§ 10. Province or colony asserting its independence, how considered by other foreign States. If the revolution in a State be effected by a province or colony shaking off its sovereignty, so long as the independence of the new State is not acknowledged by other powers, it may seem doubtful, in an international point of view, whether its sovereignty can be considered as complete, however it may be regarded by its own government and citizens. It has already been stated, that whilst the contest for the sovereignty continues, and the civil war rages, other nations may either remain passive, allowing to both contending parties all the rights which war gives to public enemies; or may acknowledge the independence of the new State, forming with it treaties of amity and commerce; or may join in alliance with one party against the other. In the first case, neither party has any right to complain so long as other nations maintain an impartial neutrality, and abide the event of the contest. The two last cases involve questions which seem to belong rather to the science of politics than of international law; but the practice of nations, if it does not furnish an invariable rule for the solution of these questions, will, at least, shed some light upon them. The memorable examples of the Swiss Cantons and of the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, which so long levied war, concluded peace, contracted alliances, and performed every other act of sovereignty, before their independence was finally acknowledged, — that of the first by the German empire, and that of the latter by Spain, -go far to show the general sense of mankind on this subject. The acknowledgment of the independence of the United States of America by France, coupled with the assistance secretly rendered by the French court to the revolted colonies, was considered by Great Britain as an unjustifiable aggression, and, under the circumstances, it probably was so.1 But had the French court conducted itself with good faith, and maintained an impartial neutrality between the two belligerent parties, may be doubted whether the treaty of commerce, or even the it admission of the former as a State of the Federal Union, on 29th December, 1845, was a case, so far as foreign powers are concerned, of the complete merger of the sovereignty of the former Republic of Texas in that of the United States.] 1 Wheaton's Hist. Law of Nations, Pt. iii. § 12, pp. 220–294. Ch. de Martens, Nouvelles Causes célèbres du Droit des Gens, tome i. pp. 370-498. eventual alliance between France and the United States, could have furnished any just ground for a declaration of war against the former by the British government. The more recent example of the acknowledgment of the independence of the Spanish American provinces by the United States, Great Britain, and other powers, whilst the parent country still continued to withhold her assent, also concurs to illustrate the general understanding of nations, that where a revolted province or colony has declared and shown its ability to maintain its independence, the recognition of its sovereignty by other foreign States is a question of policy and prudence only. other for This question must be determined by the sovereign Recognilegislative or executive power of these other States, and tion of its independnot by any subordinate authority, or by the private ence by judgment of their individual subjects. Until the inde- eign States. pendence of the new State has been acknowledged, either by the foreign State where its sovereignty is drawn in question, or by the government of the country of which it was before a province, courts of justice and private individuals are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unaltered.1 (a) 1 Vesey's Ch. Rep. vol. ix. p. 347. - The City of Berne v. The Bank of England. Edward's Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 1. — The Manilla, Appendix IV., Note D. Wheaton's Rep. vol. iii. p. 324.- Hoyt v. Gelston. Idem. p. 634.- The United States v. Palmer. (a) [It belongs exclusively to the political department of the government to recognize or to refuse to recognize a government in a foreign country, claiming to have displaced the old and established a new one. Kennett v. Chambers, Howard's Rep. vol. xiv. p. 38. Quant à la simple reconnaisance, un état étranger n'est point en droit de juger de la légitimité, il doit donc uniquement s'attacher à la seule possession et traiter comme indépendant le gouvernment de fait. Garden, Traité Complet de Diplomatie, tom. i. p. 273. President Jackson, in his special message of 21st December, 1836, in relation to the recognition of Texas, thus refers to the principles on which the United States have proceeded in the acknowledgment of the independence of new States: : "All questions relative to the government of foreign nations, whether of the old or of the new world, have been treated by the United States as questions of fact only, and our predecessors have cautiously abstained from deciding upon them, until the clearest evidence was in their possession, to enable them not only to decide correctly, but to shield their decision from every unworthy imputation. In all the contests that have arisen out of the revolutions of France, out of the national § 11. Inter- The international effects produced by a change in the person of the sovereign or in the form of government any State, may be considered : · effects of a change in the person of the sovereign or in the internal constitution of the State. 'of 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 |