deter either the Government or the people of the United States from exercising, at their own discretion, the rights belonging to them as an independent nation, and of forming and expressing their own opinions, freely and at all times, upon the great political events which may transpire among the civilized nations of the earth. Their own institutions stand upon the broadest principles of civil liberty, and believing those principles and the fundamental laws in which they are embodied to be eminently favorable to the prosperity of statesto be, in fact, the only principles of government which meet the demands of the present enlightened age-the President has perceived with great satisfaction that, in the constitution recently introduced into the Austrian Empire, many of these great principles are recognized and applied, and he cherishes a sincere wish that they may produce the same happy effects throughout his Austrian Majesty's ertensive dominions that they have done in the United States."

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hülsemann, Dec. 21, 1850, S. Ex. Doc. 43, 31 Cong. 1 Sess.; Br. & For. State Papers, XXXVIII. (1849, 1850) 273; Webster's Works, VI. 491.

A fictitious reply to the note of Mr. Webster, said to have been made by Mr.
Hülsemann July 4, 1851, was published in some of the American news-
papers, from which it was reproduced in Lesur, l'Annuaire, 1851, p. 183,
as authentic. (Lawrence, Com. sur les Éléments du Droit Int., I. 204.)
The first draft of Mr. Webster's note appears to have been made by William
Hunter, for many years an honored official of the Department of State.
Subsequently, another draft was made at Mr. Webster's request by
Edward Everett; and finally Mr. Webster, with these two drafts before
him, cast the note into the form in which it became historical. (Curtis,
Life of Webster, II. 535–537.)

Mr. Rhodes criticises the note as "hardly more than a stump speech under diplo-
matic guise." (History of the United States, I. 206, cited in Foster's Cen-
tury of American Diplomacy, 331.) Curtis, in his Life of Daniel Webster, II.
537, observes that there are, no doubt, passages and expressions in this
letter which are in a tone not usual with Mr. Webster in his diplomatic
papers;" and he quotes the following letter written by Mr. Webster to
Mr. Ticknor, Jan. 16, 1851: “If you say that my Hülsemann letter is boast-
ful and rough, I shall own the soft impeachment. My excuse is twofold:
1. I thought it well enough to speak out, and tell the people of Europe who
and what we are, and awaken them to a just sense of the unparalleled
growth of this country. 2. I wished to write a paper which should touch
the national pride, and make a man feel sheepish and look silly who should
speak of disunion. It is curious enough, but it is certain, that Mr. Mann's
private instructions were seen, somehow, by Schwartzenberg.”
When the correspondence was laid before the Senate, a motion to print 10,000
extra copies of it was opposed by Mr. Clay, and was defeated by a vote of
21 to 18. Mr. Clay said that if a State of the United States had been in
revolt, and a European government had sent an agent on such a mission
as that of Mr. Mann, it would have created a great deal of feeling. He
therefore doubted the soundness of Mr. Webster's contention that it was
a purely domestic transaction. It was published to the world. Its domes.
tic character did not limit its publicity. (Political Science Quarterly, X.

"As regards the government which has recently been set up by the white settlers in the name of King Thakombau [in Fiji], I have in another dispatch informed you that as long as this newly constituted government exercises actual authority you should deal with it as a de facto government, so far as concerns the districts which may acknowledge its rule, but that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give any opinion as to the propriety of formally recognizing it without much fuller information as to its character and prospects." (Earl of Kimberly, Colonial Secretary, to the Earl of Belmore, November 3, 1871, C. 509, March, 1872, 2.)

Unofficial communi

cations.

2. OF NEW GOVERNMENTS.

$73.

That the recognition of a government is not necessarily to be implied from the fact of holding communication, whether oral or written, with it, is a principle of which numerous illustrations may be found in the precedents heretofore discussed, in connection with the recognition of new governments; and the same principle has been seen to be applicable to intercourse with the authorities of new states claiming to be recognized as independent. In the case of new governments, however, a situation usually exists which does not arise in the case of new states. In the latter case special agents are, where there is occasion for them, employed, since the dispatch of a minister to a new state is one of the acts from which its recognition is necessarily implied; but, in the case of a new government, the question of recognition as a rule practically concerns only the powers that have already recognized the state and established regular diplomatic relations with it. There has thus arisen a certain right of diplomatic representation; and the sending of a new minister or the retention of! an old one, while it implies continued recognition of the state, does not constitute a recognition of the new government, so long as there is no formal presentation of credentials and communications bear only an unofficial character.

This distinction is tacitly assumed, if not expressed, in some of the utterances quoted in this section.

Venezuela.

"This Government has, and it must insist on, the right to determine for itself when new authorities, established in a foreign state, can claim from it a formal recognition of them as an established power. The regulation of the exercise of that right upon principles of justice and according to facts established, with an absence of all favor and caprice, is hardly more important to the universal interests of society than it is to those of the United States themselves.

"This Government has, at the same time under the law of nations and by treaty, a clear right to have its properly appointed agents residing in Venezuela, although the authorities with which it has heretofore

treated have been subverted, more or less completely, and to communicate with the new authorities upon international matters affecting either the Government of the United States or its citizens. During the period, which, in case of any domestic revolution, may be either short or long, the agents of this Government have a right to confer upon such matters with the actual authorities who are conducting the affairs of Venezuela, and while the agent is bound to avoid all interference in the domestic questions of that state, he is entitled to be heard as the representative of the United States, without a previous recognition of the existing authorities, in place of those which have been either more or less effectually supplanted."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Culver, Mar. 9, 1863, MS. Inst. Venez. I. 266.

