been established for a short time, and makes direct and regular trips between Rotterdam and New York, at present with two steamers, the Rotterdam and the Maas; it should, therefore, be classed in the same category with the steamers of the Belgian line and those of the North German Lloyd.

As regards the exemption from the payment of tonnage dues which is enjoyed by American steamers in the port of Bremen, and which, according to communications received, was one of the reasons for which the same privilege was granted to the North German Lloyd steamers in American ports, I can inform your excellency that this same exemption is also granted in the Netherlands, since, by a law passed as long ago as July 14, 1855, which was published in the official journal of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of that year, No. 105, tonnage dues on vessels entering Dutch ports were abolished, and there is no likelihood of their being re-established. There is, therefore, in this respect, a perfect similarity between the situation of American steamers, in the port of Bremen, and in the ports of the Netherlands, since they enjoy the same exemption in both."

I hope, therefore, that your excellency will be pleased to take into consideration the request which I have the honor to address to you, and, seeing its justice, will cause to be granted to the Dutch line of steamers between New York and Rotterdam the same exemption from the payment of tonnage dues which has been granted to the Belgian and North German Lloyd lines.

I gladly avail myself of this occasion to offer to you, Mr. Secretary of State, the renewed assurances of my very high consideration. The minister of the Netherlands,

WESTENBERG.

No. 313.

Mr. Fish to Mr. Westenberg.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 19, 1873.

SIR: Your note of the 20th of last month was duly received. It claims for the steamers of the Dutch line between Rotterdam and New York the exemption from tonnage duties recently extended to those of the North German Lloyd between Bremen and ports of this country. In support of the claim you refer to Article II of the treaty of the 8th of October, 1782.

In reply, I have to state that that treaty is associated with reminiscences too important and grateful to every patriotic citizen of the United States to allow this Government to refuse any request which can justly be founded upon its stipulations.

Your application, however, assumes that the venerable instrument adverted to is still in full force. It is true that upon its face its duration is not limited. Its signers undoubtedly hoped, and probably believed, that it would last as long as either of the parties. In this forecast they certainly were as correct as their well-known sagacity gave occasion to anticipate. Pardon me, however, for referring to those events in the history of Europe, at the close of the last and the commencement of the present century, of which the identity and independence of our ancient

friends, the Netherlands, was an unfortunate victim. Results of that character, involving as they do a release from obligations under treaties, are also, it is understood, deemed to involve a relinquishment of benefits claimed under similar instruments. In point of fact, it is believed that the general peace in Europe of 1815, the treaty of 1782 between the United States and the Netherlands was considered as at an end, and has never since been renewed. In proof of its having terminated, permit me to refer you to the note of the 12th of April, 1815, a copy of which is annexed, addressed by Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, to Mr. F. D. Changuion, then the minister of the Netherlands at Washington. Accept, &c., HAMILTON FISH.

No. 314.

Mr. Westenberg to Mr. Fish.

WASHINGTON, March 8, 1873. (Received March 11.)

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed note of February 19th, last, in reply to my note of January 29th, by which I claimed for the steamers of the Dutch line between Rotterdam and New York the exemption from tonnage duties recently extended to those of the North German Lloyd, between Bremen and American ports, and in support of which I referred to Article II of the treaty of October 8, 1782, between the Netherlands and the United States. I feel deeply gratified for the so very obliging and courteous terms in which your excellency in said note expresses yourself about the Netherlands, one of America's oldest allies, and the treaty one of America's first.

These generous feelings are the more appreciated as they meet with perfect reciprocity. Yet I hope your excellency will allow me to make some observations on the arguments which induced the United States Government not to consent to the claim which I respectfully presented. The treaty of 1782 is, indeed, an old, venerable act, and at the time of its conclusion its duration was not limited; but your excellency argues that the events in Europe, in the end of the last century and in the beginning of the present, events from which the Netherlands did suffer, perhaps, more than any other country, could have virtually abolished this treaty. I beg your pardon for not assenting to this opinion. On account of the war, and on account, too, of the closing of the European continental ports by the decrees of Milan and others, the treaty certainly could not be executed for some years, and the advantages and the obligations resulting from it could in consequence not be fulfilled directly between the contracting parties; but this, I think, involves not an abolition of it. It only involves a temporary suspension; and, moreover, the duties, as well as the advantages, come all to the charge and benefit of that power which, by events of war or others, momentarily occupied and annexed the territory of such power, which was originally one of the contracting parties; and it must be admitted that it revives quite and totally, ex jure postliminii, as soon as such party regains its independence and self-government, whatever may be the form adopted for its new internal administration.

