Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Neutral America. H. B. Joy. Kentucky L. J., 4:38.
Our answer to Germany. Economist, 83:1166. Dec.

Politique (La) des États-Unis dans la mer des Antilles (a propos la vente des Antilles danoises). Jos. Joubert. R. des Quest. Coloniales et Maritimes, 4:105. Aug.-Dec.

Protection of American citizens abroad. Edwin Maxey. American L. R., 50:902.

President Wilson's administration of foreign affairs. David J. Hill. N. Amer. R., 204:345.

Relaciones de Estados Unidos e Inglaterra y la obstaculización del commercio neutral. El Foro, 12:44.

Relaciones de Estados Unidos y Alemania. El Foro, 12:36.

Two hundred Americans lost in submarine attacks. Current History, 5:90. March.

United States and Britain. Spectator, 118:163. Feb.

United States (The) of to-morrow. W. E. Dodd. Nation (N. Y.), 104:74. Jan.

Why America comes in. Nation (London), 20:672. Feb. United States Court for China. United States court for China and American law.

Stirling Fessenden. Case and Comment, 23:557. Vatican. Saint Siège. Guerre de 1914. Emploi international du drapeau de

Papauté Transport des représentants diplomatiques du Saint Siège sur un navire

battant pavillon pontifical. R. gén. de dr. int. pub. 23:606. War. Diritto (II) dei belligeranti e l'opéra d'arte. Jules Destrée. Nuova Antologia, 186:7. Nov.

Krigen og forholdet mellem den indre og ydre politik. Jakob Friis. Samtiden, 39:605. Oct.

War and the law of limitation. Horatio Shephard. Chicago Legal News, 48:242.

War crimes. Cyril M. Picciotto. American Legal News, 27:17.

War crimes and war criminals. H. H. L. Bellot. Canadian L. Times, 37:9. Jan.

War debts and posterity. R. F. Irvine. Economist, 83:1229. Dec. William P. Frye. Destroying neutral vessels. The case of the “William P. Frye"

Edwin Maxey. American L. R., 50:442. World Organization. International reorganization. Alpheus H. Snow. Advocate of Peace, 79:22. Jan.

Organization (The) of international justice. James Brown Scott. Adrocate of Peace, 79:10. Jan. World (A) charter. Paul Otlet. Advocate of Peace, 79:44. Feb.

KATHRYN SELLER3.

THE PRUSSIAN-AMERICAN TREATIES

I

Few international agreements have received the praise accorded to the treaty entered into between the United States and Prussia in 1785. It was acclaimed at the time as setting a new standard of international conduct, realizing to the fullest extent the humanitarian aspirations of the eighteenth century. To Benjamin Franklin and Frederick the Great have been awarded the credit for this epochmaking document. Franklin's treaty, partly renewed in 1799, was again renewed in part in 1828. After the formation of the German Empire, the treaty of 1828 continued to be recognized as binding, and its provisions continued to serve for the adjustment of commercial relations between Germany and the United States without serious question until the outbreak of the present great European War.

After the Empire was established, the German Foreign Office undertook a systematic negotiation of commercial treaties with the various countries of the world. The old Prussian treaty, however, was considered, by both Germany and the United States, as sufficient for general purposes, and no general commercial treaty was negotiated between the two countries, international agreements between them being limited to the various conventions of narrower scope. The result was that the United States, confronted as a neutral in the world war with vast duties and responsibilities, found itself bound by an obligation, the principal part of which had been negotiated a century and a quarter before the war began. Never before had this treaty been subjected to any serious strain. The portions of the treaty first adopted in 1785 and then renewed in 1799 and in 1828 had received few interpretations. Between 1828 and 1914 the provisions of the treaty never became the subject of dispute between the United States and Prussia or the Empire.

While all works upon the history of American diplomacy have devoted considerable space to the negotiation of the original treaty

of 1785, no attempt, it is believed, has been made to fit the successive agreements into the general scheme of the foreign policy of the United States at the time of the various negotiations. It is proposed in the present article to re-examine the negotiations, to attempt to estimate the influences which produced the original treaty and the modifications of it made in 1799 and 1828, and to trace to their sources the unusual provisions of the treaty of 1785, so long praised as the realization of the ideal in international relations, but recognized since the present war began as provisions giving rise to very serious questions of construction and interpretation.

The authorship of the treaty of 1785 has usually been ascribed to Benjamin Franklin. The effect of the influence of Frederick the Great upon its provisions has been considered, and the general conclusion has been that Frederick adopted for the most part the propositions made by Franklin and his fellow commissioners without much modification, for the reason that the likelihood of either close relationship or serious disagreement between Prussia and the new-born republic of the new world was remote. In order to secure a market for Silesian linens and other products of Prussia, Frederick was willing to agree to practically anything which the American commissioners might suggest. The tradition that Frederick the Great was a friend to the cause of America was demolished some years since by Dr. Paul L. Haworth in an essay entitled “Frederick the Great and the American Revolution."1 The most detailed account of the German side of the negotiations appeared in a monograph by Dr. Friedrich Kapp entitled Friedrich der Grosse und die Vereinigten Staaten, based to a considerable extent upon unpublished materials in the Prussian archives.

