Rivers which pass through several states are, as we have seen, neutralized, so far as concerns the several riparian sovereigns, sometimes by a tacit understanding of the law of nations to this effect, sometimes. by treaty.

Supra, § 30.

The neutralization of the Rhine is thus limited by the twenty-sixth article of the treaty of Vienna of 1815.

"If it should happen that war should break out among the states of the Rhine, the collection of the customs shall continue uninterrupted without any obstacle being thrown in the way of either party. The vessels and persons employed by the custom-houses shall enjoy all the rights of neutrality."

On July 13, 1840, a convention was entered into at London between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and the Ottoman Porte "for the purpose of maintaining the principle that the passage of the Straits of Dardanelles and of the Bosphorus shall remain always closed against foreign ships-of-war while the Porte is at peace." France was not consulted as to this treaty, which was precipitated by the revolt of Mehemet Ali, whose relations with France were intimate, against the Porte. This exclusion was much resented by France, and for a time it seemed as if the "neutralization" in this case would be broken up by an immediate hostile attack. (See Guizot's Embassy to the Court of St. James, chapts. 6, 7.) Nor was the United States consulted, or in any way a party to the procedure, and is not, therefore, bound by the neutralization.

The treaty of Paris of 1856, to which most of the great European powers assented, but to which the United States was not a party, extended still further this neutralization. By its ninth article it provides that "the Black Sea is neutralized; its waters and its ports, thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war, either of the powers possessing its coasts or of any other power, with the exceptions mentioned in Articles XIV and XIX of the present treaty." By the tenth article of a supplementary treaty of the same date the "Sultan declared he was firmly resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his Empire, and by virtue of which it has at all times been prohibited for the ships of war of foreign powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosphorus, and that, so long as the Porte is at peace, His Majesty will admit no foreign shipsof-war into the said straits." The six other signatories "engaged to respect this determination of the Sultan, and to conform themselves to the principle above declared." The clause as to the neutralization of the Black Sea was abrogated by the first article of the treaty of London, of March 13, 1857, but there was a renewal of the rule closing the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to ships-of-war; the right being reserved, however, to the Sultan, of "opening them in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly and allied powers, in case the Sublime Porte should judge it necessary, in order to secure the execution of the stipulations of the treaty of Paris of 30th March, 1856."

Great Britain, on August 27, 1856, solemnized with Honduras a treaty which may be regarded as an appendage to the clauses in the ClaytonBulwer treaty above given. An "additional article," as it is called, to the British-Honduras treaty provides that "in consideration of the concessions previously named, and in order to ecure the construction

and permanence of the route or road herein contemplated, and also to secure for the benefit of mankind the uninterrupted advantages of such communication from sea to sea, Her Britannic Majesty equally engages, in conjunction with the Republic of Honduras, to protect the same from interruption, seizure, and unjust confiscation from whatsoever quarters the attempt may proceed. The guarantee may be withdrawn if the managers act contrary to the spirit and intention of it." Fauchille (Blocus Maritime, Paris, 1882, 184 ff.) discusses in detail the question of neutralization of canals. As to the United States, he says: "The doctrine which declares the canal inaccessible to belligerent vessels of war is adopted by treaties of commerce and navigation between the United States, on the one side (July 11, 1861, and June 24, 1867), and Great Britain, on the other side (Aug. 27, 1856, and Feb. 11, 1860), with Honduras and Nicaragua (Treat. and Conv. of the U. S., ed. 1873; Martens, Nouveau recueil général, 1re partie, XVI, 549; 2o partie, XVI, 380). It is, however, rejected in the Treaty of Washington (April 19, 1850), between the United States and Great Britain in respect to the projected Panama Canal." As is observed by Fauchille, the doctrine of the latter treaty treats the canal as territorial water, which belligerents can traverse, but in which they are not permitted to engage in acts of hostility, and not as territorial land, which they are not permitted to traverse. He calls attention, at the same time, to instructions by Mr. Blaine on June 24, 1881, to Mr. Lowell, minister at London, in which he declares that the United States would not recognize the right of hostile cruisers to pass through the canal.

The subject of the neutralization of the great South American rivers has been already incidentally noticed in this section. In its relation to Paraguay it will be discussed infra, § 321; in its relation to Peru, infra, § 157. See also exposition in Schuyler's Am. Diplomacy, 319 ff.

170

CHAPTER III.

INTERVENTION WITH FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES.

I. GENERAL RULE IS NON-INTERVENTION, § 45.

II. EXCEPTIONS.

(1) Relief and protection of citizens abroad, § 46.

(2) Agencies to obtain information as to pending insurrection, § 47.

(3) Sympathy with liberal political struggles, § 47a.

(4) Hospitality to political refugees, § 48.

