of the Treaty. Each body refused to recede from its ground, the Senate claiming that the Treaty was operative of itself, and therefore that the act should be declaratory only, the House affirming that legislation was necessary to carry it into effect. A committee of conference, of which Rufus King was Chairman of the managers on the part of the Senate, and John Forsyth Chairman of the managers on the part of the House, agreed on a Bill which was then enacted.1 The principle upon which this adjustment was made was thus stated to the House by Forsyth: "Your committee understood the committee of the Senate to admit the principle contended for by the House, that whilst some Treaties might not require, others may require legisla tive provision to carry them into effect. That the decision of the question, how far such provision was necessary, must be founded upon the peculiar character of the Treaty itself." In 1843 Wheaton concluded a Commercial Treaty with the German States. The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations reported adversely to this Treaty, on the ground of the "want of constitutional competency" to make it; and the Senate laid the subject on the table indefinitely. Calhoun, then Secretary of State, comments thus on this act: "If this be a true view of the Treaty-making power, it may be truly said that its exercise has been one continual series of habitual and uninterrupted infringements of the Constitution. From the beginning, and throughout the whole existence of the Federal Government, it has been exercised constantly on commerce, navigation, and other delegated powers."3 The subject was again before Congress when the bill making appro priations for the purchase of Alaska was under consideration. It was elaborately discussed in the House, but the debate ended by the House accepting from a Conference Committee a preamble reciting that the stipulations of the Treaty "cannot be carried into full force and effect, except by legislation, to which the consent of both Houses of Congress is necessary." 195 A parallel discussion took place in the French Chambers of Peers respecting the Convention of 1831. It remains only to say a few words concerning the administration of the Department charged with the Executive supervision of the Foreign Relations of the United States. From the date of the appointment by Congress of the Committee of Secret Correspondence, already alluded to, until the autumn of 1781, the management of the Foreign Affairs of the country was in the hauds of Committees of Congress. Robert R. Livingston, of New York, was then appointed "their Secretary of Foreign Affairs," and took the oaths of office on the 20th of October, 1781. Livingston resigned in June 13 St. at L., 255. 2 Globe, 2d Sess. 28th Cong., 3. 3 Calhoun to Wheaton, June 28, 1844, MS. Dept. of State. See Lawrence's note 41 on Wheaton, page 103, Law. Wheat. 41, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Globe, 2d Sess. 40th Cong. 515 St. at L., 198. S. E. Doc. 161, 1st Sess. 24th Cong. Livingston to Franklin, 2 D. C., 1776-'83, 173. 1783, and Elias Boudinot, the President of Congress, acted officially as Secretary in the interim.' General Thomas Mifflin was chosen President of Congress on the 3d of November, 1783, at the beginning of a new Congress, and as such succeeded to Boudinot as ad interim Secretary. John Jay was elected Secretary on the 7th of May, 1784;2 but he did not qualify until the 21st of the following December. He remained the Secretary of Foreign Affairs until the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The fourth Statute passed by the first Congress convened under the new Constitution provided "for establishing an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs." This became a law on the 27th of July, 1789.3 But it was soon found necessary to enlarge the operations and duties of the Department, and, on the 15th of September, 1789, the President approved "An act to provide for the safekeeping of the acts, records, and seal of the United States, and for other purposes," in the first section of which it was provided "that the Executive Department, denominated the Department of Foreign Af fairs, shall hereafter be denominated the Department of State, and the principal officer therein shall be called the Secretary of State. Jef ferson was appointed Secretary of State on the 26th day of September, 1789,5 but did not enter upon the duties of his office until the 21st March, 1790.6 Jay, notwithstanding the fact that he had been se lected to be Chief Justice, an appointment which he received September 26, 1789, continued to fill the office of Secretary until Jefferson entered upon its duties, although never commissioned as such under the new government.7 The following is a complete list of the Secretaries of State since the adoption of the Constitution, with their respective terms of office: SECRETARIES OF STATE-1789 TO 1872. 4 Ib., 68. 1 Boudinot to Ministers at Paris, 1 D. C., 1783-'89, 3. 29 Journal of Congress, 205, original edition, and 4 Way & Gideon edition, 1823, 400. 31. St. at L., 28. Register of the Department of State. Jefferson to Randolph, March 28, 1790; 3 Jefferson's Works, 128. 71 Life of John Jay, by William Jay, 274; 10 Writings of Washington, 11 note. 1833, May 29. Louis McLane, of Delaware.. 1834, June 27. John Forsyth, of Georgia. 1841, Mar. 5. Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts.. ABROGATED, SUSPENDED, OR OBSOLETE TREA' IES. 1. Treaties annulled by Act of Congress: Alliance with France, 1778; Amity and Commerce with France, 1778; Act Separate and Secret with France, 1778; Consular Convention with France, 1788. The circumstance which led to the Act of Congress annulling these Treaties are stated under the title "France." This Act of Congress was the subject of some discussion between the Plenipotentiaries who negotiated the Convention of 1800. The latter Convention contained originally a statement that the Plenipotentiaries could not agree respecting these Treaties, and that the Parties should negotiate further upon the subject. The Senate, in consenting to the ratification, expunged that Article. Bonaparte accepted this action of the Senate, "Provided that by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said Article." This was explained by the American Plenipotentiary, Murray, as a "wish to get rid of both the claim to Treaties and indemnities." In this sense it was accepted in its turn by the Senate, and thus the question was laid at rest, and has not been mooted since. 