Agent. The United States made political representations against this infraction of the Treaty, and, pending a discussion upon it, the Com missioners disposed of the question by deciding against the claims on their merits.

The disputes respecting the construction of the Convention of 1818 and the fisheries were set at rest in this Treaty for twelve years by granting the American market free of duty to the Canadian fishermen, with an arbitration to determine whether any further compensation ought to be made. The navigation of the St. Lawrence, concerning which there had been much correspondence,' was given to the United States for an equivalent in Alaska; arrangements were made for commercial intercourse with Canada; and the adjustment was made of the Northwestern boundary already referred to. The act to carry into effect this provis ion of the Treaty was passed on the 1st of March, 1873. This compre hensive settlement left no political questions at issue between the two governments.

Opinions of Attorneys General.

The term "prosecution" in the 6th Article of "Jay's Treaty" "imports a suit against another in a criminal cause."2

The authority of the Commissioners appointed under the 5th Article of that Treaty cannot be executed by a majority of them.3

The United States are not required by the Treaty of Commerce of 1815 to protect property in slaves.1

In the discussions attending the Treaty of 1842, Attorney-General Legaré was requested by the Secretary of State to take part in the discussion, and sent to Lord Ashburton an official memorandum concerning the case of the "Creole.":

There is nothing in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty which forbids either party to intervene by alliances, influences, or even arms, in the affairs of Central America."

Decisions of the courts of the United States.

The fifth article of the treaty of peace of 1783 applies to those cases where an actual confiscation has taken place, and stipulates that in such cases the interest of all persons having a lien upon such lands shall be preserved. That clause of the treaty preserved the lien of a mortgagee of confiscated lands which at the time of the treaty remained unsold." The treaties with Great Britain of 1783 and 1794 only provide for titles existing at the time those treaties were made, and not for titles subsequently acquired. Actual possession of property is not necessary to give the party the benefit of the treaty.

15 F. R. F., 543, 571; 6 F. R. F., 757; President's Message, 1870. 21 Op. At.-Gen., 51, Bradford. 3 Ib., 66, Lee. 42 Op. At.-Gen., 475, Taney. 54 Op. At.-Gen., 98, Legaré.

68 Op. At.-Gen., 436, Cushing.

Higginson v. Mein, 4 Cranch, 415.

8

Blight's Lessee

v. Rochester, 7 Wheat., 535.

Where J. D., an alien and British subject, came into the United States subsequent to the treaty of 1783, and, before the treaty of 1794 was signed, died seized of lands, it was held that the title of his heirs to the land was not protected by the treaty of 1794.1

Thomas Scott, a native of South Carolina, died in 1782, intestate, seized of land on James Island, having two daughters, Ann and Sarah, both born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence. Saralı married D. P., a citizen of South Carolina, and died in 1802, entitled to one-half the estate. The British took possession of James Island and Charleston in February and May, 1780; and in 1781 Ann Scott married Joseph Shanks, a British officer, and at the evacuation of Charleston in 1782 she went to England with her husband, where she remained until her death in 1801. She left five children, born in England. They claimed the other moiety of the real estate of Thomas Scott, in right of their mother, under the ninth article of the treaty of peace between this country and Great Britain of the 19th of November, 1794. Held, that they were entitled to recover and hold the same.2

All British-born subjects whose allegiance Great Britain has never renounced ought, upon general principles of interpretation, to be held within the intent, as they certainly are within the words, of the treaty of 1794.3

The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American States were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between States and the inhabitants thereof.4

The several States which compose this Union, so far, at least, as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled from the time when they declared themselves independent to all the rights and powers of sovereign States, and did not derive them from concessions of the British King. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of the independ ence of these States, not a grant of it. The laws of the several State governments passed after the Declaration of Independence were the laws of sovereign States, and as such were obligatory upon the people of each State.5

The property of British corporations in this country is protected by the sixth article of the treaty of peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons, and their title, thus perfected, is confirmed by the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.

Ib. Shanks et al. v. Dupont et al., 3 Peters, 242. 3 Ib., 250. Ib., 274.5 M'Ivaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209. 6 The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c., v. New Haven, 8 Wheat., 464.

The treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain prevents the operation of the act of limitations of Virginia upon British debts contracted before that treaty.1

The treaty of peace of 1783 between the United States and Great Britain was a mere recognition of pre-existing rights as to territory, and no territory was thereby acquired by way of cession from Great Britain.2

The act of the legislature of Virginia of 1799, entitled "An act concerning escheats and forfeitures from British subjects," and under which a debtor to a subject of Great Britain had, in conformity to the provisions of that law, during the war paid into the loan-office of the State a portion of the debt due by him, did not operate to protect the debtor from a suit for such debt after the treaty of peace in 1783. The statute of Virginia, if it was valid and the legislature could pass such a law, was annulled by the fourth article of the treaty; and, under this article, suits for the recovery of debts so due might be maintained, the provisions of the Virginia law to the contrary notwithstanding.3

Debts due in the United States to British subjects before the war of the Revolution, though sequestered or paid into the State treasuries, revived by the treaty of peace of 1783, and the creditors are entitled to recover them from the original debtors.*

