ference, to offer to the Emperor Dom Pedro, this advice, does not render His Majesty the guarantor of the performance of those promises contained in the letters of Dom Miguel, which were laid before the conference, and annexed to the protocol." 16 Br. & For. State Papers, 424, 430-431. In the protocol of the conference at Vienna, Oct. 20, 1827, between representatives of Austria, Great Britain, and Dom Miguel, it is stated that it was very natural that Portugal should attach high value to the question, which was necessarily bound up with that of the confirmation of the act of abdication of the Emperor Dom Pedro, of the sending of the young Queen Maria da Gloria to Portugal, and of the total separation of the two Crowns; and that they might rest tranquil in that regard, seeing that Austria and England were penetrated with the importance of no longer leaving undecided questions of such high interest to the internal tranquillity of Portugal, and that the two powers were determined to unite their means and efforts in order to press for and obtain a decision at Rio de Janeiro. 15 Br. & For. State Papers, 991. In extending to Brazil an invitation to an International American Peace Congress which was proposed to be held at Washington in November, 1882, Mr. Blaine said: "Brazil holds, in the south, much the same relationship to the other countries that the United States does in the north. Her domanial extent, her commerce and her advancement in the path of successful progress, exerts a beneficial and lasting influence in South America. Her intercourse with her neighbors has been marked by peace and good will, and, on memorable occasions, Brazil has lent wise counsels in momentous arbitrations. All this tends to make that Empire as necessary a factor in securing peace and harmony in America as the United States itself, while its interests in the great and humane results proposed are fully commensurate with our own. Moreover, the good friendship between Brazil and the United States is singularly strong. The ties which join them are intimate and permanent. What, then, is more natural than that these two great powers should earnestly unite in a movement which, it is hoped, will mark a historical epoch in America, and exert its influence on countries beyond the seas, and on generations yet unborn?" Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Osborn, min. to Brazil, No. 9, Dec. 1, 1881, MS. Inst. Brazil, XVII. 207. In September, 1893, a revolt took place of the Brazilian navy at Rio de Janeiro under the command of Admiral Mello. On December 1, 1893, Admiral Mello, in his flagship, went south, and was succeeded in command of the naval forces at Rio de Janeiro by Admiral da Gama, who announced in a proclamation his espousal of the cause of the revolution and of the restoration of the Empire, subject to ratification by the people. Commercial operations were interfered with by the insurgents, and threats were made by them to bombard the city. The insurgents, without maintaining an actual blockade, sought to prevent vessels from going to the docks. Thereupon Admiral Benham, U. S. Navy, announced that he would protect, by force if necessary, all American vessels that might wish to go to the docks alongside the wharves. A shot was fired from one of the insurgents' vessels at a boat belonging to an American vessel. Admiral Benham replied with a shot from a 6-pounder, which struck under the insurgent's bows. The latter then fired a shot to leeward and subsequently another over the merchant vessel. Admiral Benham answered with a musket shot which struck the insurgent's sternpost, and notified the latter that he would fire into and sink her if she fired again. Military operations between the insurgents and the Government were not interfered with by Admiral Benham. It was reported by the United States minister at Rio de Janeiro that all the foreign commanders agreed with Admiral Benham, and that his action had restored tranquillity to the conduct of commercial operations. Subsequently, the insurgent movement utterly failed, and the insurgent commanders and a large number of their followers found asylum in Portuguese men-of-war. As it was reported that the insurgents had the sympathy, if not the assistance, of certain European powers, the contest was narrowly watched by the United States. President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 3, 1894, said: "It apeparing at an early stage of the insurrection that its course would call for unusual watchfulness on the part of this Government, our naval force in the harbor of Rio de Janeiro was strengthened. This precaution, I am satisfied, tended to restrict the issue to a simple trial of strength between the Brazilian Government and the insurgents, and to avert complications which at times seemed imminent. Our firm attitude of neutrality was maintained to the end. The insurgents received no encouragement of eventual asylum from our commanders, and such opposition as they encountered was for the protection of our commerce and was clearly justified by public law." See, as to the insurrection in Brazil and the action of Admiral Benham, See, as to the question of asylum, supra, § 305. See, as to the allegation of sympathy with the insurgents, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bayard, ambass. to England, No. 240, Dec. 18, 1893, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXX. 429; same to same, No. 342, April 6, 1894, id. 518; same to same, No. 411 (confid.), June 4, 1894, id. 576; Mr. Gresham to Mr. Eustis, ambass. to France, No. 223, June 6, 1894, MS. Inst. France, XXII. 645. Nov. 15, 1894, the corner stone of the pedestal of a monument to be erected to the memory of President Monroe was laid in the city of Rio de Janeiro. (For. Rel. 1895, I. 48–52.) As to the protest made in behalf of Brazil against the infringement of any rights which that Government might have in any part of the territory submitted to arbitration under the treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela of February 2, 1897, see Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Assis-Brasil, Brazilian min., No. 12, Sept. 16, 1899, MS. Notes to Brazil, Leg. VII. 191. On July 11, 1901, the Bolivian Government, acting through its envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at the Court of St. James, entered, at London, into a contract with an Anglo-American syndicate, which was incorporated in the United States under the title of "The Bolivian Syndicate of New York City." By this contract, which was approved by the Bolivian Congress December 20, 1901, and duly published as a law, the Bolivian Government assumed to make to the syndicate a concession of important rights, powers, and privileges in the territory of Acre (Aquiry), concerning which the controversy with Brazil was then pending. "The syndicate," so the concession declared, was formed for the purpose of "constituting and incorporating" a "company," which was to take over for thirty years, with a privilege of renewal, the "fiscal administration" of the entire territory of Acre, and which was to that end to be invested with "powers," and with "rights, privileges, and lands," for its development and "colonization." This company was to be incorporated "England, or in the United States of North [sic] America, or one of such States, or in some other foreign country," and was to have a capital "of not less than £500,000 sterling," in "the currency of the country in which" it should be "incorporated;" and the first privilege it was to possess was the enjoyment for five years of the exclusive right to buy in fee simple lands not already disposed of in the territory. It was also to possess "all mineral rights" in the territory, the mineral laws of Bolivia meanwhile remaining suspended, as well as the right to construct and maintain docks, railroads, tramways, telegraphs, electric works, and telephones; and these things it might do either itself, or throught other countries which it might constitute, thus exercising the power indefinitely to reproduce itself and to increase the hold of foreign interests. These vast privileges were, however, but subsidiary to the political and sovereign powers to be exercised by the company. It was to possess for thirty years "the sole, absolute, exclusive and uncontrolled right, power, and authority to collect and enforce payment of" revenues, rents, and taxes, subject only to an accounting and division with the Bolivian Government; and, subject only to the provision of treaties, and of the traffic "of such vessels as now exist," it was to have "the exclusive right to grant concessions for the navigation of the rivers and navigable waters of the territory. The Bolivian Government was indeed to be permitted to appoint a representative in the territory, to be known as the "national delegate;;" but, subject only to the "supervision" of this delegate, whose salary the company was to pay, the company was to "provide and maintain" a "sufficient force of police" for the "protection of the inhabitants" and the enforcement of law and order; and if at any time the Government should think it necessary, the company was to equip and maintain, in addition to the police force, military and naval forces "for the defense of the rivers" and "the preservation of internal order." Finally, it was stipulated that if, on the expiration of the specified term, the concession should not be renewed "on the same conditions," or on other mutually agree on, the Government was to "resume" the "administration" of the territory. In consequence of this concession, which embraced territory a part of which was claimed by Brazil, the Brazilian Government, apprehensive as to the ultimate results of the syndicate's operations, entered upon a course of reprisals against Bolivia, and suppressed in Brazilian rivers the freedom of transit for exports and imports of that country. Subsequently a modus vivendi was entered into between the two countries, and on November 17, 1903, a treaty was concluded by which Brazil purchased from Bolivia all the latter's rights in the Acre territory. As one of the preliminaries to the amicable settlement with Bolivia, the Government of Brazil obtained from the syndicate, for a sum of money, the absolute renunciation of all its rights and claims under the concession, the effect of which was thus completely nullified. In a report to the President of Brazil of December 27, 1903, on the treaty of settlement with Bolivia, Baron Rio Branco, Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations, said: "An Anglo-American syndicate, called the Bolivian Syndicate, armed with almost sovereign rights which the Bolivian Government had granted it for the administration, defence, and use of Acre, tried, happily without success, to interest some commercial powers of Europe and the United States of America in the enterprise, which was the first attempt to introduce in our continent the African and Asiatic system of chartered companies.. From the foreign syndicate we legally obtained a declaration absolutely renouncing any and all rights or possible claims against anyone whatsoever, in consideration of a pecuniary indemnity incomparably less than the smallest expense which either Brazil or Bolivia would incur on account of a serious international complication." In the same report Baron Rio Branco referred to the attempt to introduce "the perturbing system of the chartered companies" as a "menace" to the "security of this continent." Brazil and Bolivia, Boundary Settlement, Treaty for the Exchange of Territories and other Compensations, signed at Petropolis, November 17, 1903, together with the Report of Baron Rio Branco, Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil: New York; especially pp. 19, 22, 23, 41. See, also, For. Rel. 1903, 34-36. See the charter of the Imperial British East Africa Company, Sept. 3, 1888, 79 Br. & For. State Papers, 641; also, the charter of the British South Africa Company, Oct. 29, 1889, 81 id. 617. 4. CENTRAL AMERICA. § 947. The British settlers on the Bay of Honduras, under the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, began very early "to make encroachments on the surrounding lands; and these have been carried to such an extent, that the Government of Central America, upon which they have been principally made, has become alarmed, and has appointed a commissioner to proceed to Great Britain for the purpose of remonstrating. In the meantime an agent has been dispatched by the occupants of the territory in question to London, to solicit that the settlement may be declared to be a colony of Great Britain, and that its limits may be coextensive with their usurpations. This agent, it is understood, has been directed by the British Government to proceed to Madrid, for the purpose of arranging the matter with the Spanish Government. The Government of Central America has asked the intermediation of the United States in the negotiation which is about to be set on foot with the Court of St. James. A brief history of the settlement alluded to, with the necessary references, is sent to you with this dispatch. It is expected that you will keep an eye upon the movements of the agent above mentioned in Madrid, and that you will use all prudent means to prevent the conclusion of any arrangement on the subject, as being incompatible with with the rights of the Republic of Central America, and injurious to the commercial interests of the whole world, including those of Spain herself." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Barry, min. to Spain, No. 2, June 30, 1835, MS. Inst. Spain, XIV. 70. "The independence, as well as the interests of the nations on this continent, require that they should maintain an American system of policy, entirely distinct from that which prevails in Europe. To suffer any interference on the part of the European governments with the domestic concerns of the American republics, and to permit them to establish new colonies upon this continent, would be to jeopard their |