2 A French writer of authority says of these proceedings: "Le motif que porta le gouvernement américain à insister sur le retranchement d'un article que ni l'engageait à rien, paraît avoir été de ne laisser aucun doute sur la ferme résolution où il était de ne jamais consentir au renouvellement des traités de 1778; et si la reconnaissance, déja rare parmi les particuliers, n'est pas un devoir des gouvernements, le président des États-Unis pouvait se croire autorisé à saisir une occasion de 12 F. R. F., 295-345. 26 F. R. F., 145. se soustraire à une obligation qui était au-dessus de ses forces, puisque la république manquait de flottes pour protéger les possessions françaises dans le golfe du Mexique. Par cette raison, la prétendue garantie stipulée par le traité de 1778, était devenue tout-à-fait illusoire pour la France. Aussi le premier consul ne fit-il pas beaucoup de difficulté d'admettre cette ratification modifice, quoique peu usitée dans la diplomatie moderne. Il ajouta seulement à son acceptation cette phrase: 'bien entendue que, par ce retranchement, les deux états rénoncent aux prétensions respectives qui sont l'objet du dit articles,' annonçant ainsi qu'on n'accoueillirait dorénavant aucune réclamation des Américains pour indemoité dûte à raison de bâtiments illégalement enlevés par les cosaires français." 1 II. Treaties expired by their own limitation: So much of the Treaty of 1824 with Colombia, and of 1825 with Central America as relates to commerce and navigation; Colombia, 1824; France, 1800; Great Britain, Articles XI to XXVIII, inclusive, of the Treaty of 1794; Morocco, 1787; Prussia, 1785, (but the twelfth article is revived by the Treaty of 1828;) Prussia, 1799, (but Articles XIII to XXIV are revived by the Treaty of 1828;) Sweden, 1783, together with the Separate Articles, (but Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 25 of the Treaty, and Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Separate Articles are re. vived by the Treaty of 1827.) III. Treaties terminated in consequence of notice given in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty: Belgium, 1845; so much of the Treaty of 1828 with Brazil as relates to commerce and navigation; Chili, 1832; Chili, 1833; Reciprocity Treaty with Great Britain, 1854; Peru, 1851; Peru, 1857; Venezuela, 1836; Venezuela, 1860. IV. Treaties with countries which have been annexed to the United States: Texas, 1838. Two Treaties. V. Treaties with Powers which have been absorbed into other nationali 16 Garden, traités de paix, 131. "The motive which induced the American Government to insist upon the withdrawal of an article which committed it to nothing appears to have been, to leave no doubt respecting its firm determination never to consent to a renewal of the Treaties of 1778; and if such a recognition, rare among individuals, is not a duty of governments, the President thought himself authorized to seize the opportunity to release himself from an obligation which was beyond his powers, since the republic had no navy with which to protect the French possessions in the Gulf of Mexico. For this reason the pretended guarantee, stipulated by the Treaty of 1778, had become illusory for France. The First Consul, therefore, had not much difficulty in accepting this modified ratification, though quite unusual in modern diplomacy. He only added to his acceptance this phrase: "Provided that by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article," thus giving notice that thenceforth he would receive no reclamation from the Americans for indemnities due in consequence of illegal seizures of vessels by French privateers.” ties by conquest: Algiers, 1795; 1815; 1816; French jurisdiction is extended by conquest over Algiers, and Consuls are acting there under French exequaturs. Hanover, 1846; 1855; 1861. The jurisdiction of Prussia was extended over Hanover by conquest in 1866, and Hanover now constitutes a part of the Kingdom of Prussia. Nassau, 1846. Prussian jurisdiction was extended over Nassau by conquest in 1866. Netherlands, 1782. A war between the United Provinces and France broke out it 1793. In 1795 the Stadtholder was driven from the country and the Batavian Republic was established. This was succeeded by the Kingdom of Holland, after which the country was incorporated into the French Empire, and remained a part of that Empire until the abdication of Napoleon. On the reconstruction of Europe at the Congress of Vienna, a new Kingdom was formed, called the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which was included the territories which had formed the United Provinces of the Netherlands. The new Power opened Diplomatic Relations with the United States by sending a Minister to Washington, who proposed " to open negotiations for a treaty of Amity and Commerce." Monroe replied to this in a letter already quoted. The negotiations having been suspended, the Dutch Minister called the attention of Monroe to "the overtures made by Changuion for the purpose of consolidating the commercial relations between the two countries by a renewal or a modification of the Treaty of Commerce of 1782." Monroe answered: "Mr. Changuion having intimated, by order of his government, that the Treaty of 1782 was to be considered, in conse quence of the events which have occurred in Holland, as no longer in force, and having proposed also to enter into a new Treaty with the United States, this Government has since contemplated that result. It is presumed that the former Treaty cannot be revived without being again ratified and exchanged in the form that is usual in such cases. and in the manner prescribed by our Constitution."3 Ten Cate replied, "His Majesty will undoubtedly be disposed to enter into the views of the American Government with regard to the consolidation, by some means, of the commercial relations between the two States." The ne gotiations failed for reasons stated in the President's Message to Congress. The United States subsequently attempted to maintain that the Treaty was not abrogated, but the claim was resisted, and a long correspondence ensued. The Dutch Foreign Minister maintained that from 1795 to 1814 "the political existence of Holland was then terminated," that" Holland had ceased for a long time to form an independ ent State." The United States acquiesced in this statement. In a re 1 Changuion to Monroe, February 24, 1815, MS. Dept. of State. Ten Cate to Monroe, April 4, 1816, MS. Dept. of State. 3 Monroe to Ten Cate, August 17, 1816, MS. Dept. of State. 4 Ten Cate to Monroe, Sept. 16, 1816, MS. Dept. of State. 54 F. R. F.. 172. 65 F. R. F., 598-629. 7 Baron de Nagell to Alexander H. Everett, 14th June, 1812. Ib., 608. |