The authors on international law in general agree all about this point. The more this can be admitted as, according to the principles of in

ternational law, such abolition cannot be argued by that contracting party which took no part whatever in the events which were fatal to the other. It may direct its claims in the meanwhile to the occupying power, but cannot in fact declare itself unilaterally free from the treaty; and least so after the other contracting party has regained its inde pendence.

By the way, I take the liberty to observe that, though in Europe the territory of the Netherlands was occupied by France, and in Asia its territories by England, still there remained one part where the Dutch power and independence continued unabated; one part, however small, where the Dutch flag waved uninterruptedly-the island of Decima, the Dutch settlement in the Japanese seas; which therefore forms a constant link between past and later better times, and proves in some way the continuance of the old country.

The trade and navigation that might have taken place by Dutch vessels from that settlement to American ports were consequently always entitled to the advantages and obliged to the duties stipulated in the said treaty of 1782.

It may therefore be argued, I think, that there was no total solution of continuity.

Secondly. A treaty whose duration is not limited cannot be ended unless by a formal and solemn act declaring the disposition of one of the parties to renunciate.

To this effect your excellency refers to a note of April 12, 1815, of the honorable James Monroe, Secretary of State, to Mr. Changuion, then minister of the Netherlands in the United States, a copy of which accompanied your note. I take the liberty to observe that this note of the honorable James Monroe simply mentions views and considerations, which he supposed to be reciprocal, about the treaty of 1782, but can hardly be admitted to be a formal and solemn declaration of renunciation.

It certainly mentions the desire of the United States to reconsider the existing treaties, and to make all of them, as much as possible, uniform for the future; yet it declares nor fixes anything precisely, and leaves the question in suspense until later times. Consequently the treaty of 1782, whatever may have been the opinions and intentions about it between the contracting parties, may be admitted as to have remained fully in force in every respect, and the more so as honorable James Monroe himself, far from repudiating it, assures, in the said note, the willingness of the American Government to make that treaty the basis of a new proposed one between the Netherlands and the United States.

Its stipulations and reciprocal duties and advantages, therefore, must be considered as to continue, unless formally abrogated; and I think it may be admitted they are still existing, as the treaty of 1839, as well as the additional convention of 1852, are not, in some sense, perfect and complete treaties of commerce and navigation in general, but merely conventions made on the basis of the aforesaid treaty of 1782, and regulating merely some points of navigation and the equal treatment of the mutual flags.

Last, I allow myself to remember to your excellency that among the considérations which induced the United States Government to extend the freedom from tonnage duties to the steamers of the North German Lloyd, plying between the American ports and Bremen, was mentioned that such freedom existed, too, in the port of Bremen, as no to duties were levied there.

As to this point, I have the honor to repeat that the same immunity exists equally in the ports of the Netherlands, where the tonnage duties have been abolished by the law of July 14, 1855, and that there is neither prospect nor chance to have them re-established.

I hope I may, on behalf of this consideration and the requested reciprocity, invoke here Article II of the treaty of 1839, and Article III of the additional convention of 1852, and believe that on this account the claim which I presented can be justified, too. I respectfully submit these observations to your excellency's judgment, and hope that, while admitting them to be justified by right and by law, you will reconsider the question and still honor me with a favorable answer.

In my opinion, the amount of these tonnage duties, the exemption of which is requested in favor of a small line is, in itself, of no real importance to the United States Treasury, but the recognition of the point of right will greatly honor the Government of the United States, so justly renowned for its equity and constant desire to observe strictly the existing rights, obligations, and reciprocity. Accept, &c.,

WESTENBERG.

No. 315.

Mr. Westenberg to Mr. Fish.

WASHINGTON, March 17, 1873. (Received March 19.)

