the joint action of the two governments whose shores are to be connected. In this way the capital of both countries will be enlisted, and at the same time possible causes of difference will be removed. "3d. Provisions against scrutiny of messages by government officials. The President thinks that the right to establish such a scrutiny in favor of the power controlling either end of the cable is calculated to lead to trouble, and had therefore better be prevented. "A draft of a convention embodying these points has been prepared and is herewith enclosed. It will be understood, however, that this is submitted simply as a basis for future discussion, should the leading powers concur with the United States in considering the subject one for international consideration and jurisdiction. "The President desires that the representatives at Washington of Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, North Germany, Austria, Russia, Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Greece, Venezuela, Brazil, the Argentine Confederation, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico and Chile, may be empowered to enter jointly and simultaneously into negotiations with the United States, and with each other with a view of concluding a joint convention for the purpose hereinbefore referred to, and instructions identical with these are issued to the representative of the United States at each of those powers. You will upon the receipt of this, propose to the cabinet of Great Britain to give to its minister at Washington, powers to enter into such negotiations with the United States and with the representatives of such other powers as may be empowered for that purpose, and to conclude with them such a joint convention, and you are at liberty, in your discretion, to furnish to the minister for foreign affairs a copy of these instructions and their enclosure." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Motley, min. to England, Nov. 23, 1869, The same instruction was sent, mutatis mutandis, to other diplomatic (Circulars, I. 376.) See Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min. to Germany, March 17, As to the cutting of the cable connecting Cuba with the United States, State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Peru, tel., Aug. 9, 1884, MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 67.) Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. Scrymser, March 16, 1885, stated that instructions had been sent to the United States legation in Guatemala holding that Republic responsible for injuries done by its authority or with its connivance to cables or other interests of United States citizens in Central America, and that the U. S. S. Wachusett, thence en route to La Union, would be duly instructed. (154 MS. Dom. Let. 489.) Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, in a telegram to Mr. Hicks, min. to Peru, Jan. 10, 1891, stated that the Central and South American Telegraph Co. represented that the extension of its cable from Chorillos southward to Iquique and Valparaiso, under concessions guaranteed by the Governments of Peru and Chile, was obstructed by the municipal authorities of Chorillos, who forbade the company to connect its north and south cables by a land line, although it was authorized to do so by its national concessions. Mr. Hicks was directed to see the minister of foreign affairs and "discreetly represent importance of completion of cable as a means of international communication." (MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 446.) The difficulty was amicably adjusted, the company's agent in Peru expressing his appreciation of the legation's good offices. (Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hicks, min. to Peru, March 10, 1891, MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 459, acknowledging receipt of Mr. Hicks's No. 226, of Feb. 13, 1891.) Subsequently, in consequence of the civil war in Chile, the company was prevented by the Congressional party, who occupied Iquique, from working the cable south of that point, at which it touched. (For. Rel. 1891, 144.) Under these circumstances the company, which was desirous of securing a concession for a line overland from Valparaiso to Argentina, arranged with the Balmaceda government, which was anxious to open communication to the north, to cut the cable and join the ends off Iquique in the open sea. July 10, 1891, Mr. C. H. Baker, superintendent of the company, wrote to Admiral McCann, U. S. S. Baltimore, saying: "I am directed by the Government of Washington, through my President, to inform you of any interference that may take place during cable operations outside of territorial waters." (H. Ex. Doc. 91, 52 Cong. 1 sess. 276.) This letter evidently referred to the following telegram: If your repair ship being under flag of United States is interfered with in doing work on cable outside of territorial waters of Chile, report fully to Admiral McCann at Callao." (Tel. of Department of State to Mr. Scrymser, pres. of Central and South American Telegraph Co., July 9, 1891, quoted in Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Serymser, Oct. 21, 1891, 183 MS. Dom. Let. 601.) It seems that the connection was made by the company's repair steamer Relay under the protection of the U. S. S. Baltimore, on or about July 20, 1891. (See H. Ex. Doc. 91, 52 Cong. 1 sess. 276-278, and Mr. Wharton, Act Sec. of State, to Mr. Scrymser, Oct. 21, 1891, 183 MS. Dom. Let. 601.) In his special message to Congress of Jan. 25, 1892, President Harrison mentioned "the cable incident" as one of the probable causes of the feeling which led to the attack upon the sailors of the Baltimore at Valparaiso. It seems that the Congressional authorities received an erroneous impression to the effect that the company was constrained to act and join its cable outside Iquique by an arrangement between the Government of the United States and the Balmaceda government. (Mr. Wharton, Oct. 21, 1891, 183 MS. Dom. Let. 601; same to same, Nov. 7, 1891, 184 id. 55.) 