and from its colonial possessions, excites more anxious and jealous feelings in different quarters than England does, and there is no country that would find it more difficult to obtain really disinterested and impartial arbitrators." Creasy's Int. Law, 698. For notice of the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany in reference to the San The award of the President of the United States as arbiter in the contention be- The award of the Emperor of Austria in the controversy between Great Britain As to Genava award, see infra, § 402a. "In the arbitrations under Jay's treaty, it seemed to be supposed that a party had the right to withdraw from the commission under directions from the political department of the Government. Great Britain claimed the same right in the notices to the arbitrators in the late arbitration at Geneva, which were given on the 15th of April, 1872. It may be questioned whether this is in accordance with the idea of an independent and impartial judicial tribunal. "A mixed commission is competent to decide upon the extent of its jurisdiction. "The proceedings of the mixed commission, held in London under the provisions of the convention of 1853 with Great Britain, have been made public. In several cases they appear to have considered and passed upon the question of their own jurisdiction. In a few cases they were required to construe the treaties between the two countries. In the case of the John, captured by Great Britain after the time when, by the terms of the 2d article of the Treaty of Ghent, hostilities should have ceased, and wrecked by the captor, it was held that the owners were entitled to compensation, as restitution could not be made. In the case of the Washington, it was held that American fishermen were not excluded by the convention of 1818 from fishing in the open waters of the Bay of Fundy." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Notes, &c. Supra, §§ 150 ƒƒ, 221. III. WITHDRAWAL OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. § 317. The practice as to the dismissal or withdrawal of ministers is considered supra, § 81, 83, 84, 85. Notices of the suspension of diplomatic intercourse with France in 1796 are given supra, §§ 83 ff., 148 ff., and with Great Britain in 1809 supra, §§ 84, 107, 150b. "A hope was for a short time entertained that a treaty of peace, actually signed between the Governments of Buenos Ayres and Brazil, would supersede all further occasions for those collisions between belligerent pretensions and neutral rights which are so commonly the result of maritime war, and which have unfortunately disturbed the harmony of the relations between the United States and the Brazilian Govern · ment. At their last session, Congress were informed that some of the naval officers of that Empire had advanced and practiced upon principles in relation to blockade and to neutral navigation which we could not sanction, and which our commanders found it necessary to resist. It appears that they have not been sustained by the Government of Brazil itself. Some of the vessels captured under the assumed authority of these erroneous principles have been restored, and we trust that our just expectations will be realized, that adequate indemnity will be made to all the citizens of the United States who have suffered by the unwarranted captures which the Brazilian tribunals themselves have pronounced unlawful. "In the diplomatic discussion at Rio de Janeiro of these wrongs sustained by citizens of the United States, and of others which seemed as if emanating immediately from that Government itself, the chargé d'affaires of the United States, under an impression that his representations in behalf of the rights and interests of his countrymen were disregarded and useless, deemed it his duty, without waiting for instructions to terminate his official functions, to demand his passports and return to the United States. This movement, dictated by an honest zeal for the honor and interest of his country, motives which operated exclusively upon the mind of the officer who resorted to it, has not been disapproved by me. The Brazilian Government, however, complained of it as a measure for which no adequate intentional cause had been given by them; and, upon an explicit assurance, through their chargé d'affaires residing here, that a successor to the late representative of the United States near that Government, the appointment of whom they desired, should be received and treated with the respect due to his character, and that indemnity should be promptly made for all injuries inflicted on citizens of the United States, or their property, contrary to the laws of nations, a temporary commission as chargé d'affaires to that country has been issued, which, it is hoped, will entirely restore the ordinary diplomatic intercourse between the two Governments and the friendly relations between their respective nations." President J. Q. Adams, Third Annual Message, 1827. A refusal to accept an ultimatum as to a claim for damages due a citizen of the United States, may be followed by a withdrawal of our diplomatic representative at the country by which the demand is refused. Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dana, Oct. 31, 1860. MSS. Dom. Let. The imposition by Mexico of a tax unduly discriminating against citizens of the United States, if not a breach of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, is an unfriendly act to be noticed by the United States. Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Forsyth, June 23, 1858. MSS. Inst., Mex. Same to same, July 15, 1858; ibid. For this and for other reasons, Mr. Forsyth, minister to Mexico, under instructions, suspended diplomatic relations with that country. Same to same, July 18, 1858; ibid. IV. RETORSION AND REPRISAL. § 318. Remon "The making a reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. strance and refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it is considered an act of war, and never failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were important and ripe for that step, Congress must be called upon to take it; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive." Opinion of Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, May 16, 1793. 7 Jeff. Works, 628. 164. To a formal declaration of war may be preferred "general letters of marque and reprisal, because, on a repeal of their edicts by the belligerent, a revocation of the letters of marque restores peace without the delay, difficulties, and ceremonies of a treaty." President Jefferson to Mr. Lincoln, Nov. 13, 1808. 