Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-10-14
VOL. U.-NO. IS.


ot iioand To this renewed application, il does not
appear that the Dutch minister made any reply.
In the spring ct 1916, go nment, considering
again the liberal measure with .;cb indemnity was
claimed and received by the powers of Europe from the
rench government, instructed MIR. Eusts to revive
the claim that of the Low Countries. In compli-
ance with these orders, Mr. Eustis addressed on
the 4th of July, 1876 to the Baron de Nagc!l in which
he renewed the claim for indemnity, the ground that
the concations made by the government de aco,
which must be regarded by foreign nations the law
full government Of the country. In this letter. two
cases were selected prominent by MIR. Eusts name
~ The Bacchus which being ordered off by the Dutch
government in 1909, wrecked in getting out her
cargo saved, sequestered, and finally cedcd to the
French; and the Baltimore which, after having receiv-
ed Dutch government protection and license enter
was Sequestered and the part of the cargo consisting of
colonial produce, (being the chief part) ceded TO
France in 1910.
In about six weeks returned by the
baron de Nagell, in which me denies the position taken
by Mr. EustiS, that the Dutch government of 1909 was
even the government de neto He rests tins singular
denial on certain facts and considerations which show
that Louiswas entirely under the control of his brother
Out 10 maintain that no government be called de
.focto The government of country, which Influenced
and controlled by another is rather TO rnorise than TO
reason like staesan and would prove that there was
not a government de tacto the continent of Europe
at that time, except the French. If The Dutch govern
nlent with its king, ministry, and council of state lis
army and navy, It's cusomhouses lis courts neither
government de facto, de jure, may ask what il
wasf The very phrase, which ii asserted that the
government OF Louis not de fcto proves that il
was-'thc government of Louis.' There was then
such government. To this singular letter Of The Ba-
ron de Nagel which, but for the seriousness of the sub
ect would rather pass for ieu deSp', than dplo-
matte note, Mr. Eustis, the 25th of September ro
turned an able answer, principally occupied with the
point that the government OF Louis de fcto the
government of Holland This Mr. Eustis argues TO be
laoundanty proved by the circumstance of his eyer
else of all the functions of sovereignty for several
a opdo
acknowledgement by the States General and the other
constituted authorities of the nation, civil military and
ecclesiastc; and by his official intercourse with them
from the time of his arrival in the country to that of his
abdcaon.' Indeed, there is evidence before tbe
world not only in the shape of facts public noorietv
but OF the documents, which Louis himself few
years since, collected and published that he was not
only the sovereign, but resolved TO be the ndepe-
dent sovereign of the country So far it from bein
true, that he was entirely controlled by Napoleon that
he was obliged to abdcate because he refused to be
thus controlled The extraordinary letter of Napole-
on to Louis, dated Dec. 81, 1909, and published at
length III this Journal for Oct. 1920 D. 255 will show
that the administration of Louis had been one long act
OF resistance TO his brother. Your majesv' saws Ma
Poieon TO Louis n mounting the throne of Holland for
got you were renchman and you have tried all the
resources OF reason, aud the decacy of your cn
SCIENCE, to persuade yourself, that you belonged TO
Holland. The Dutch citizens who inclined most IN
France were neglected and persecuted those who SER
we'd the interests of England adYantell French
men OF all ranks have been expelled degraded and
have had the grief of seeing in Holland under prince
OF my blood, the French exposed TO Disgrace,
This the government, which now for eoieD rca
sons, Is denied TO be any government az all In fact
we believe IT may be said, without eXacrelfon fj,at
there was not prince the continent of Eope who
held boder front 10 Napoleon than lis brother Louis
tie derived strength from his relationship which none
but his brothers could possess He knew that po,cy
would dsncine Napoleon from rupture with lis aIn-
ly and partly from this cause, and pa!tlv it woulJ
seem, from real sentiment of Independence lie stood
gfYf Io,
disastrous times
When Austria bent and Prussia broke
And the firm Russians parpose brave
Was battered by ii timoruus slave
With this note of MIR. Eustis tie negotiation with
the Dutch government again dropped. On the 0tb Of
August, 1919, Mr.. Everett who had succeeded az
charge d'Atlaires, after the retirement of Mr. Eusts
was instructed by the Secretary Of State TO revive the
discussion. in his letter to this effect Mr. Adams OH
serves that mo principle of international law can be-
more clearly established. than this that the rights and
the obligations OF nation 10 regard 10 other states are
independent of its internal revolutions of government
teXtends even to the of conquest. However fire.
quent the instances of departure from this principle
may be, In point of fact, il with any color Of
reason be contested on the ground of right On what
other ground IT, indeed that both the governments of
the Netherlands and of the United States now admit
that they are still recproCally bound by the engage
inents, and entitled TO claim from each other the bepe-
fits, OF the treaty between the United States and the
United Provinces of 1892
III pursuance OF tneSe INSTRUCTIONS, the
with the Dutch government was revived BY Mr. Eve
rett in letter addressed TO Baron dc Nage bearing
date February 22d, 1919. In this letter. the PRINCIPLES
on which the claim founded we're discussed moro
thoroughly than they had yet BEEN After relating the
cases OF the Baltimore and the Baccbus and adding
that of the St. Michael as being also case of pecuar
severity, Mr.. Everett appeals to the authorities of
ns and Pufcndor, in support Of the position that a
nation IS bound by the acts of lis sovereign when a
hIrd party IS concerned, though that sovereign
as usurpcr may be dethroncd by the lawful mon
arch.
Here VIC beg leave TO state considerations growing
out OF the nature Of monarchia Institutions strongly
IN favor OF the validity of claims in Opposition to
lie standing argument, that the confscations we're
made by usurPcrs VIZ that the kingly Office, not being
an elective conferred by any specific act of 20.
Pular consent there's test of the but incun-
bency the part OF the king, and acquiesccnce Oh the
part Of the people. His present majesty OF the Ne
thcrands would doubtless be wronged if the Iep,tima
4 cy Of bis title were questioned. And set what is fat
title, An act Of the Congress Of Vienna an assembly
of princes 10 which the inhabitants Of the Netherlands
we're parties, and By which Holland and Beo,u,o