. march upon the capital. The motives for French intervention he states to be, to redress grievances; to establish bounds to the extension of the United States further south, and prevent her becoming the sole dispenser of the products of the new world; the restoration of the prestige of the Latin races in America; and the extension of the influence and interest of France by the gratitude and sympathy of a government established through her efforts. He disclaims an intention to force a government on Mexico, yet directs General Forey "to establish either a monarchy, if it be not incompatible with the national sentiment of the country, or, at all events, a government which promises some stability." In his letter to Lorencez, the emperor made his celebrated declaration, —“It is contrary to my interests, my origin, and my principles to impose any kind of government upon the Mexican people. They may freely choose that which suits them best." U. S. Dipl. Corr. 1862, p. 401. Michel Chevalier, however, admits (Révue des deux Mondes, April 1, 1862)'that the probable expectation of the three powers was "the overthrow of the system of government established in Mexico since its independence, and the substitution of a monarchical system." Indeed, the general purposes of indemnity and security for foreign residents furnished to the allies their most tenable position for intervention, if the state of facts warranted it for it is not the custom for nations to interfere.authoritatively in behalf of their citizens who have chosen to lend money to foreign governments; and, in this case, the genuineness of the debts, the amounts actually due, and the liability of Mexico, were matters of very grave doubt. In Mr. Seward's reply of Dec. 4, 1861 (before referred to), to the invitation to join the alliance, he admits the right of the three powers to judge for themselves whether they have sustained grievances that require them to levy war upon Mexico. He reminds the allies that the United States have a deep interest that the allies shall not acquire territory in Mexico, or gain any advantages in Mexican territory peculiar to themselves; and, especially, that they shall not, "as a result or consequence of the hostilities to be inaugurated under the convention, exercise, in the subsequent affairs of Mexico, any influence of a character to impair the right of the Mexican people to choose and freely constitute the form of its own government." Mr. Seward declines, in behalf of the President, joining in any manner in the alliance; and assigns, as reasons for the refusal, the traditional policy of the United States not to join in European political combinations, and the prevailing feeling and interest of the United States in Mexico, as a neighbor, and as having a republican form of government like their own. The claims the United States have against Mexico, they prefer to manage by themselves, and by peaceful means. As might have been expected from these antecedents, a question soon arose among the allies, as to how far they should go in exercising coercion upon Mexico, and what should be the test and rule of their forcible interference in her internal affairs. At a conference held at Orizaba on the 9th April, 1862, the Spanish and English commissioners, objecting that the French had gone beyond the terms of the convention in giving military aid to the party in favor of establishing an imperial gov- ̧ ernment, withdrew from further co-operation. Their course was approved by their respective governments. The French Government, whose pecuniary claims upon Mexico were much smaller than those of the other powers and more questionable, left to itself in Mexico, proceeded, by military aid to the Imperialist party, to establish that party in possession of the capital; and, under the protection of the French forces, an Assembly of Notables was called, which had been selected and designated by the Imperialist party, without even the pretence of a general vote of the Mexican people; and this Assembly undertook to establish an imperial form of government, and to offer the throne to the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. The Emperor of the French treated this as a conclusive expression of the will of the Mexican people, acknowledged the new sovereign at once, and entered into a treaty with him for military aid to secure his authority. The position taken by Mr. Seward in 1862 was, that the explanations given by the French emperor to the United States made the French intervention a war upon Mexico for the settlement of claims which Mexico had not met to the satisfaction of France. This explanation the United States relied upon, and did not intend to interfere between the belligerents. (Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, June 21, 1862; August 23, 1862; and November 10, 1862: U. S. Dipl. Corr. 1862.) On the 4th of April, 1864, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, by unanimous vote, denouncing the French intervention in Mexico; but these resolves were not acted upon by the Senate; and the position of the government continued to be that of recognizing a war made by France upon Mexico for professed international objects of which we did not assume to judge, accompanied with a military occupation of a large part of Mexico by the French, which we recognized as one of the facts of the war. But the government steadily refused to regard the empire as established by the Mexican people, and treated Maximilian as a kind of provisional ruler established by the French, in virtue of their military occupation. Mr. Seward, in his despatch to Mr. Bigelow, the United States Minister to France, of June 30, 1865, says: "It will be well, at your convenience, to make this explanation to M. Drouyn de l'Huys. - So far as our relations are concerned, what we hold in regard to Mexico is, that France is a belligerent there, in war with the republic of Mexico. We do not enter into the merits of the belligerents, but we practise in regard to the contest