nor a change in its rulers, or the form of its government, can dispense it from the duty of its performance; but that, as long as the nation exists, the obligation exists; and that, even in the case of conquest, its validity remains unimpaired.

It further maintains, that the acts of the rulers of a State, whilst engaged in the exercise of its sovereign powers, are the acts of the State itself. That to constitute them such, it is sufficient that they proceed from its actual government, without reference to the source or tenure of its authority. That this is especially true in regard to the action of a government upon the interest of strangers; that foreign nations, in their dealings with States, may and must regard the undisturbed posessors of the sovereign power as its rightful possessors; and that this duty results from their obligation to forbear from all interference with the internal policy of such States.

It believes that these principles are consonant to reason; that they are recommended by considerations of public convenience; and that, apart from the protection afforded by their application, there can exist no security in the intercourse of nations. It maintains that the establishment of a different doctrine would draw after it the most pernicious consequences; that under its sanction, every revolution in a government would avail to cancel the obligations of the nation represented by it; that, by inviting, on the part of foreign traders, an inquisitorial scrutiny into the origin and sufficiency of the titles of its rulers, the independence of every State would be ceaselessly invaded, and its internal tranquility constantly disturbed; that, in a word, it would provoke a continual intervention between independent powers, and thus essentially subvert all the rights of self-government.

Applying these principles to the case of the American claimants, it insists that, from 1809 to 1815, Murat was the actual possessor of the sovereign power of the Kingdom of Naples; that its Government was in his hands; that, as its ruler, he represented its political power; that his public political acts were the acts of the Neapolitan nation; that the American confiscations were his acts, because the decrees which enforced them were issued in his name and by his authority, and were executed by the power of his Government; that they were, therefore, imputable to the Neapolitan nation; that, being founded in manifest and admitted wrong, the Neapolitan nation was morally bound to repair the losses occasioned by them; and that the nation which contracted this obligation, notwithstanding the change in its rulers, still exists, and, through his Majesty's Government, which represents its power, and is now bound to redeem it.

The undersigned has said that the principles contended for by the American Government are sustained by the authority of publicists of acknowledged repu tation." In support of this position, he refers his excellency to Vattel's Laws of Nations, book 1, ch. 4, sect. 40, and book 2, ch. 18, sect. 324, as explanatory of the representative relations subsisting between a sovereign and his subjects, of the obligations growing out of these relations, and of the duty of their fulfilment by the nation to which they attach. A satisfactory discussion and exposition of the whole doctrine applicable to this controversy, his excellency will find in Baron Puffendorff's invaluable Treatise on the Rights of Nature and of Nations. The author, in lib. 8, ch. 12, sect. 2, uses the following decisive language:

"De ce que nous verons de dire il paroît comment ou doit resoudre une question proposée par Aristôte, savoir, si, lors'qu'un peuple passe, du gouveróment absolu d'un monarque, ou d'oligarchie, au gouvernement populaire; l'état ainsi devenue libre doit garder, les traités, les contracts, et les autres actes du roi, on

des grands, sous la domination des quels il étoit au paravant? Ceux qui soutenient la negative, se fondoient, sur ce que l'état ne prouvait être tenu que de son propre fait, n'était pas obligé d'accomplir les engagemens d'un monarque absolu, où d'un petit nombre de grands dont l'autorité avoit été fondée uniquement sur la force, et non pas rapportée à l'utilité publique; de sorte qu'alors ce n'étoit pas proprement un état; mais c'est la sans contredit une raison bien frivole. Car une tête malade ne laissepas pour cela d'être une tête; ainsi ce que les chefs de l'état ont fait, quelque vicieux et de reglès qu'ils fuissent, est cense fait par tout le corps de l'état."

The principles asserted in the foregoing extract, his excellency will not fail to perceive are substantially, if not precisely, those upon which the American demands are supported. The writer maintains and illustrates his view by a very strong example, that the acts of the government of a State are the acts of the State itself. That no revolution or change in the government can discharge the State from the obligations which the acts of its rulers have imposed on it; that the responsibility of the State reposes upon the fact of the actual existence of the government, without being in anywise affected by its organization or character. That, whether rightful or otherwise, its obligation is not varied. That, in the significant language of the author, "although the head may be sick, it does not, therefore, cease to be a head;" and that a government founded on mere force is as competent to charge the nation ruled by it as if it were legitimate.

