. XIX danger in the event of war with a third Power. unless access to the Black Sea were denied to its enemy, and as at the same time, in the absence. of a Russian navy, the presence of foreign fleets was unnecessary to Turkey, the Treaty of Paris, while limiting the number of vessels to be kept within the Black Sea by the two Powers respectively. contained also a promise on the part of Turkey to close the Bosphorus to foreign vessels of war except in case of hostilities in which she was herself engaged; and the Black Sea was declared to be neutral. In 1870 the Russian Government seized the occasion presented by the FrancoGerman war, to escape from the obligations under which it lay, and issued a circular declaring itself to be no longer bound by that part of the Treaty of Paris which had reference to the Black Sea. Lord Granville, in answering the Russian circular, took it for granted that no breach of the treaty, by the other contracting parties, had taken place which could free Russia from her obligations, and confined himself to the question in whose hand lay the power of releasing one or more of the parties to the treaty from all or any of its stipulations. It has always been held, he says, that the right of releasing a party to a treaty belongs only to the Governments who have been parties to the original instrument. The despatches of the Russian Government appear to assume that any one of the Powers who have signed the engagement may allege that occurrences have taken place which, in its opinion, are at variance with the provisions of the treaty, and though their view is not shared nor admitted by the co-signatary Powers, may found upon that allegation, not a request to those Governments for a consideration of the case, but an announcement to them that it has emancipated itself, or holds itself emancipated, from any stipulations of the treaty which it thinks fit to disapprove. Yet it is quite evident that the effect of such a doctrine and of any proceeding, which, with or without avowal, is founded upon it, is to bring the entire authority and efficacy of treaties under the discretionary control of each of the Powers who may have signed them; the result of which would be the entire destruction of treaties in their essence." The protest of Lord Granville, says Mr. Hall further, although uttered under circumstances which made its practical importance at the moment very slight, nevertheless compelled Russia to abandon the position which it had taken up. A conference of such of the Powers, signatary of the Treaty of Paris, as could attend was held, at which it was declared that it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement. The general correctness of the principle is indisputable, and in a declaration of the kind made it would have been impossible to cnounce it with those qualifications which have been seen to be necessary in practice. The force of its assertion may have been impaired by the fact that Russia, as the reward of submission to law, was given what she had affected to take. But the concessions made were dictated by political considerations, with which International Law has nothing to do. It is enough from the legal point of view, that the declaration purported to affirm a principle as existing, and that it was ultimately signed by all the leading Powers of Europe. W. E. HALL. Intern. Law. Edit. 1880. p. 297–301. . XIX W$134 danger in the event of war with a third Power. unless access to the Black Sea were denied to its enemy, and as at the same time, in the absence of a Russian navy, the presence of foreign fleets was unnecessary to Turkey, the Treaty of Paris, while limiting the number of vessels to be kept within the Black Sea by the two Powers respectively. contained also a promise on the part of Turkey to close the Bosphorus to foreign vessels of war except in case of hostilities in which she was herself engaged; and the Black Sea was declared to be neutral. In 1870 the Russian Government seized the occasion presented by the FrancoGerman war, to escape from the obligations under which it lay, and issued a circular declaring itself to be no longer bound by that part of the Treaty of Paris which had reference to the Black Sea. Lord Granville, in answering the Russian circular, took it for granted that no breach of the treaty, by the other contracting parties, had taken place which could free Russia from her obligations, and confined himself to the question in whose hand lay the power of releasing one or more of the parties to the treaty from all or any of its stipulations. It has always been held, he says, that the right of releasing a party to a treaty belongs only to the Governments who have been parties to the original instrument. The despatches of the Russian Government appear to assume that any one of the Powers who have signed the engagement may allege that occurrences have taken place which, in its opinion, are at variance with the provisions of the treaty, and though their view is not shared nor admitted by the co-signatary Powers, may found upon that allegation, not a request to those Governments for a consideration of the case, but an announcement to them that it has emancipated itself, or holds itself emancipated, from any stipulations of the treaty which it thinks fit to disapprove. Yet it is quite evident that the effect of such a doctrine and of any proceeding, which, with or without avowal, is founded upon it, is to bring the entire authority and efficacy of treaties under the discretionary control of each of the Powers who may have signed them; the result of which would be the entire destruction of treaties in their essence." The protest of Lord Granville, says Mr. Hall further, although uttered under circumstances which made its practical importance at the moment very slight, nevertheless compelled Russia to abandon the position which it had taken up. A conference of such of the Powers, signatary of the Treaty of Paris, as could attend was held, at which it was declared that it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement. The general correctness of the principle is indisputable, and in a declaration of the kind made it would have been impossible to enounce it with those qualifications which have been seen to be necessary in practice. The force of its assertion may have been impaired by the fact that Russia, as the reward of submission to law, was given what she had affected to take. But the concessions made were dictated by political considerations, with which International Law has nothing to do. It is enough from the legal point of view, that the declaration purported to affirm a principle as existing, and that it was ultimately signed by all the leading Powers of Europe. ** * W. E. HALL. Intern. Law. Edit. 1880, p. 297-301. The Clayton- The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, A.D. 1850, * concluded between Great Britain and the United States, respecting the future use of the canal in course of construction between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by way of San Juan de Nicaragua, has undergone discussions which somewhat threatened to affect International Law. The correspondence which took place between the American Secretary of State (Mr. Blaine) and the English Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), in which suggestions were made by the former for the abrogation or modification of the treaty in question, will be found in the papers respecting the "projected Panama canal," presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, 1882. Earl Granville, in his despatch to Mr. West, the British Minister at Washington, states the following conclusions at which the British Government had arrived in this matter: *This Treaty concerning the formation of a canal or railway across the Isthmus of Central America, is, both on account of its immediate object, and the principle which it recognizes, of such vast importance that it is not out of our way to reproduce it here in full. The preamble sets forth that, "Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America being desirous of consolidating the relations of amity which so happily subsist between them, by setting forth and fixing in a Convention their views and intentions with reference to any means of communication by ship-canal, which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific ocean. &c. The text runs as follows:-"Art. 1. The Governments of Great Britain and the United States hereby declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commandi g the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have, to or with any State or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same. Nor will Great Britain or the United States take |