Слике страница
PDF
ePub

before the siege, he is bound to restore it in the same condition. But if he has constructed new works, he may demolish them; and, in general, in order to avoid disputes, it is advisable to stipulate in the treaty precisely in what condition the places occupied by the enemy are to be restored.1

of the

The violation of any one article of the treaty is a 7. Breach violation of the whole treaty; for all the articles are treaty. dependent on each other, and one is to be deemed a condition of the other. A violation of any single article abrogates the whole treaty, if the injured party so elects to consider it. This may, however, be prevented by an express stipulation, that if one article be broken, the others shall nevertheless continue in full force. If the treaty is violated by one of the contracting parties, either by proceedings incompatible with its general spirit, or by a specific breach of any one of its articles, it becomes not absolutely void, but voidable at the election of the injured party. If he prefers not to come to a rupture, the treaty remains valid and obligatory. He may waive or remit the infraction committed, or he may demand a just satisfaction.2

§ 8. Disputes re

breach how

Treaties of peace are to be interpreted by the same rules with other treaties. Disputes respecting their specting its meaning or alleged infraction may be adjusted by ami- adjusted. cable negotiation between the contracting parties, by the mediation of friendly powers, or by reference to the arbitration of some one power selected by the parties. This latter office has recently been assumed, in several instances, by the five great powers of Europe, with the view of preventing the disturbance of the general peace, by a partial infraction of the territorial arrangements stipulated by the treaties of Vienna, in consequence of the internal revolutions which have taken place in some of the States constituted by those treaties. Such are the protocols of the conference of London, by which a suspension of hostilities between Holland and Belgium was enforced, and terms of separation

1 Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iv. ch. 3, § 31.

2 Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. ii. cap. 15, § 15; lib. iii. cap. 19, § 14. Vattel, liv. iv. ch. 4, §§ 47, 48, 54.

between the two countries proposed, which, when accepted by both, became the basis of a permanent peace. The objections to this species of interference, and the difficulty of reconciling it with the independence of the smaller powers, are obvious; but it is clearly distinguishable from that general right of superintendence over the internal affairs of other States, asserted by the powers who were the original parties to the Holy Alliance, for the purpose of preventing changes in the municipal constitutions not proceeding from the voluntary concession of the reigning sovereign, or supposed in their consequences, immediate or remote, to threaten the social order of Europe. The proceedings of the conference treated the revolution, by which the union between Holland and Belgium, established by the Congress of Vienna, had been dissolved, as an irrevocable event; and confirmed the independence, neutrality, and state of territorial possession of Belgium, upon the conditions contained in the Treaty of the 15th November, 1831, between the five powers and that kingdom, subject to such modifications as might ultimately be the result of direct negotiations between Holland and Belgium.1

[merged small][ocr errors]

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX, NO. I.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON NATURALIZATION, BY THE EDITOR.1

[ocr errors]

[By the Constitution of the United States, Congress have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; and this power is recognized by the Supreme Court, as being exclusive of that of the individual States. Kent's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 424. Wheaton's Rep. vol. ii. p. 269, Chirac v. Chirac. Ibid. vol. v. p. 49, Houston v. Moore. The following is the substance of the laws passed by Congress in of this provision of the Constitution : pursuance By the act of March 26, 1790, it is provided that any free white alien, who had resided two years within the United States, may become a citizen on application to any court of record of the State where he had resided one year, making proof to the satisfaction of the Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States; and the minor children of such persons so naturalized, and the children of citizens that may be out of the United States, were to be considered citizens. This act requires no abjuration of former allegiance. United States Statutes at Large, vol. i. p. 103. The act of January 29, 1795, requires a preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and to renounce all foreign allegiance, particularly to the Prince or State of whom the applicant was a subject or citizen, three years before admission, and a residence, at the time of admission, of five years within the United States, and of one year within the State. This act also requires that the alien should renounce any title of nobility, and that the Court admitting him should be satisfied of his good moral character, that he was attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The aliens, then, residing in the United States, might become citizens on a residence of two years, one of which was in the State where applying, according to the law previously in force, and on complying with the other requirements of the new act. There are the same provisions as before, as to the minor children of naturalized citizens, and the children of citizens born abroad. Ibid. p. 414. By the act of June 18, 1798, no alien could become a citizen, unless he had declared his intention five years before his admission, and proved a residence of fourteen years in the United States, and five years in the State where

1 See Part II. c. 2, § 5, p. 122, also Introductory Remarks, p. cxvi.

« ПретходнаНастави »