698 



TREATY. 



rnercc ;o enhance the political interests of the country ' 

 in tin- t \ten.-ion of its territories. :unl tliat as the direct 

 interest in couinicn-c is individual, tlic public inteic.-t 

 in it U'inir indirect merely, it was something taken 

 from tin- individual advancers incident t" an unre- 

 Mrictcd commerce, to l>e conferred upon the public or 

 p ilitical interest of the nation, lint notwithstanding 

 that this incident was an encroachment ii|>on the prin- 

 ciple that the interest* of commerce should not become 

 the price of political advantages, the limited character 

 of tile exclusive privilege conlcncd can hardly entitle 

 it to be regarded aa a serious departure from the ante- 

 cedent diplomatic poli'-y. 



An empliatie step uf departure from that policy was 

 taken by the treaty with the Hawaiian Islands in i>75. 

 That treaty gave a discrimination a.x to customs duties 

 on merchandise interchanged l>etween the two conn 

 tries that gave to Hav.'aii privilcL'es not enjoyed by other 

 nations with which the I'niied States had treaties and 

 commercial intcreoiirse. notwithstanding many of those 

 treaties excluded imposts that were not equally im- 

 posed upon all other countries. Although the Hawai- 

 ian treaty cave similar advantages to the I'nitcd States 

 as to certain classes of merchandise introduced into the 

 islands, yet the history of the diplomacy and concurrent 

 legislation shows distinctly that political rather than 

 commercial advantages prompted the action of the 

 United States in making that treaty, naval advantages 

 and the desire to exclude European influence from the 

 control of the islands forming an important part of the 

 motive to the treaty. Whether the reactionary step 

 taken in the instance of the Hawaiian treaty is to be 

 the first of a series of steps to lead back to the old sys- 

 tem of trading in the interests of commerce for politi- 

 cal advantages, and thus to defeat the systematic 

 organization of international commercial intercourse, 

 cannot be determined at the present time. 



M-idcrn diplomacy h:is assumed important functions 

 in the development of internal ional law that marks an 

 advance from the condition of early diplomatic action. 

 The international system has been formed by a slow 

 process from the habitudes of commercial interchange 

 and national intercourse, in this respect having the 

 same nature as the common or unwritten law which is 

 the product. of the judicial recognition of persistent 

 social habit. Treaties have in the past had some influ- 

 ence upon this process, but treaty relations between 

 ilar states have only indirect effect upon the 

 general habitudes of international intercourse, although 

 particular customs in process of time often become 

 general. 



It is only of late years that the spirit of diplomacy 

 has broadened to a policy of giving systematic devel- 

 opment to the international law. A striking effort of 

 this charaed r appears in the instance of the effort that 

 was made by the I'nited Slates to secure a clear and 

 liberal definition of the relations of belligerent and 

 neutral stale, by its introduction into the treaty made 

 with (treat Iiritain in 1*71 that had a particular rela- 

 tion to the settlement of (he Alabama claims (q. r.). 

 Such efforts on the part of the I'nited States entitle 

 this nation to be regarded as the patron of systematic 

 diplomacy, and are the outgrowth of the principle of 

 impartial international relationship, that has already 

 lieen referred to as in the early diplomacy of this coun- 

 try applied to the interests of navigation ami corn- 

 While diplomacy was recognized as the art of 

 aggrandizing the condition of individual states, its 

 lain lions were necessarily limited, but with the devel- 

 opment of an international spirit it has entered a more 

 useful and interacting -idicre. 



The suppression of the slave-trade w another intcr- 

 c-t of international law that has received attention 

 from the diplomacy of the I'nited States, and 



nected with this Mii.jeet effort has b. d to a 



more accurate definition of the right of search at sea. 

 a subject tliat onee in\,,lird this country in hostilities 

 with Great Britain. (See SEARCH, RIGHT OF.) The 



I'nite.1 States fully sympathized with Great Britain in 

 her efforts to suppress tile African .-Live-trade, but at 

 the s. ime time desired to (.-Hard their maritime inter- 

 ests against abuses of the right of vitiation and search. 

 By the treaty, negotiated by Scen-i.iry Seward with 

 (ireat Britain in IML.'. the principle applied interna- 

 tionally to tin 1 case of piracy was extended under care- 

 ful limitations to the African slave trade. 



1 more important subject as affecting the ad- 

 ministration of justice is that of the extradition of 

 persons charged with clime from countries to which 

 they have hYd to that country in which the crime was 

 ;o lia\e been commit ted. Apart from treaty 

 stipulations there was no mode by which the govern- 

 ment or country in which crime had been committed 

 could secure persons charged with such crimes tor the 

 purposes of justice while within the territory of an- 

 other power. The United Slates has taken a promi- 

 nent place in the effort to supply what is demanded by 

 this important international interest. In IS4.'i a pro- 

 vision of that character was negotiated with France, 

 and in 18411 a similar provision was concluded wi;h 

 (ireat Britain. In the treaty with the latter the crime* 

 for which extradition could lie claimed are specific-ally 

 enumerated, and are murder, assault- with intent to 

 commit murder, piracy, and the utterance of forged 

 paper. A specific, enumeration of the offcne. 

 which extradition might be claimed was important 

 principally for the purpose of excluding political crimes 

 from the class, ('rimes against governmental .stability- 

 ami order are intimately connected with popular efforts 

 to reform existing institutions, and :is the I 'nited States 

 recognized the right of tin; people of a community to 

 adjust its government to their needs or idea.-, it was 

 unwilling to lend its assistance to sustain oppressive 

 governments or to prevent the people from (securing 

 good ones. The diplomacy of the United States has 

 separated the idea of an asylum for those under politi- 

 cal oppression from that of defeating the ends of jus- 

 tice by harboring criminals from other countries, and 

 has shaped its course to subserve (he end- of justice 

 without denying an asylum to the oppressed of other 

 nations. 



The United States have contributed to modern dip- 

 lomacy another important feature by efforts to improve 

 the' conditions of international judicature. As it is no 

 part of the policy of the I'niied States to nse the right 

 oi'coii<|uest for I lie enlargement of its territories or the 

 enhancement of its military or political influence, no 

 motive exists to prevent the establishment of rational 



methods of determining international contro\, 

 The treaty of I7s:t with (treat Britain left undefim-d the 

 North-eastern part of the boundaries U'twc'cnt he' posses- 

 sions of the two countries. In IT'.U a commission was 

 provided for by treaty to complete the location of that 

 boundary-line, but this commission failed to reach a sat- 

 isfactory result. In 1S1 I it was agreed K'tween the' two 



powers that the question of difference should ! referred 



to a friendly sovereign for final settlement. The King 

 of Netherlands was selected for that purpot-e. who ren- 

 dered a decision that was not acceptable' to the I'nitcd 

 States, and. indeed, that was not in accordance with 

 the views of Great Britain. The leading objection to 

 the decision of the King of Nclherlands was. that 

 instead of adjudicating the exact question submitted to 

 him. he had propounded a compromise line as beet 

 conforming to bis views of the- interests of the re- 

 spective countries. The United States had Bought a 

 judicial solution of the points of difference, and wax 



:ied with an arbitrary conclusion that expressed 

 nothing Ix-yond the' personal opinion of the arbitrator. 



Britain was urged to constitute, a commission 

 that should proceed according to recognized methods 

 of adjudication. (Ireat Britain declined these tenders, 



and i'or ma: n n niai 1 unsettled. 



By the treaty of 1X42 with (Ireat Britain, known as tho 

 Ashbiirton treaty, the question was disposed of by dip- 

 luuialic methods. 