SIR: In the note of February 19 with which I was honored, and which contained an answer to the claim presented by me for extension, to the Dutch line of steamers between Rotterdam and New York, of the exemption from tonnage duties in American ports, recently accorded to the steamers of the North German Lloyd, your excellency argued that the treaty of 1782 between the Netherlands and the United States was to be considered, for political reasons and events, as being no longer in force. In support of this opinion your excellency referred to a note of April 12, 1815, written by the Hon. James Monroe, Secretary of State, to Mr. Changuion, then minister of the Netherlands in the United States.

In my reply which I had the honor to address to your excellency on March 8th, last, I explained the reasons why I could not agree to your opinion on these points-reasons based as well on considerations of international law as on my consideration of the said note of the Hon. James Monroe.

My attention has since been called to some questions that arose between the Netherlands and the United States about claims of various nature, all of them presented a few years after the note of Hon. James Monroe had been addressed to Mr. Changuion; and in the correspondence that took place, I found confirmed by the official American State Papers the following assertions from both sides, by which, I hope, it will be evident that, whatever may have been, in general, the opinions and intentions in 1815, mentioned by the honorable Secretary of State Monroe, the treaty of 1782 was still considered as to be and to have remained in full force, de jure as well as de facto. I take the liberty to present here, inclosed to your excellency, the passages concerning it. While submitting to you these declarations, declarations the more to be appreciated,

as those from the American side were given by the United States Government itself by the Hon. John Quincy Adams, the justly celebrated statesman, and precisely when the Hon. James Monroe was President, I hope, respectfully, that they may contribute to bring your excellency to the opinion of the permanent and still actual continuance of said treaty and its basis, and consequently to reconsider favorably the claim which I had the honor to present.

Accept, &c.,

[Extract.]

WESTENBERG.

American State Papers: Documents legislative and executive of the Congress of the United States, selected and edited under the authority of Congress. Clay I. Foreign Relations, vol. v, page 603. Claims against Netherlands, No. 7.

Extract of a letter of Mr. Adams to Mr. Alexander H. Everett, chargé d'affaires at the Hague:

AUGUST 10, 1824.

No principle of international law can be more clearly established than this, that the rights and the obligations of a nation, in regard to other states, are independent of its internal revolutions of government. It extends even to the case of conquest. The conqueror who reduces a nation to his subjection, receives it subject to all its engagements and duties toward others, the fulfillment of which then becomes his own duty. However frequent the instances of departure from this principle may be in point of fact, it cannot, with any color of reason, be contested on the ground of right. On what other ground is it, indeed, that both the governments of the United States and the Netherlands now admit that they are still reciprocally bound by the engagements, and entitled to claim from each other the benefits of the treaty between the United States and the United Provinces of 1782. If the nations are respectively bound to the stipulations of that treaty now, they were equally bound to them in 1810 when the depredations for which indemnity is now claimed were committed; and when the present King of the Netherlands came to the sovereignty of the country, he assumed with it the obligation of repairing the injustices against other nations, which had been committed by his predecessors, however free from all participation in them he had been himself.

Eodem, No. 8, (a,) page 605.

Mr. Everett to Baron de Nagell.

BRUSSELS, February 22, 1819. It is regarded by the Government of the United States as a settled and unquestionable principle of public law, that the rights and obligations of nations are in no way affected by their internal revolutions in government. Political forms may be altered, different persons or families may be called to the administration, but under every change that occurs, the new government succeeds to all the obligations, as it does to all the duties, of the old one, or, in other words, the nation, though it has changed its rulers, continues to be bound by its own acts. If this were not the case, a nation by changing its rulers, or its form of government, could at any time release itself from all its engagements, a supposition too absurd to be refuted.

*

No act of the nation can discharge it from this duty, except the fulfillment of it. These principles are recognized by the great writers on international law, &c.

Eodem, vol. vi, page 380, No. 448.

Extract from a letter of the Chevalier Huygens (minister of the Netherlands in the United States) to the Secretary of State :

WASHINGTON, November 11, 1826.

From the commencement of the relations between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the United States of America, founded and stipulated by the treaty of 1782, and faithfully maintained until the war of Europe, and, in fine, the invasion of the United Provinces of the Netherlands by a foreign power suspended their happy re