declared, in answer to the note of 30th September, to be maintained by the United States, as appropriate to their condition, and as being fixed and fastened upon them by their character, their history, and their position among the nations of the world, will not be abandoned or departed from until some extraordinary change shall take place in the general current of human affairs. Webster's Works, vol vi. pp. 488-506.] 1 Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. ii. ch. 12, §§ 183 - 197. |