the principles of neutrality; as we have insisted on the practice of neutrality by all nations in regard to our civil war. Our friendship towards the republic of Mexico, and our sympathies with the republican system on this continent, as well as our faith and confidence in it, have been continually declared. Political intervention in the affairs of foreign States is a principle thus far avoided by our government." And again, in his despatch of Sept. 6, 1865, he says: "It is perceived with much regret, that an apparent, if not a real, a future if not an immediate, antagonism between the policies of the two nations [France and the United States] seems to reveal itself in the situation of Mexico. The United States have at no time left it doubtful that they prefer to see a domestic and republican system of government prevail in Mexico, rather than any other system. This preference results from the fact, that the Constitution of the United States itself is domestic and republican; and from a belief, that, so far as is practically and justly attainable by the exercise of moral influences, the many American States by which the United States are surrounded should be distinguished by the same peculiarities of government." Disclaiming for the United States political propagandism or aggrandizement by conquest, he states it as the belief of the American people, that the advance of civilization in this hemisphere is best secured when the political institutions of the other American States assimilate to our own; and adds: "France appears to us to be lending her great influence, with a considerable military force, to destroy the domestic republican government in Mexico, and to establish there an imperial system, under the sovereignty of a European prince, who, until he assumed the crown, was a stranger to that country. We do not insist or claim that Mexico and the other States on the American continent shall adopt the political institutions to which we are so earnestly attached; but we do hold that the peoples of those countries are entitled to exercise the freedom of choosing and establishing institutions like our own, if they are preferred." Again, in his despatch of Nov. 6, 1865, he says the United States "still regard the effort to establish permanently a foreign and imperial government as disallowable and impracticable;" and adds that the United States "are not prepared to recognize, or to pledge themselves hereafter to recognize, any political institutions in Mexico which are in opposition to the republican government with which we have so long and so constantly maintained relations of friendship." M. Drouyn de l'Huys, in a letter of Oct. 18, 1865, to M. de Montholon, the French Minister, communicated to Mr. Seward, says: "What we ask of the United States is to be assured that their intention is not to impede the consolidation of the new order of things founded in Mexico; and the best guaranty we could receive of their intention would be the recognition of the Emperor Maximilian by the Federal Government." And again: "But the acknowledgment of the Emperor Maximilian by the United States would, in our opinion, have sufficient influence upon the state of the country to allow of taking into consideration their susceptibilities on this subject; and, should the Cabinet of Washington decide to open diplomatic relations with the Court of Mexico, we should see no difficulty in entering into arrangements for the recall of our troops within a reasonable period, of which we might consent to fix the termination." Mr. Seward, in a letter of Dec. 6, 1865, to M. de Montholon, in reply to the above, says: "The effect of the emperor's suggestions, when they are reduced to a practical shape, seems to be this: That France is willing to retire from Mexico as soon as she may, but that it would be inconvenient for her without first receiving from the United States an assurance of a friendly or tolerant disposition to the power which has assumed to itself an imperial form in the capital city of Mexico. The President is gratified by the assurance you have thus given of the emperor's good disposition. I regret, however, to be obliged to say that the condition the emperor suggests is one which seems quite impracticable. . . I cannot but infer, from the tenor of your communication, that the principal cause of the discontent prevailing in the United States with regard to Mexico is not fully apprehended by the emperor's government. The chief cause is not that there is a foreign army in Mexico; much less does that discontent arise from the circumstance that that foreign army is a French one. We recognize the right of sovereign nations to carry on war with each other, if they do not invade our rights, or menace our safety or just influence. The real cause of our national discontent is, that the French army which is now in Mexico is invading a domestic republican government there, which was established by her people and with whom the United States sympathize most profoundly, for the avowed purpose of suppressing it, and establishing upon its ruins a foreign monarchical government, whose presence there, so long as it should endure, could not but be regarded by the people of the United States as injurious and menacing to their own chosen and endeared republican institutions." Again disclaiming any purpose of the United States to make a war of propagandism in the republican cause, he adds: "On the other hand, we have constantly maintained, and still feel bound to maintain, that the people of every State on the American continent have a right to secure for themselves a republican government, if they choose; and that interference by foreign States to prevent the enjoyment of such institutions deliberately established is wrongful, and in its effects antagonistical to the free and popular form of government existing in the United States." And he expresses the hope that France “may find it compatible with its interests and high honor to withdraw from its aggressive attitude