66 For a request that such special privileges as may be permissible" The subject of the international protection of submarine cables was considered at various European conferences, and at length, on March 14, 1884, a convention was signed at Paris by the representatives of twenty-five powers, including the United States, for the protection outside territorial waters of all legally established submarine cables landed in the territories of one or more of the contracting parties. The ratifications of seventeen of the signatory powers were exchanged at Paris April 16, 1885. By a protocol signed at Paris July 7, 1887, it was agreed that the convention should go into effect May 1, 1888. By an act of Congress approved February 29, 1888, the United States adopted legislation for carrying the convention into effect. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, March 1, 1888, For the text of the convention, see Treaties and Conventions between the Article XV. of the convention of March 14, 1884, reads: "It is understood that the stipulations of this Convention shall in no wise affect the liberty of action of belligerents.” It appears that during the Franco-German war, the war between Chile and Peru, and the civil war in Chile cables were cut both within the territorial waters of the belligerents and in waters outside those limits. The same thing took place in the war between the United States and Spain, in which the United States exercised the right of cutting cables connecting the Spanish West Indies and the Philippines with the outer world. The right was exercised in this instance both within and outside of territorial waters. See an article entitled "Submarine Telegraph Cables in Time of War," Aug., 1901, by George Grafton Wilson, Ph. D. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901). Also, Naval Operations of the War with Spain, 176, 186, 208, 209, 210, 211, See, further, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pacheco, min. to Cent. Am., "I nave found occasion to approach the Argentine Government with a view to removing differences of rate charges imposed upon the cables of an American corporation in the transmission between Buenos Aires and the cities of Uruguay and Brazil of through messages passing from and to the United States. Although the matter is complicated by exclusive concessions by Uruguay and Brazil to foreign companies, there is strong hope that a good understanding will be reached and that the important channels of commercial communication between the United States and the Atlantic cities of South America may be freed from an almost prohibitory discrimination. "In this relation, I may be permitted to express my sense of the fitness of an international agreement whereby the interchange of messages over connecting cables may be regulated on a fair basis of uniformity. The world has seen the postal system developed from a congeries of independent and exclusive services into a well-ordered union, of which all countries enjoy the manifold benefits. It would be strange were the nations not in time brought to realize that modern civilization, which owes so much of its progress to the annihilation of space by the electric force, demands that this all-important means of communication be a heritage of all peoples, to be administered and regulated in their common behoof. A step in this direction was taken when the International Convention of 1884 for the protection of submarine cables was signed, and the day is, I trust, not far distant when this medium for the transmission of thought from land to land may be brought within the domain of international concert as completely as is the material carriage of commerce and correspondence upon the face of the waters that divide them." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898. (For. Rel. 1898, See Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Scrymser, Nov. 1, 1897, 222 MS. See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scrymser, July 7, 1885, and 6. OTHER SUBJECTS OF COOPERATION. § 233. The results of international cooperation for the preservation of rights of property are illustrated in the conventions establishing an international union for the protection of industrial property in various conventions and agreements for the protection of copyrights, and in the convention for the protection of submarine cables outside of territorial waters. Numerous conventions have been entered into in recent times for the regulation of the fisheries on the high seas, both in respect of food fishes and of fur-bearing animals whose habitat is the sea. . International monetary conferences were held at Paris in 1867 and 1878, and at Brussels in 1892. Conferences looking to the abolition of sugar bounties were held at London in 1887 and at Brussels in 1900.@ The several conferences of American States, including the two international American conferences, have sought to regulate various matters falling within the domain of private as well as of public international law. Various unofficial bodies, international in membership, exist for the accomplishment of similar objects. Among such bodies may be mentioned Institut de Droit International and the International Law Association, formally styled the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations. IX. MARRIAGE. 1. AS AN INSTITUTION. § 234. Marriage is something more than a contract; it is an institution, and as understood in Christendom may be defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." Lord Penzance, Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), L. R. 1 P. and D. See Studies in Private International Law, by Émile Stocquart, D. C. L., As to a Russian proposal for the international regulation of the price of wheat, see Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stevens, M. C., Oct. 9, 1900, 248 MS. Dom. Let. 287. |