5 Jeff. Works, 387. "Having been called upon by the governor-general of the Canadas to aid him in carrying into effect measures of retaliation against the inhabitants of the United States for the wanton destruction committed by their army in Upper Canada, it has become imperiously my duty, conformably with the nature of the governor-general's application, to issue to the naval force under my command an order to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the coast as may be found assailable. "I had hoped that this contest would have terminated without my being obliged to resort to severities which are contrary to the usage of civilized warfare, and as it has been with extreme reluctance and concern that I have found myself compelled to adopt this system of devastation, I shall be equally gratified if the conduct of the Executive of the United States will authorize my staying such proceedings by making reparation to the suffering inhabitants of Upper Canada, thereby manifesting that if the destructive measures pursued by their army were ever sanctioned they will no longer be permitted by the Government." Vice-Admiral Cochrane to Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, Aug. 18, 1814. 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 693. See as to Admiral Cochrane's subsequent action, infra, § 348b. As to British burning of Washington, see infra, § 349. "I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 18th of August, stating that, having been called on by the governor-general of the Canadas to aid him in carrying into effect measures of retaliation against the inhabitants of the United States for the wanton desolation com mitted by their army in Upper Canada, it has become your duty, conformably with the nature of the governor-general's application, to issue to the naval force under your command an order to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the coast as may be found assailable. "It is seen, with the greatest surprise, that this system of devastation, which has been practiced by the British forces, so manifestly contrary to the usages of civilized warfare, is placed by you on the ground of retaliation. No sooner were the United States compelled to resort to war against Great Britain than they resolved to wage it in a manner most consonant to the principles of humanity and to those friendly relations which it was desirable to preserve between the two nations after the restoration of peace. They perceived, however, with the deepest regret that a spirit alike just and humane was neither cherished nor acted on by your Government. Such an assertion would not be hazarded if it was not supported by facts, the proof of which has, perhaps, already carried the same conviction to other nations that it has to the people of these States. Without dwelling on the deplorable cruelties committed by the savages in the British ranks and in British pay at the river Raisin, which to this day have never been disavowed or atoned for, I refer, as more immediately connected with the subject of your letter, to the wanton desolation that was committed at Havre de Grace and at Georgetown, early in the spring of 1813. These villages were burnt and ravaged by the naval forces of Great Britain, to the ruin of their unaided inhabitants, who saw with astonishment that they derived no protection to their property from the laws of war. During the same season scenes of invasion and pillage, carried on under the same authority, were witnessed all along the waters of the Chesapeake to an extent inflicting the most serious private distress and under circumstances that justified the suspicion that revenge and cupidity, rather than the manly motives that should dictate the hostility of a high-minded foe, led to their perpetration. The late destruction of the houses of the Government in this city is another act which comes necessarily into view. In the wars of modern Europe no example of the kind, even among nations the most hostile to each other, can be traced. In the course of ten years past the capitals of the principal powers of the continent of Europe have been conquered and occupied alternately by the victorious armies of each other, and no instance of such wanton and unjustifiable destruction has been seen. We must go back to distant and barbarous ages to find a parallel for the acts of which I complain. "Although these acts of desolation invited, if they did not impose on the Government the necessity of retaliation, yet in no instance has it been authorized. "The burning of the village of Newark, in Upper Canada, posterior to the early outrages above enumerated, was not executed on that principle. The village of Newark adjoined Fort George, and its de struction was justified by the officers who ordered it, on the ground that it became necsssary in the military operations there. The act, however, was disavowed by the Government. The burning which took place at Long Point was unauthorized by the Government, and the conduct of the officer subjected to the investigation of a military tribunal. For the burning of Saint David's, committed by the stragglers, the officer who commanded in that quarter was dismissed without a trial for not preventing it. "I am commanded by the President distinctly to state, that it as little comports with any orders which have been issued to the military and naval commanders of the United States as it does with the established and known humanity of the American nation, to pursue a system which it appears you have adopted. This Government owes it to itself, to the principles which it has ever held sacred, to disavow, as justly chargeable to it, any such wanton, cruel, and unjustifiable warfare. "Whatever unauthorized irregularities have ever been committed by any of its troops, it would have been ready, acting on these principles of sacred and eternal obligation, to disavow, and as far as might be practicable, to repair. But in the plan of desolating warfare which your letter so explicitly makes known, and which is attempted to be excused on a plea so utterly groundless, the President perceives a spirit of deep-rooted hostility, which, without the evidence of such facts, he could not have believed existed, or would have been carried to such an extremity. "For the reparation of injuries of whatever nature they may be, not sanctioned by the law of nations, which the military or naval force of either power may have committed against the other, this Government will always be ready to enter into reciprocal arrangements. It is presumed that your Government will neither expect nor propose any which are not reciprocal. "Should your Government adhere to a system of desolation, so contrary to the views and practice of the United States, so revolting to humanity, and repugnant to the sentiments and usages of the civilized world, whilst it will be seen with the deepest regret, it must and will be met with a determination and constancy becoming a free people contending in a just cause for their essential rights and their dearest interests." Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Vice-Admiral Cochrane, Sept. 6, 1814. 3 Am. St. As to reprisals in war of 1812, see further infra, 348b, 349. "I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 16th instant this morning in reply to the one which I addressed to you in the Patuxent. "As I have no authority from my Government to enter upon any kind of discussion relative to the points contained in your letter, I have only to regret that there does not appear to be any hope that I shall be authorized to recall my general order, which has been further sanc |