(5) Mediation, § 49.

(6) Necessity, as where marauders can be checked only by such intervention, § 50.

(a) Amelia Island, § 50a.

(b) Pensacola and the Florida posts, § 50b.

(c) Steamboat Caroline, § 50c.

(d) Greytown, § 50d.

(e) Border raiders, § 50e.

(7) Explorations in barbarous lands (e. g., the Congo), § 51.

(8) Intercession in extreme cases of political offenders, § 52.

(9) International courts in semi-civilized lands, § 53.

(10) Good offices for missionaries abroad, § 54.

(11) Good offices for persecuted Jews, § 55.

(12) Non-prohibition of publications and subscriptions in aid of political action abroad, § 56.

(13) Charitable contributions abroad, § 56a.

III. INTERVENTION OF EUROPEAN SOVEREIGNS IN AFFAIRS OF THIS CONTINENT DISAPPROVED-MONROE DOCTRINE, § 57.

IV. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF DOCTRINE.

VII. SUCH RECOGNITION DETERMINABLE BY EXECUTIVE, § 71.

VIII. ACCRETION, NOT COLONIZATION THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, § 72.

I. GENERAL RULE IS NON-INTERVENTION.

§ 45.

"Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course."

President Washington's Farewell Address, 1797.

"You are afraid,' says Mr. Oswald to-day, of being made the tool of the powers of Europe.' 'Indeed, I am,' said I. 'What powers?' said he. 'All of them,' said I. It is obvious that all the powers of Europe will be continually manoeuvering with us to work us into their real or imaginary balances of power. They will all wish to make of us a make-weight candle, when they are weighing out their pounds. Indeed, it is not surprising, for we shall very often, if not always, be able to turn the scale. But I think it ought to be our rule not to meddle; and that of all the powers of Europe, not to desire us, or, perhaps, even to permit us, to interfere, if they can help it.'"

Mr. John Adams's Diary, Nov. 18, 1782; 3 John Adams's Works, 316. "Peace is made between Russia and the Porte, and the definitive treaty between England and Holland is expected to be soon signed. May the world continue at peace! But if it should not, I hope we shall have wisdom enough to keep ourselves out of any broil. As I am quite in sentiment with the Baron de Nolken, the Swedish ambassador at St. James's, who did me the honor to visit me, although I had not visited him. Sir,' said he, 'I take it for granted that you will have sense enough to see us in Europe cut each other's throats with a philosophical tranquillity."

Mr. J. Adams to the President of Congress, February 10, 1784; 8 John Adams's
Works, 178.

"I am sensible that your situation must have been difficult during the transition from the late form of government to the re-establishment of some other legitimate authority, and that you may have been at a loss to determine with whom business might be done; nevertheless when principles are well understood, their application is less embarrassing. We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own Government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases, and change these forms at its own will; and that it may transact its business with foreign nations through

whatever organ it thinks proper, whether king, convention, assembly, committee, president, or anything else it may choose. The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded. On the dissolution of the late constitution in France, by removing so integral a part of it as the King, the national assembly, to whom a part only of the public authority had been delegated, appear to have considered themselves as incompetent to transact the affairs of the nation legitimately; they invited their fellow-citizens, therefore, to appoint a national convention." Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, March 12, 1793. MSS. Inst., Ministers. (See 3 Jeff. Works, 521.)

"We love and value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities. Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance would have left us free, in the example and indulgence of peace with the world."

Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Carmichael and Short, June 30, 1793.
MSS. Inst., Ministers; 4 Jeff. Works, 9.

"The principle of foreign affairs, which I then advocated, has been the invariable guide of my conduct in all situations, as ambassador in France, Holland, and England, and as Vice-President and President of the United States, from that hour to this. This principle was

that we should make no treaties of alliance with any European power; that we should consent to none but treaties of commerce; that we should separate ourselves as far as possible, and as long as possible, from all European politics and wars. In discussing the variety of motions which were made as substitutes for Mr. Chase's, I was remarkably cool, and, for me, unusually eloquent. On no occasion, before or after, did I ever make a greater impression on Congress."

Mr. J. Adams to Dr. Rush, Sept. 30, 1805; 1 John Adams's Works, 200.

"If I could lay an embargo, or pass a new importation law against corruption and foreign influence, I would not make it a temporary but a perpetual law, and I would not repeal it, though it should raise a clanior as loud as my gag-law or your grog-law, or Mr. Jefferson's embargo."

Mr. J. Adams to Mr. Rush, Sept. 27, 1808; 9 John Adams's Works, 604.

"Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations. Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us. The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English and the French have been employed for centuries in every court and country of Europe. Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy, and Turkey, for the last hundred years. How many revolutions have been caused! How many emperors and kings