in Mexico, within some convenient and reasonable time, and thus leave the people of that country to the free enjoyment of the system of republican government which they have established for themselves." In a despatch of Dec. 16, 1865, to Mr. Bigelow, he says: "It has been the President's purpose that France should be respectfully informed upon two points; namely, first, That the United States earnestly desire to continue and to cultivate sincere friendship with France; second, That this policy would be brought into imminent jeopardy, unless France could deem it consistent with her interest and honor to desist from the prosecution of armed intervention in Mexico to overthrow the domestic republican government existing there, and to establish upon its ruins the foreign monarchy which has been attempted to be inaugurated in the capital of the country." In July, 1864, a question was put to Lord Palmerston in Parliament as to the recognition by Great Britain of the Imperial Government of Maximilian. He stated, in reply, that the Archduke, before leaving Europe, applied to Great Britain to recognize his government on the basis of the election; and that the British Government was not inclined to do so, and informed the Archduke that the recognition must depend upon whether the people of Mexico did in fact receive and accept his government, so that it should be actually the established government of Mexico. The election, in the circumstances under which it was made, was not considered proof of a free choice of the Mexican people, in advance; and the actual establishment of the government was matter for the future to decide. Lord Palmerston closed with these words: "If we find there is a prospect of a government being established, we shall be very glad to acknowledge it. If, on the other hand, we find matters still uncertain, and a war still going on, which may result one way or the other, we shall say the government is not of a kind that would justify us in acknowledging the Archduke as Emperor of Mexico." Lord Palmerston stated the earnest desire of Great Britain to see a stable and responsible government in Mexico, instead of the anarchy and successions of military chiefs, holding by conquest, on short and uncertain terms of office, which had prevailed for many years past. A proposal having been made to the United States Government to receive a commissioner from the new empire, to make an arrangement respecting the recognition of consuls in the United States from the imperial government, Mr. Seward replied: "It is a fixed habit of this government to hold no official intercourse with agents of parties in any country which stand in an attitude of revolution antagonistic to the sovereign authority in the same country with which the United States are on terms of friendly diplomatic intercourse. It is equally a fixed habit of this government to hold no unofficial or private interviews with persons with whom it cannot hold official intercourse." (Mr. Seward's memoranda of March 13 and July 17, 1865: Ex. Doc. No. 20, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.) In August, 1865, the Minister of the Mexican Republic represented to the Department of State that a commercial agent of Maximilian in New York was attempting to exercise the duties of a consul by giving certificates of invoices and manifests, and inquired whether he was recognized by the United States. Mr. Seward replied that no other than the Republican Government in Mexico was recognized, but added: "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 the circumstances referred to, would be tantamount to an interdiction of trade between the United States and those Mexican ports which are not in possession of the Republican Government of that country. The consuls of the United States in Mexico, who have their exequaturs from that government only, themselves discharge duties as commer cial agents, in the ports which are not under the control of that governmer respects like those which the person Arroyo, in the same way and to the sam claims to do at New York in respect to said ports." Mr. Seward to Sen. Aug. 9, 1865.] D. Exclusive CHAPTER II. RIGHTS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LEGISLATION. § 77. EVERY independent State is entitled to t power of clusive power of legislation, in respect to the pe civil legislation. rights and civil state and condition of its citizens, a respect to all real and personal property situated within its tory, whether belonging to citizens or aliens. But as it happens that an individual possesses real property in a other than that of his domicil, or that contracts are e into and testaments executed by him, or that he is interes successions ab intestato, in a country different from eith may happen that he is, at the same time, subject to t three sovereign powers; to that of his native country or domicil, to that of the place where the property in qu is situated, and to that of the place where the contracts been made or the acts executed. The allegiance to the ereign power of his native country exists from the birth individual, and continues till a change of nationality." the two other cases he is considered subject to the laws, bu in a limited sense. In the foreign countries, where he pos real property, he is called a non-resident land owner, (sujet for in those in which the contracts are entered into, a temporar dent, (sujet passager). As, in general, each of these dif countries is governed by a distinct legislation, conflicts be their laws often arise; that is to say, it is frequently a qu which system of laws is applicable to the case. The collecti rules for determining the conflicts between the civil and cri interna Private laws of different States, is called private internal tional law. law, to distinguish it from public international which regulates the relations of States. (a) 48 132 [42 See note on the subject of Naturalization, infrà, No. 49.]-D. [43 Story's Conflict of Laws, §§ 9, 10, 11. Kent's Com, ii. 39.]-D. |