ships and their cargoes, which were sequestered during the blockade, and subsequently captured by the French in consequence of the declaration of war, ought to be considered as legally acquired to the captors; "We are of opinion that after the departure of the French Plenipotentiary from Mexico, and the notification which accompanied his departure, followed by the hostile operations on the part of the French against the Fortress of San Juan de Ulloa, and the Mexican fleet, and the actual declaration of war by the Mexican Government; and the expulsion of the French subjects from its territory, there was a state of war between the two countries, and that the terms of the Treaty and Convention recognized its existence; "Consequently, that France is not bound to make restitution of, or give compensation for, the ships mentioned in the Treaty; or for the ships and cargoes referred to in the second article of the convention. "With regard to the second point stated in the second article of the Treaty we are of opinion that neither the French subjects, nor the Mexicans, are entitled to any indemnity; the acts of both countries being justified by the state of hostilities between them. “Given in duplicate, under our hand and seal at our court at Windsor Castle this First day of August, One Thousand eight hundred and fortyfour in the 8th year of our Reign. "VICTORIA. France and the Netherlands.-By Article VIII. of the treaty of November 20, 1815, heretofore referred to, special provision was made for the settlement by a commission of arbitration of the question growing out of the refusal of France to recognize the claim of the Netherlands for the payment by the former of the interest on the debt of Holland for the half years of March and September 1813. It was provided that the commission should consist of seven members, two of whom should be named by the French Government and two by the Government of the Netherlands. The three remaining commissioners were to be chosen from "States decidedly neuter" and having "no interest in the question, such as Russia, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, and the Kingdom of Naples;" and of these three neutral commissioners one was to be named by France and one by the Netherlands and the third by the two thus chosen. The commission was required to meet in Paris February 1, 1816. The members were the Prince of Castelcicala, the Marquis of Marialva, General de Waltersdorff, Baron Pasquier, the Chevalier de Bye, Baron Brierre de Surgy, and General de Fagel. At their session of October 16, 1816, their proceedings, as officially protocolized, were as follows:1 "No. XXX.-Report of the sitting of Wednesday, October 16, 1816. "All the members present. "The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved, as well as the draft of the decision to be made, on the one hypothesis or the other, in favor of France or of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The version here given is a translation of a copy of the original record, in French, graciously furnished to me by the Government of the Netherlands. "General de Fagel took the floor and explained the reasons that induced him to vote in favor of the Government of the Netherlands. "Baron Pasquier likewise explained the considerations in support of his conclusions in favor of the French Government. "The Chevalier de Bye similarly stated his views, and concluded in favor of the Government of the Netherlands. "Baron Brierre de Surgy explained his reasons in favor of the French Government. "General de Waltersdorff set forth his reasons in favor of the Government of the Netherlands. "His Excellency the Marquis de Marialva called the attention of the commission to the fact that there were still one or two questions on which he wished to be enlightened; that he therefore begged his colleagues to allow him to defer his decision till they had spoken a second time, as he was certain he would find in their remarks all the information he needed to settle his opinion. "His Excellency the Prince de Castelcicala followed, setting forth the reasons that led him to vote in favor of the French Government. "The members of the commission, beginning with General de Fagel and down to General de Waltersdorff, inclusively, took the floor again in the prescribed order, and, after some new observations and new explanations of the opinions which they had already expressed, declared that they persisted in them. "His Excellency the Marquis de Marialva stated that the doubts which he had entertained on the first round of the discussion had been removed on the second, and that he voted in favor of the French Government. "His Excellency the Prince of Castelcicala declared that he continued to be of the opinion which he had already announced in favor of the French Government, after which His Excellency, in his quality of president of the commission, declared the discussion closed. "They then proceeded to the counting of the votes, and after all the members of the commission had read their conclusions in the order prescribed it was found that the question which the commission had to settle was decided in favor of the French Government by a majority of four votes to three, viz, in favor of the French Government, Baron Pasquier, Baron Brierre de Surgy, His Excellency the Marquis de Marialva, His Excellency the Prince de Castelcicala; in favor of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, General de Fagel, the Chevalier de Bye, and General de Walterstorff. In consequence, the decision of the commission was engrossed according to the draft adopted, was signed at once by all the members, and was entered in the present minutes. The said decision is of the following tenor: "The commission of arbitration, &c., &c. "Afterwards three original copies were made which were signed by all the members, and His Excellency the president of the commission was requested to forward one to His Excellency the Duke de Richelieu, minister of state for foreign affairs of His Very Christian Majesty, and another to the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands at the court of France, the third to remain annexed to these minutes. "After deliberation, the commission decided that all the statements and written documents submitted to the commission, as well as the minutes of its meetings and all other papers which were in the hands of the clerk, should be deposited in the department of foreign affairs of His Most Christian Majesty, as a continuation of the protocol of the conferences held at Paris by the ministers of the four powers, and to be kept in the same place in order that the interested parties might refer to them whenever it should be needful. In consequence, the clerk was directed to put the said papers together in a parcel, which should be sealed with the seal of His Excellency the president of the commission, to be given into the hands of His Excellency the minister for foreign affairs of France, with the request that the parcel should never be opened except by an order signed by His Excellency. "His Excellency the president of the commission will request His Excellency the minister for foreign affairs to receive an official certificate of the deposit thus placed in his hands. The clerk is authorized before closing the parcel to exchange the original papers which have been produced by the parties, and which may be claimed by them, and to replace them with certified copies. "The minutes of the present meeting were read and approved. "The commission having thus concluded the work which was entrusted to it the president declared that it was dissolved, and all the members signed the present record. "No. XXXI.—Decision of the arbitral commission instituted according to article 8 of the convention of November 20, 1815. "The arbitral commission, named according to article 8 of the convention of November 20, 1815, to decide which of the two governments, the French Government or that of the Netherlands, should be obliged to pay the overdue interest on the debt of Holland, which was not paid for the half years ending March and September 1813, taking as a basis the provisions of the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814; and whether the reimbursement, which the Government of the Netherlands shall in that case make to France, in bonds of countries reunited to its crown and separated from France, may be exacted without deducting the arrears of interest due on the debt of Holland in 1813. "After having taken cognizance, first, of the statement of the commissioner of accounts of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, dated June 10, 1816; second, of the statement of the commissioners of accounts of His Most Christian Majesty of the same date; third, of the answer of the commissioner of accounts of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, dated June 18, 1816, as well as of the proofs which accompanied these different statements, having taken as basis of its decision the provisions of the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814. "Has decided by a majority, "That the interest on the debt of Holland which may not have been paid for the half years ending March and September 1813, must be paid by the Government of the Netherlands, and that the reimbursement which the Government of the Netherlands shall, in that case, make to France in bonds of countries now belonging to its crown and separated from France, may be exacted without deducting from the stock of the debt of Holland the interest due in 1813. "Paris, October 16, 1816. "PRINCE OF CASTELCICALA. "PASQUIER. "P. J. DE BYE. "R. FAGEL." France and the Netherlands: Award of the Emperor of Russia as to the boundary between France and Dutch Guiana. For many years a difference existed between France and the Netherlands as to the lines separating their colonies in Guiana. While it was agreed that the river Maroni formed the common boundary, yet a difference arose from the fact that that river, at some distance from the coast, divides into two branches, respectively called the Ava (or Awa) and the Tapanahoni. The Dutch insisted on the former branch, the French on the latter. By a convention signed at Paris November 29, 1888, and subsequently approved by the parliaments of the two countries, France and the Netherlands agreed to submit this dispute to an arbitrator. Having chosen for that office the Emperor of Russia, they sought his acceptance of it by means of identic notes, addressed to the Russian minister for foreign affairs. In due time they were notified of the Emperor's acceptance; and they afterward submitted to him, in accordance with the convention, their statements and proofs, which were simultaneously presented to M. de Giers, Russian minister for foreign affairs, by the representatives of the two governments, in order that they might be laid before the arbitrator. No exchange of the documents was made or requested. The Emperor appointed a commission to examine the subject in controversy; and his award, bearing date May 13-25, 1891, was communicated to the parties through the usual diplomatic channels. "Nous, Alexandre III. par la grâce de Dieu, Empereur de toutes les Russies, "Le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas ayant résolu, aux termes d'une Convention conclue entre les deux pays, le 29 novembre 1888, de mettre fin à l'amiable au différend qui existe touchant les limites de leurs colonies respectives de la Guyane française et de Surinam, et de remettre à un arbitre le soin de procéder à cette délimitation, nous ont adressé la demande de nous charger de cet arbitrage; "Voulant répondre à la confiance que les deux puissances litigantes nous The original text of the decision is: Que les intérêts de la dette de Hollande, qui n'auroient pas été acquittés pour les semestres de mars et de septembre 1813, doivent être payés par le gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et que le remboursement que le gouvernement des Pays-Bas sera dans le cas de faire à la France des inscriptions de dettes des pays réunis á sa couronne et détachés de la France, peut être exigible sans déduction des rentes de la dette de Hollande arriérées sur les échéances de 1813. De Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, Deuxième série, XVI. ont ainsi témoignée, et après avoir reçu l'assurance de leurs Gouvernements d'accepter notre décision comme jugement suprême et sans appel et de s'y soumettre sans aucune réserve, nous avons accepté la mission de résoudre comme arbitre le différend qui les divise et nous tenons pour juste de prononcer la sentence suivante: "Considérant que la Convention du 28 août 1817, qui a fixé les conditions de la restitution de la Guyane française à la France par le Portugal n'a jamais été reconnue par les Pays-Bas; "Qu'en outre cette Convention ne saurait servir de base pour résoudre la question en litige, vu que le Portugal, qui avait pris possession, en vertu du traité d'Utrecht de 1713, d'une partie de la Guyane française, ne pouvait restituer à la France en 1815 que le territoire qui lui avait été cédé: or les limites de ce territoire ne se trouvent nullement définies par le traité d'Utrecht de 1713; "Considérant, d'autre part: "Que le Gouvernement hollandais, ainsi que le démontrent des faits non contestés par le Gouvernement français, entretenait à la fin du siècle dernier des postes militaires sur l'Awa; "Que les autorités françaises de la Guyane ont maintes fois reconnu les nègres établis sur le territoire contesté comme dépendant médiatement ou immédiatement de la domination hollandaise, et que ces autorités n'entraient en relation avec les tribus indigènes habitant ce territoire que par l'entremise et en présence du représentant des autorités hollandaises; "Qu'il est admis sans conteste par les deux pays intéressés que le fleuve Maroni, à partir de sa source, doit servir de limite entre leurs colonies respectives; રો "Que la commission mixte de 1861 a recueilli des données en faveur de la reconnaissance de l'Awa comme cours supérieur du Maroni; "Par ces motifs: "Nous déclarons que l'Awa doit être considéré comme fleuve limitrophe, devant servir de frontière entre les deux possessions. "En vertu de cette décision arbitrale, le territoire en amont du confluent des rivières Awa et Tapanahui doit appartenir désormais à la Hollande, sans préjudice, toutefois, des droits acquis, bona fide, par les ressortissants français dans les limites du territoire qui avait été en litige. "Fait à Gatchina, le 13-25 mai 1891. "Signé: ALEXANDRE. France and Nicaragua: CASE OF THE "PHARE."-In November 1874 some cases of arms were seized by the Nicaraguan authorities on board of the French ship Phare, at Corinto, and were confiscated. The master of the ship protested against these measures as violative both of the law of nations and of the treaty of amity and commerce between the two countries. The French Government having intervened in the matter, the Government of Nicaragua proposed to submit the difference to the arbitration of the court of cassation at Paris. This proposal was accepted, and by a convention of October 15, 1879, the court was empowered to take The substance of this decision is that the boundary is formed by the Awa, the river claimed by the Dutch. |