Nor can the force of this reasoning, or the weight of the high authority by which it is sustained, be weakened in its application to the present controversy, by an attempt to show that the Government of Murat was founded in usurpation. Without stopping to enquire into the nature of Murat's title to the throne of Naples, which the undersigned may well admit to have been defective relatively to Ferdinand, its legitimate sovereign, he insists that, as its actual, undisturbed possessor, the Government of the United States, and its citizens under its protection, were justified in dealing with him as with the rightful sovereign; and that all the obligations growing out of their intercourse with his kingdom were as binding upon the Neapolitan nation as if it had been under the rule of Ferdinand himself. The nation was the same, by whomsoever it may have been governed; and it was with the nation, and not its governor in his personal capacity, that the American merchants maintained their intercourse.

So fixed and cardinal, indeed, is this principle in the view of writers upon public law, that even in the case of admitted usurpation, as understood by them, it is unequivocally asserted. Vattel, in his Treatise upon the Laws of Nations, distinctly affirms it. In book 4, ch. 5, devoted to the discussion of the rights of States to receive and entertain public ministers, which he determines to be an incident of sovereign power, he considers the question, "whether foreign nations may receive the ambassadors and other ministers of a usurper, and send their ministers to him? Which he thus decides: "In this particular, foreign powers take for their rule the circumstance of actual possession, if the interest of their affairs so require: and, indeed, there cannot be a more certain rule, or one that is more agreeable to the law of nations and the independence of States. As foreigners have no right to interfere in the domestic concerns of a nation, they are not obliged to canvass and scrutinize her conduct in the management of them, in order to determine how far it is just or unjust. They may, if they think proper, suppose the right to be annexed to the possession." Even admitting, then, Murat to have been a usurper, the American

merchants were justified in treating with him as a legitimate sovereign. They had not the right "to canvass or scrutinize" his title to the throne which he occupied, but were bound to suppose "the right annexed to the possession" of the powers of Government. It would be superfluous to add, that the power thus to treat, necessarily implies the validity of the obligations which the intercourse imposed; and, as these attached to the nation, the nation was and still remains responsible for their fulfilment.

And his excellency will find this view of the subject supported by Puffendorff in the third section of the chapter already referred to, in which he asserts and illustrates the doctrine contended for by the American Government; maintaining that it is reasonable that the acts and engagements of a usurper, after he has been driven from his usurped dominion, should be regarded as obligatory upon the nation represented by him; and distinguishing between the power of a restored sovereign over those acts of a usurper which affect the internal interests of the kingdom, which he admits may be abolished, and those that relate to the interests of strangers, which he decides to be beyond the control of the new government.

138. Mr Nelson to the Prince of Cassaro. Extract.

Naples, September 12, 1832.

Neither the dignity of the Government of the United States, nor the duty it owes to its citizens, will justify or sanction submission to further delay: I am therefore specially instructed to demand an explicit answer to the following inquiry:

Will the Government of his Sicilian Majesty render satisfaction for the seizures and confiscations made by the Neapolitan Government during the reign of Murat, of the property of American citizens, and take measures for the prompt and full payment of the same?

I am further instructed to apprize his Majesty's Government that the frigate United States, now in the port of Naples, has been despatched to receive the answer to this specific demand; that she will wait for it twenty days; and if, at the expiration of that time, a satisfactory reply shall not have been given, and ask proper provision made for the payment of the claims preferred, I am directed to for my passports to return to the United States, when it will devolve on the President to take such measures for the vindication of the rights of his fellow citizens as his constitutional duties shall direct.

139. Mr Nelson to the Prince of Cassaro.

Naples, October 1, 1832. Sir: The propositions, preferred in a spirit of liberal compromise, having been rejected by his Majesty, I feel it to be my duty to declare no longer obligatory upon the Government of the United States, which remitted to its original rights, will hold the Sicilian Government responsible for the whole value of the vessels and cargoes seized by Murat, for the expense of the masters and agents in claiming the property, for the charges to which the American Government has been put in supporting the American seamen belonging to the confiscated ships and their conveyance home, and for any expense which may be hereafter incurred in the further prosecution of the claims of its citizens.

the

140. Prince of Cassaro to Mr Nelson.

Naples, 2d October, 1832. The undersigned has received Mr Nelson's note and has the honor of sending him herewith a passport, agreeably to his

request, and of informing him that proper arrangements have been made for the free embarcation of his suite and baggage.

The undersigned, however, declares to Mr Nelson, by order of the King, that, although he may have thought proper to quit the country, yet the Sicilian Government does not consider the negotiation terminated; as his Majesty, actuated by that spirit of conciliation which forms so distinguished a trait in his character, has conceived certain propositions, which, being similar to those agreed upon in the late convention between France and the United States, seem likely to accommodate the existing differences.