G. C., born in the colony of New York, went to England in 1738, where he resided until his decease; and being seized of lands in New York, he, on the 30th of November, 1776, in England, devised the same to the defendant and E. C. as tenants in common, and died so seized on the 10th of December, 1776. The defendant and E. C. having entered and become possessed, E. C., on the 3d December, 1791, bargained aud sold to the defendant all his interest. The defendant and E. C. were both born in England long before the Revolution. On the 22d March, 1791, the legislature of New York passed an act to enable the defendant to purchase lands and to hold all other lands which he might then be entitled to within the State, by purchase or descent, in fee-simple, and to sell and dispose of the same, in the same manner as any naturalborn citizen might do. The treaty between the United States and Great Britian of 1794 contains the following provision: "Article IX. It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein, and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives; and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as respects the said lands. and the legal remedies incident thereto, be considered as aliens." The defendant, at the time of the

1 1 Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454. 2 Harcourt et al. v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat., 523. 3 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall., 199. Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall., 1.

action brought, still continued to be a British subject. Held, that he was entitled to hold the lands so devised to him by G. C. and transferred to him by E. C.1

By the treaty of 1783 the United States succeeded to all the rights that existed in the King of France in that part of Canada which now forms the State of Michigan prior to its conquest by Great Britain in 1750, and among them that of dealing with seigniorial estates for a forfeiture for non-fulfilment of the conditions of the fief.2

Lands granted by the acts of March 3, 1807, in fulfilment of the second article of the treaty of 1794, were not donations.3

The reciprocity treaty of 1854 did not release a forfeiture previously incurred.1

There is nothing in the treaties with Great Britain which gives a British merchant resident in a port of the seceded States during the war an immunity from the general principles of public law applicable to resident neutral merchants.5

GREECE.

The war of the Greeks for independence early attracted attention in this country. Mr. Dwight, of Massachusetts, on the 24th of December, 1822, presented to the House a memorial in their favor. The sentiment of the House was against meddling with the subject, and the memorial was ordered to lie on the table.

Early in the next session (Dec. 8, 1823) Mr. Webster submitted to the House a resolution that provision ought to be made by law for defraying the expense incident to the appointment of an agent or commissioner to Greece, whenever the President shall deem it expedient to make such appointment." On the 19th of the same month the House requested the President to lay before it any information he might have received, and which he might deem it improper to communicate, respecting the condition and future prospects of the Greeks.

On the 29th a memorial was presented from citizens of New York, requesting the recognition of the independence of Greece. On the 31st the President transmitted the desired information to Congress.10 On the 2d of January, 1824, Mr. Poinsett laid before the House a resolution of the General Assembly of South Carolina that that State would hail with pleasure the recognition by the American Government of the Independence of Greece. On the 5th Webster presented a memorial 1 New York v. Clarke, 3 Wheat., 1. 2 United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, 211. 3 Forsyth v. Reynolds, 15 Howard, 358. Pine Lumber, 4 Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports. The Sarah Starr, Blatchford's Prize Cases, 69. 6 Annals 2d Sess. 17th Cong., Annals 1st Sess. 18th Cong. 805. Ib., 843, 847. 8 9 Ib., 889. 10 Ib., 914, 2917; 5 F. R. F., 252. Annals 1st Sess. 18th Cong., 916.

457.

11

4

from citizens of Boston.' The debate upon Webster's resolution began upon the 19th of January and continued until the 26th. It took a wide range, developed great diversity of sentiment, and produced no result.

The sympathy for the Greeks continued to manifest itself. On the 2d of January, 1827, Edward Livingston moved to instruct the Committee of Ways and Means to report a bill appropriating $50,000 for provisions for their relief.3 The bill was negatived on the 27th.* Private relief was given, and in his annual message to Congress in the following December the President transmitted to Congress correspondence respecting it with Capo d'Istrias and with the President and Secretary of the Greek National Assembly.5

The first and only Treaty with Greece was concluded in London in 1837 between the Ministers of the respective Powers at that Court. It was sent to Congress with the President's message of December 4, 1838.

HANOVER.

The Treaties of Commerce and Navigation with Hanover contained provisions respecting duties upon tobacco, which were the subject of both correspondence and legislation, and were esteemed important. It was thought at the time of their negotiation that other similar Treaties with more important Powers would follow. This proved to be a mistake. How these Treaties became abrogated is explained in note" Abrogated, Suspended, or Obsolete Treaties."

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

In the year 1826 Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, commanding the United States Sloop-of-War "Peacock," signed articles of agreement in the form of a Treaty with the King of the Hawaiian Islands. The Hawaiians profess to have observed this as a Treaty," but it was not regarded as such by the United States.

In December, 1842, the "duly commissioned" representatives of King Kamehameha III proposed to Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to conclude a Treaty whenever the sovereignty of the King should be recog nized. In support of their proposal they said, "Twenty-three years ago the nation had no written language, and no character in which to write it. * The nation had no fixed form or regulations of government except as they were dictated by those who were in authority, or

1

2

1 Ib., 931. Ib., 1084. 33 Debates, 577. Ib., 654. 6 F. R. F., 627, 636. S. E. Doc. 1, 3d Sess. 25th Cong. H. E. Doc. 258, 2d Sess. 25th Cong.; H. E. Doc. 60, 1st Sess. 36th Cong. H. E. Doc. 258, 2d Sess. 25th Cong., 22. H. E. Doc. 35, 3d Sess. 27th Cong.

10 Ib.