Page images
PDF
EPUB

signed, Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Venezuela, has the honor to inform the Hon. Secretary of State and Foreign Relations of the Government of the United States, that the period stipulated for the duration of the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce, concluded on the 20th of January, 1836, ratified by the United States and by Venezuela, respectively, on the 20th of April, and 25th of May, of the same year, and of which the ratifications were exchanged in this city on the 31st of the last-named month, has expired on the 31st of May of the year last past, and the undersigned has received orders and instructions from the President of this Republic to notify the Government of the United States, as required by the 34th article, 1st section, of the said Treaty, that from and after the date of the receipt of this notice will begin the period of one year, at the end of which the Treaty will cease to have effect in all that relates to Commerce and Navigation. H. E. the President has published the order which causes this communication, and has expressed his will that the Treaty should cease, in a decree issued on the 4th of the last month, of which the undersigned Secretary has the honor of sending herewith a certified copy." 1

Mr. Clayton, the Secretary of State, responded on the 5th of January, 1850, as follows: "The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note addressed to this Department by His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Venezuela, under date the 5th of November last, accompanied by a copy of a Decree of the President of that Republic, and expressing a wish that the existing Treaty between the United States and Venezuela, in all those parts relative to commerce and navigation, should terminate within a year from the receipt of that note, conformably to the tenth paragraph of the thirty-fourth article of the Treaty. The note referred to having been received at this Department on the third instant, the stipulations of the Treaty to which it applies will consequently cease to be binding on either government on and after the third of January next." 1

In 1859 a claims convention was made for the settlement of what were known as the Aves Island claims. For the correspondence respecting these claims, see Senate Ex. Doc. 25, 3d Session 34th Congress. The last payment was made by Venezuela on the 12th of September, 1864. to "H. S. Sanford, attorney-in-fact for the creditors," who "acknowledged to have received from the government of Venezuela through the General Credit and Finance Company of London, full satisfaction of the dues under the convention made at Valencia on the 14th January, 1859, between the United States and the republic of Venezuela, and known as the Aves Convention," and "in behalf of the creditors under said convention relinquished all claims upon the government of Venezuela

1 MS. Dept. of State.

[ocr errors]

in virtue of the same, or of the convention of 5th June, 1863, hypothecating for its benefit the export dues of certain ports of Venezuela.”

The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, Navigation, and Extradition, of 1860, was terminated by notice from the Minister of Venezuela, as follows: "The Congress of the United States of Venezuela passed, on the 18th of May last, a law directing the Executive to notify nations with which Venezuela had treaties whose term had expired of such expiration This is the case with regard to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, Navigation, and Extradition, made August 27, 1860, for a term of eight years, counting from the time of the exchange of ratifications, which has expired by reason of the said exchanges having taken place at Caracas, August 9, 1861.

"In accordance, therefore, with the provisions of the law, I have the honor to make, by the present communication, and in the name of my Government, the notification provided for in respect to the said Treaty, in order that the due effect may be reached, and that the compact may cease to be obligatory in one year after the making of this declaration, as was agreed in article 31st of the same."1

To this Mr. Fish replied: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 22d instant, by which, pursuant to instructions received from your Government, you give the official notifi cation to the United States of the intention of Venezuela, as stipulated in the 31st article of the Convention of 1860 between the United States and Venezuela, to arrest the operations of said Convention twelve months from the date of said notification." 1

The Commissioners provided for by the claims convention of 1866 were duly appointed, and after examination made awards against Venezuela to a large amount. When the day of payment came, Venezuela charged that the proceedings had been so irregular as to vitiate some of the awards. The United States suspended proceedings and asked for specific statements and proof. After a delay of over a year Venezuela replied to the demand. The reply was laid before Congress. Congress did not act at that session, but a subsequent Congress enacted, "that the adjudication of claims by the Convention with Venezuela of April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, is hereby recognized as final and conclusive, and to be held as valid and subsisting against the Republic of Venezuela."2

WURTTEMBERG.

"By a statute of Louisiana, it is provided that each and every person not being domiciliated in this State, and not being a citizen of any

1MS. Dept. of State. 217 St. at L., 477. See S. E. Doc. 5, 1st. Sess. 41st Cong.; S. M. Doc. 162, 2d Sess 41st Cong..; H. E. Doc. 176, 2d Sess. 41st Cong.; H. R. 79, Ib.

other State or Territory in the Union, who shall be entitled, whether as heir, legatee, or donee, to the whole or any part of the succession of a person deceased, whether such person shall have died in this State or elsewhere, shall pay a tax of ten per cent. on all sums, or on the value of all property, which he may have actually received from such succession, or so much thereof as is situated in this State, after deducting all debts due by the succession.""

It was claimed that this statute was in contravention of the third article of the Treaty of 1844 with Württemburg, when applied to the case of a native of Württemberg, naturalized in the United States and residing and dying in New Orleans, leaving legatees who resided in Württemberg; but the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Treaty "does not regulate the testamentary disposition of citizens or subjects of the contracting powers in reference to property within the country of their origin or citizenship. The case of a citizen or subject of the respective countries residing at home, and disposing of property there in favor of a citizen or subject of the other, was not in the contemplation of the contracting powers, and is not embraced in this article of the Treaty."1

The Consul-General of Württemberg, under instructions from his gov ernment, complained of the taxes which were levied in conformity with this decision, and "suggested a modification of the Treaty such as would hereafter preclude construction of its provisions prejudicial to His Majesty's subjects." 2"

Mr. Seward answered that he saw no objection to entering into negotiations for that purpose, and asked whether Mr. Bierwith held a power from his government to conclude a Treaty. 3

Mr. Bierwith did not: and instead of receiving such a power he was instructed "to obtain from the Government of the United States, in a form binding on the Supreme Court, a declaration of the meaning of article 3 of the Treaty such as will oblige the Court to abandon its idea concerning the force of the Treaty."4

To this latter proposal Mr. Fish replied, (referring to the decision of the Supreme Court:) "To this decision, until removed by the same high authority, the President is bound by the Constitution to submit; nor can he, by any declaration, or by anything short of a modification of the Treaty itself, (made with the advice and consent of the Senate,) such as was originally suggested by you, and assented to by my predecessor, meet the views of His Majesty's government." 5

1 Frederickson vs. Louisiana, 23 Howard, 445. Mr. Bierwith to Mr. Fish May 26, 1869, MS. Dept. of State. 3 Ib. Ib. 5 Mr. Fish to Mr. Bierwith, June 7, 1869.

INDEX TO THE
TO THE TREATIES.

I. ANALYTICAL INDEX.-Being an index of the subjects referred to in the several trea-
ties and conventions, arranged alphabetically, with references to the Synoptical
Index.

II. SYNOPTICAL INDEX.-Containing the titles of the several treaties and conven-
tions, and a synopsis of their respective contents taken from the marginal abstracts
on the text, arranged in the order in which they stand in the text, corrected by add-
ing, in their proper order the treaties printed in the appendix. This index shows,
in respect of each treaty, so far as it is possible to give the information, the dates of
(1) its conclusion; (2) the action of the Senate upon it; (3) its ratification by the
President; (4) the exchange of ratifications; (5) its proclamation by the President.

« PreviousContinue »