His Sicilian Majesty, urged by a sincere desire to maintain and strengthen his amicable relations with the United Sates, and to dispel the existing difficulties, is determined to bring the affair in question to a conclusion, and, as the departure of Mr Nelson will render that impossible here, his Majesty will send immediately to the United States a Diplomatic Agent, furnished with proper instructions, and with the powers necessary for making a treaty, and thus ending the negotiations here begun.

Having thus communicated to Mr Nelson the determination of his Majesty, the undersigned renews to that gentleman the assurances of his esteem.

THE PRINCE OF CASSARO.

141. Mr Nelson to Mr Livingston.

Issue of the Negociation.

Naples, October 8th, 1832. Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, after I had received my passports, which my last despatch apprized you I had demanded, and on the very day assigned for my audience of leave, I received a note from the Prince of Cassaro, in which he stated that urgent duties would 'prevent the King from seeing me according to appointment, and suggested the expediency of another interview on the following day. To this proposal I, of course, acceded, and have been constantly occupied since in the business of my negotiation, which I have great pleasure in informing you has been brought to an issue, highly favora ble, as I think, to the interests of the claimants. The treaty is now preparing, and will be signed in a day or two. In the meantime, I have obtained from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a written statement of the terms of the settlement.

By this agreement, this Government stipulates the payment of two millions one hundred and fifteen thousand ducats, in instalments, with interest. This sum, I believe, will very nearly cover the principal of all the just and well-founded claims. The negotiation has been a very arduous one; but if the result should prove satisfactory to the Government of the United States, I shall find in its approbation a full remuneration for the toils and vexations to which I have been exposed during it progress. I have the honor to be, &c. JOHN NELSON.

The treaty, made in 1782, having no limitation, continued in force till the creation of the kingdom of the Netherlands and the consolidation of the Dutch and Belgic provinces in 1814 and '15. Separate from the great and lucrative trade carried on with the Dutch East and West Indies, and colonies on the American con

tinent, this country has had from 1791 (with the exception of '99, when Holland was invaded by an English and Russian army, and during nearly the whole year her ports declared to be in vigorous blockade) a vast direct commerce till 1808 and 9. But the diplomatic relations, subject to uncommon vicissitudes, have been interrupted the greater part of the time. Holland fell the same year with Austrian Flanders, and the country on the left bank of the Rhine.

From that period we trace the original Dutch confederacy through the suc cessive changes of a national assembly, a Batavian republic, an aristocratic legislature, an elective monarchy, an hereditary monarchy, a department in 1810 of the imperial government, and lastly, to its union in 1814 and '15, with Belgium. The United States have not followed step by step these revolutions in its government; but a friendly intercourse has always been maintained, and till the abdication of Louis in July, 1810, many openings were found for trade, notwithstanding the severity, with which the continental system was attempted to be enforced. The special application of that system to Holland, however, in 1809, and the following years, subsequently gave rise to the same controversy, on the subject of illegal seizures, the government has had with Spain and Naples. American property to a great amount was unjustly seized, and, ultimately, confiscated.* That, which was not liable to the operation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, was sequestered under the 10th article of the treaty of Paris of March 1810. It is in these words:

"Every description of merchandise that has arrived in the ports of Holland in American vessels since the 1st January, 1809, or which shall hereafter so arrive, shall be put under sequestration, and shall belong to France, to be disposed of according to circumstances and the political relations of that country with the United States.”

This treaty, the Dutch admiral Verhuel was obliged to sign with M. de Champagny. It was the preliminary step to the abdication of Louis, an event, indeed, that followed a few menths after. Louis in his own hand made observa-tions on the different provisions of this treaty. They have been preserved, and have since been published in a manner, that leaves no doubt of their authenticity. In regard to the 10th article just quoted he remarks: "Iexpect, from the justice of the Emperor, that he will express his intentions in a different way, as it respects this property. I think it should be treated as property, under similar circumstances, has been in Spain and Nuples, and that the same date should be assigned for the application of the article." This arrangement would have placed the property in depôt subject to future examination and decision. The history of the claims of this country on the Dutch government does not differ in principle from that on Spain or Naples.

The negotiations with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, since the peace of 1915, prosent little variety or novelty. They relate solely to claims for spoliations, and to the concluding of a commercial convention, containing the doctrine of recip rocal importation and charges and duties.

In 1818 an attempt was made by the United States to renew the ancient treaty of 1732 with modifications, adapted to the actual condition of both countries. This failed in consequence of the law of March 3d, 1815, requiring the repeal of

• These confiscations, known as the "Antwerp" and the "Holland" claims, are now in a course of liquidation: the memorials, in both cases, have been received by the commissionors under the French treaty of July 4, 1831.