When in the autumn of 1863 Mr. Bruzual arrived in Washington as the diplomatic representative of Venezuela appointed by the new Falcon government, he was "informed that the existing government of Venezuela was not considered to be consolidated enough to warrant a compliance with his request [to present his credentials] at present. It was added, however, that he might be expected to enjoy any privileges and immunities incident to his official character which were usually extended to diplomatic agents of friendly powers under similar circumstances."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Culver, Oct. 21, 1863, MS. Inst. Venezuela,
I. 288. See supra, 150.

"Señor Agusto F. Pulido, chargé of the Venezuelan legation, called at the Department yesterday afternoon to make oral announcement that, under instructions from the Venezuelan minister of foreign affairs, who appears to be the same person formerly in President Andrade's cabinet, the chargé d'affaires and consuls of Venezuela in the United States are continued in the exercise of their functions until further notice.

"Mr. Pulido was thereupon told that this Government would simply ignore the fact of a change of government in Venezuela until the question of its recognition should be raised by formal announcement and request to that end, and that the Department would in the meantime conduct all necessary diplomatic business with Señor Pulido precisely the same as if no change had occurred in the home government."

Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Loomis, Minister to Venezuela, November 13, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 809.

Salvador.

It has been seen that Mr. Seward, in narrating his refusal informally to receive an agent of Maximilian, stated that it was the rule of the United States "to hold no interview, public or private, with persons coming from any country, other than the agents duly accredited by the authority of that country which is

recognized by this Government." (Dip. Cor. 1865, III. 378; supra, 210.) The emissaries whom he declined to see were as a rule the enemies of recognized governments. On one occasion, however, in the case of a revolution in Salvador, he so extended the principle on which he acted as to include the representative of parties in "armed opposition" to a government which, though he describes it as "actually existing," he had refused to recognize. The representative in question was the head of the government that had just been overthrown. The representative of the new but unrecognized government was admitted to unofficial relations.

*

"While this government does not intend or desire to question the rightfulness or the stability of the government now provisionally existing in Salvador, * * it does not find itself at liberty to make a formal recognition at the present moment of that provisional government. The United States will at present watch and wait for the permanent reestablishing of government in Salvador, interpreting as favorably as possible all the proceedings that shall take place there with a view to that great end. In the meantime, there being no other person in the United States claiming to represent Salvador, all communications Mr. Yrisarri [who had submitted credentials as minister of the new government] may have occasion to make to this government will be received unofficially and have respectful attention. You will unofficially communicate this information to the provisional President, and until you shall receive further instructions, will not claim to be officially and formally recognized by him."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, minister to Salvador, Jan. 2, 1864,
MS. Inst. American States, XVI. 399.

"We shall await with calmness and good will the action of the people of Salvador in recognizing their government.

"Mr. Barrios, the exiled President of that Republic, has requested an interview with me. I have declined it as I invariably do to hold interviews with persons who come hither to represent parties who are in armed opposition to the government actually existing in countries with which the United States are at peace.

"This Government will maintain absolute non-intervention in foreign wars and will not suffer the neutrality laws to be violated."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, minister to Salvador, No. 34, Jan. 29, 1864, MS. Inst. Am. States, XVI. 415.

Mexico.

During the period of more than a year, when, owing to the existence of disorders on the Rio Grande frontier, formal recognition was withheld from the newly installed Diaz government in Mexico, diplomatic correspondence was carried on through the usual channels on all matters arising between the two countries, President Hayes, in his annual message of December 3, 1877,

saying: "It is gratifying to add that this temporary interruption of official relations has not prevented due attention by the representatives of the United States in Mexico to the protection of American citizens, so far as practicable. Nor has it interfered with the prompt payment of the amounts due from Mexico to the United States under the treaty of July 4, 1868, and the awards of the joint commission."

In July, 1865, Mr. Louis de Arroyo published in a newspaper in the city of New York a decree of the government of Consular functions. Maximilian in Mexico, stating that it pertained to the consuls and vice-consuls of the empire to legalize invoices and manifests of merchandise for Mexican ports, as well as all documents required by the laws to be legalized; and that the agents appointed by "the administration of Don Benito Juarez" were to discontinue their functions, since that administration came to end on July 31, 1863. This decree was addressed by the imperial treasury to Mr. Arroyo as "consul, acting as commercial agent, New York." It was brought to the attention of Mr. Seward by the Mexican minister at Washington, who inquired (1) whether Maximilian was considered to have the right to appoint commercial agents who should exercise the functions of consuls in the United States, and (2) whether such agents could "exercise the functions of consuls, not only without a formal exequatur, but also without any other sort of permission or recognition from the Government of the United States." Mr. Seward replied:

"This department is not aware of any law of the United States which forbids a person claiming to be a consul of a foreign power from making on his own responsibility a publication of the character to which you refer.

"It can not be necessary for me to repeat what has uniformly been said by this government in all its official correspondence, that no other than the republican government in Mexico has been recognized by the United States. You are aware, however, that the party in arms against that government is, and for some time past has been, in possession of some, at least, of the ports of Mexico. That possession carries with it, for the time being, a power to prescribe the terms upon which foreign commerce may be carried on with those ports. If, as is presumed to be the case, one of those conditions is, that the invoices and manifests of vessels from abroad, bound to those ports, must be certified by a commercial agent of the party in possession, residing in the port of the foreign country from which the vessel may proceed, it is not perceived what effective measures this government could properly take in the premises. Such a commercial agent can perform no consular act relating to the affairs of his countrymen in the United States. To prohibit him from attesting invoices and manifests, under