Tracing the lineage of the Prussian treaty of 1828, we go back to that of 1799, from that to 1785. With the exception of the treaty of 1787 with Morocco, the treaty with Prussia was the last of the group of commercial treaties negotiated during the period of the Confederation. It followed the treaty of 1783 with Sweden, which was based upon that with the Netherlands of 1782, and this in turn drew in part upon the treaty of amity and commerce with France of February 6, 1778.

1 American Historical Review, IX, 460–478. · Leipzig, 1871.

The French treaty is principally derived from the draft plan of the treaties submitted to the Continental Congress July 18, 1776. This draft plan is the starting point of American commercial treaties, and it has been noted that not only many of the provisions, but much of the phraseology of the draft plan of 1776, are reproduced in the treaties during the Confederation and also in those negotiated after the Constitution was adopted. On June 12, 1776, the Continental Congress selected a committee to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign Powers. The committee consisted of John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Benjamin Harrison, and Robert Morris.3 Of the drafting committee, only Franklin and Adams afterwards signed treaties for the United States. Franklin signed those with France, 1778, and Sweden, 1783. Adams was one of the signers of the treaty with the Netherlands in 1782, and both Adams and Franklin signed the Prussian treaty of 1785. The committee considered the form of the draft between June 12 and July 18, 1776,4 when the plan was submitted in full to the Continental Congress. The extent to which the various members of the committee contributed to the formulation of the draft cannot be determined. Doubtless Franklin had much to do with it, but the original draft of the report is wholly in the writing of John Adams. The plan as finally amended was incorporated in the instructions of the Continental Congress dated September 24, 1776.5 These instructions were prepared by James Wilson, who incorporated the amendments made to the plan by the Continental Congress. The question at once arises whence Adams and his associates derived the provisions of their plan of treaties. Adams's manuscript makes reference to the collection of state tracts” and the “collection of sea laws,” and these collections were doubtless made use of in preparing the draft. The exact editions, however, which were used have not been determined; but it is not difficult to indicate the sources from which the plan was derived. The treaties of Utrecht of 1713 commemorated the close of one commercial era and the opening of another. In particular, the treaties between France and England of March 31 and April 11,6 and that between France and the United Provinces of the same date ?

: Journals of the Continental Congress, Ford edition, V, 433. Ibid., 576. 6 Ibid., 813. Dumont, Vol. 8, Part I, p. 345. 7 Ibid., p. 377.

contained many of the provisions of Adams's draft. Several articles of the draft are of especial significance. Article 19 was as follows:

It shall be lawfull for the Ships of War of either Party and Privateers, freely to carry whither so ever they please, the Ships and Goods, taken from their Enemies, without being obliged to pay any Duty to the Officers of the Admiralty or any other Judges; nor shall such Prizes be arrested, or seized, when they come to, and enter the Ports of either Party; nor shall the Searchers, or other Officers of those Places search the same, or make Examination concerning the Lawfullness of such Prizes, but they may hoist sail, at any Time and depart and carry their Prizes to the Place expressed in their Commissions, which the Commanders of such Ships of War shall be obliged to shew: on the Contrary, no Shelter, or Refuge shall be given in their Ports to such as shall have made Prize of the Subjects, People, or Property, of either of the Parties; but if such should come in, being forced by Stress of Weather, or the Danger of the Sea, all proper Means shall be vigorously used, that they go out, and retire from thence as soon as possible. This sets forth in English the text of the twenty-sixth article of the Franco-British treaty of 1713. Article 27 of the draft includes a restricted list of contraband identical with that of Article 19 of the Franco-British treaty; and the list of merchandise never to be reckoned among contraband or prohibited goods which immediately follows in the draft is taken verbatim from Article 20 of the same treaty. Article 23 of the draft is as follows:

For the better promoting of Commerce on both Sides, it is agreed, that if a War should break out between the Said two Nations, Six Months, after the Proclamation of War, shall be allowed to the Merchants, in the Cities and Towns where they live, for selling and transporting their Goods and Merchandizes; and if any Thing be taken from them, or any Injury be done them within that Term by either Party, or the People or Subjects of either, full Satisfaction shall be made for the Same.

This is derived without substantial change from Article 2 of the same treaty. Article 26 of the draft provides that free ships make free goods; while, on the other hand, that enemy ships make enemy goods was recognized by Article 16 of the draft. Both provisions were taken from the Franco-British treaty.

Enough has been said to warrant the conclusion that the doctrines of free ships, free goods; enemy ships, enemy goods; limited contra

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »