페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

1890 to 1895), with no indication of a change of opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that now, suddenly, upon the eve of putting the regulations, so deliberately considered and agreed upon, into legal operation, the dissent or hesitation of Great Britain should, for the first time, be suggested.

His Lordship regretted, but said he supposed Congress could authorize " a temporary suspension of the proposed regulations for six months," intimating, but not explicitly stating, that by that time Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to act coordinately with the United States to carry out the regulations.

During my visit at the foreign office the naval attaché of the French embassy called at this embassy and said he was instructed by his Government to inquire as to the action taken, or proposed to be taken, by the United States in reference to the new Rules of the Road at Sea.” He stated that his Government had no objection to the new rules, as proclaimed by the President of the United States, and would have made them operative on their own vessels were it not for their proximity to England, and her position as a great maritime power, which compelled them to follow her lead in such matters.

This seems natural enougn, and in communicating the foregoing to you I very respectfully suggest whether, under existing circumstances, and in view of the eminently practical and gravely important nature of the proposed regulations, it would not be advisable for the present Congress, by an amendatory joint resolution, to authorize the President to revoke temporarily, and in his discretion to renew, his proclamation, bringing the regulations into force, so as to secure cooperation upon the part of Great Britain, and consequently of other maritime powers.

The great object and purpose of the conference can only be attained by the concurrent international adoption of a single code of regulations to become the law for all, and the common guide for the safety of each and all,

The shocking and disastrous collision causing the loss of the steamship Elbe in the North Sea yesterday, and the death of so many human beings, impressively suggests the imperative necessity of a distinct and mutual understanding between approaching vessels, and their joint and unquestionable submission to laws regulating the respective conduct of each and both of them. I have, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

[blocks in formation]

[Extract.- Telegram.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 6, 1894. British ambassador informed me yesterday that it had been reported insurgents were in possession of part of the country in the south of Brazil, and he was directed by Lord Rosebery to ascertain the disposition of this Government as to the propriety of recognizing the Brazilian insurgents as belligerents. I informed him that this Government had twice declined to recognize the belligerent status of the

See Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 350; also ante, pp. 57–63.

insurgents, and our minister to Brazil would to-day again be instructed to inform the insurgents the United States did not feel authorized under existing conditions to recognize them as belligerents. The ambassador thought the action of our Government important. In reply to a question the ambassador said he had no information that the insurgents were maintaining a de facto government in Brazil with any kind of civil administration there. He called my attention to the note to section 23 of Dana's Wheaton and agreed with me that it laid down correct principles by which neutrals should be governed in according belligerent rights. He said the situation, so far as his knowledge went, did not entitle the insurgents to recognition, and if recognized they would likely blockade Rio to the injury of neutral commerce and the embarrassment of neutral powers.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham.

[Confidential.]

No. 153.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, February 7, 1894. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your cablegram of this date, and have just returned from an interview with Lord Rosebery at the foreign office, in which I communicated the full purport of your cablegram.

I have just sent you by cable his reply, which I think will be entirely satisfactory, in relation to the attitude and contemplated action of this Government in the questions now pending in Brazil.

I repeated in substance the facts stated in your cablegram and the concurrence of opinion by Sir Julian Pauncefote, as well as your coincidence of opinion as to the rule of international law as stated by Wheaton, and Dana's note to section 23, applicable to the Brazilian case.

I stated the case to be that of a naval officer entrusted with the command of what was virtually the entire naval force of his country and accepting such command under a government with whom he cooperated for several months and then suddenly threw himself into opposition, carrying with him his entire fleet, and creating an insurrection. That, with full information of the facts, but with no intention of interfering in the struggle, living up to their treaty stipulations, and an unbroken amity of nearly seventy years with the Brazilian people and their Gov. ernment, the Government of the United States had three times refused to recognize as belligerents Admiral di Mello and his associates in arms, such recognition not being justified by the facts and circumstances and the well-established rules of international law.

Lord Rosebery expressed his concurrence in the judgment of the Government of the United States, and stated very clearly and decidedly the intention of his Government to act in accordance with their decision in the matter. I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

Mr. Uhl to Mr. Bayard.

No. 311.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 8, 1894. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 153, of the 7th ultimo, reporting your interview with the Earl of Rosebery in regard to the question of the recognition of the Brazilian insurgents as belligerents, and his expression of an intention to act in line with the Government of the United States in Brazilian matters now pending

Your representations to Lord Rosebery are fully approved by the Department. The cordial conformity of Her Majesty's Government to the views of the United States in regard to the subject in question is the more fully appreciated because confidently expected. The recent course of events in Brazil has made the contingency of the recognition of belligerent rights for Mello's abortive revolt even more remote than heretofore, and the Department's views concerning the wisdom and appropriateness of the course pursued in relation to the subject remain unchanged. I am, etc.,

EDWIN F. UHL,

Acting Secretary.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham.

No. 180.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, March 16, 1894. (Received March 26.) SIR; Some questions in relation to matters in Brazil were asked and answered in the House of Commons, and I have the honor to inclose herewith the report thereof of the Times of to-day.

It is certainly a cause of congratulation to the war-worn people of Brazil, as well as to the interest of commerce of all nations, that the savage contest of the rival chiefs and parties for power in that Republic has come to a close, so that a period of repose and recuperation may now be hoped for.

The conduct of the relations of the United States to the republican Government of Brazil, has been just, considerate, and thoroughly judicious, and I am sure that the efficient presence of our naval force, and its creditable action under Admiral Benham, has been a factor of great value to the peaceful commerce of the port of Rio, and perfectly consistent with neutrality throughout.

There are indications in the public press of complaint among British shipowners and merchants of a lack of protection of their neutral rights by the naval forces of this country.

I trust that the unhappy civil strife of the Brazilian Republic may now be at an end, and having under your instructions given close attention to the attitude and action of this Government in relation to the contest, I have been unable to trace any disposition whatever to take sides in the struggle or even to express sympathy in favor of the replacement of a republican by a monarchical form of government in Brazil.

The attitude of the Government of the United States and its avowed interest expressed in relation to European interference with affairs in the Western Hemisphere is, I believe, quite well recognized and Inter. preted here. I have, etc,

T, F. BAYARD.

[Inclosure in No. 180.- From The Times, March 16, 1894.)

THE REVOLT IN BRAZIL.

Sir E.Ashmead-Bartlett asked the undersecretary of state for foreign affairs whether he could give the house any information as to the progress of the civil war in Brazil, and especially as to the reported surrender of Admiral da Gama.

Col. Howard Vincent asked the undersecretary of state for foreign affairs whether Her Majesty's minister at Rio de Janeiro had confirmed the report of the cessation of the civil war in Brazil, and in such case if Her Majesty's Government would render all assistance possible to British traders to recoup the disastrous losses of the past six months of siege, and use its influence with the Brazilian Government to devote itself to the development of the riches of the country and the opening up of fresh channels for international trade.

Sir E. GREY. The senior naval officer at Rio, telegraphing on the 14th instant, states that the Portuguese conimanding naval officer has received Admiral Saldanha da Gama and many of his officers and men on board his vessel. Her Majesty's Gorernment have not yet received any further details relating to the surrender of the insurgent forces in Rio Bay. The question of how to deal with claims of British subjects for losses arising out of the recent disturbances in Brazil is now being considered in consultation with the law officers of the Crown. The Government of Brazil can not be asked to take advice from outside as to the developments of their own country, but Her Majesty's Government are anxious to use every means in their power to promote trade with Brazil as soon the political state of the country admits of it.

Sir A. Rollit asked whether any complaints from British residents had been received as to the neglect of their interests.

Mr. Hanbury asked whether it was true that one of the officers had taken refuge on one of Her Majesty's ships.

Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett asked whether the Government would use its influence to obtain clement treatment for those who had surrendered.

Sir E. GREY. I can only say, in answer to the last question, that Her Majesty's Government has been most careful to abstain from any interference whatever in what was a purely internal matter [hear! hear!], and I can not promise that they can see their way to take any action in the final settlement of the dispute. It is true that in disturbances of this kind some innocent persons must suffer. British trade is considerable, and it has suffered, and that has naturally given rise to many complaints which we have received; but I am sure that Her Majesty's minister and the admiral, who had a most difficult task to perform [hear! hear!], have discharged their duties well and done the utmost possible under the circumstances. With regard to Admiral da Gama, our latest information is that he is on board a Portuguese vessel, not a British ship.

Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. No. 342.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 6, 1894. SIR: You are doubtless aware that the night before the final collapse of the insurgent movement in the bay of Rio de Janeiro, da Gama, the insurgent leader, and some of his subordinate officials, were received on board a Portuguese man-of-war in the harbor. About two weeks ago the British ambassador here informed me that the Brazilian Gov. ernment had demanded of Portugal the surrender of these men, and that the latter Government had offered to land them somewhere beyond the jurisdiction of Brazil, and there detain them until the fate of the insurrection should be known, when their right to asylum under the circumstances could be determined. Sir Julian was instructed, he said, by his Government to ask the United States to join Great Britain in a friendly suggestion to the Government of Brazil that it accept this offer of Portugal. I submitted the matter to the President, and, after full consideration, he instructed me to inform Sir Julian that the United States did not feel inclined to join in the suggestion. A day or two later a substantially similar request was received from the Government of Italy, through Mr. Thompson, our minister at Rio, and answered in the same way, and within the last week a direct request to the same effect from the Portuguese Government, through its minister here, has been declined. I am, etc.,

W. Q. GRESHAM.

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham.

No. 217.1

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, May 11, 1894. (Received May 21.) SIR: As relating to the subject of your Instruction No. 342 of April 6, last, I have now the honor to inclose herewith copy of a letter published to-day from Sir Edward Grey, parliamentary under secretary of state for foreign affairs, giving a full and explicit denial of any action or intent on the part of any of the officials of Her Majesty's Government to assist the restoration of monarchy in Brazil, or interfere in the contest there raging.

This is in full accord with the expressions of Lord Rosebery, when secretary of state for foreign affairs, in a conversation with me at the foreign Office, which were duly communicated by me at the time of utterance. I have, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

[Inclosure in No. 217.--Cutting from the Standard, May 11, 1894.]

THE REVOLT IN BRAZIL,

Sir J. Blundell Maple, M. P., at the request of constituents in Dulwich, recently called the attention of the Government to allegations made by the Rio correspondent of the New York Herald, to the effect that the commanders and crews of the British war ships at Rio aided and counseled Admiral da Gama; that British merchant vessels supplied the insurgents with food; that British subjects conveyed letters to and froin the shore for the rebels; and that money had been transmitted through British banks and mercantile firms for the rebel agents. The following reply has now been received:

"FOREIGN OFFICE, May 4, 1894. “DEAR SIR: The action of Her Majesty's representative at Rio, and of the British naval officers, was directed solely to protect British commerce, and to preserve complete impartiality during the recent disturbances.

“Any statement that the British_officials joined in any attempt to restore the monarchy, or in any way to change the political situation, is absolutely untrue. “Yours, faithfully,

“EDWARD GREY. To Sir J. BLUNDELL MAPLE, M. P.”

« 이전계속 »