Abstract
The first treaty between the Netherlands and the United States contained no stipulation about its duration. No agreement about its validity had been reached after the end of the French period in 1813, or during the subsequent settlement of the Dutch-American relations in the ensuing years. It continued consequently to be inserted in collections of international conventions, and this, again, caused it to be taken repeatedly into consideration on any subject about which it contained provisions. American and Dutch statesmen who were not informed about the particulars of its history used to take its binding force for granted when they found it published as an official instrument regulating the relations between their countries.
In continuation of Chapter V.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
In the same year, a few months earlier, a historical account of “The diplomacy of the United States” had been published (Boston 1826), which stated that the treaty had been in force “till the creation of the kingdom of the Netherlands and the consolidation of the Dutch and Belgic provinces in 1814 and ’15” (p. 149).
Nov. 11 1826, Bangeman Huygens to Verstolk (R. A. B. Z. exh. Dec. 12 1826).
Oct. 15 1831, Livingston to Davezac (D. o. S. Instructions, Netherlands).
No. 7, Febr. 4 1832, Livingston to Davezac (Ibid.) He raised the problem probably In consequence of a decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in the case University v. Miller, 1831. The Court held that the question whether the treaty continued in force was for the foreign department of the government (not for the judicial power) to decide, and therefore enforced the treaty as a law of the land (Crandall, Treaties, their making and enforcement, 2d. ed., p. 368 footnote 20, p. 429 footnote 19, and p. 558).
The Hague, May 28 1832, No. 31 (D. o. S. Despatches Netherlands).
Washington 1833.
p. 304. — But the editor of: The American diplomatic code, embracing a collection of treaties and conventions between the United States and foreign powers, from 1778 to 1834 .. . (by Jonathan Elliot, Washington 1834, 2 vols.), remarks simply that the treaty “continued in force till the erection of the Kingdom of the United Netherlands.... in 1814 and 1815” (p. 166). He derived his information from the earlier work of 182& mentioned in footnote 2 on p. 388.
Jan. 21 1836, Netscher to Verstolk van Soelen (R. A. B. Z. exh. 1836 Jan. 22, No. 2 G): „Er bestaat tusschen de beide landen geen tractaat”.
Hoekstra p. 170 f. A treaty of the United States with Sweden for instance, concluded in 1816, had revived by a special stipulation the old treaty of 1783, which had expired in consequence of one of its articles regulating the duration (Hovde p. 21).
Cf. Kiehl p. 144, Kloos p. 41 f.
May 27 1844, McClintock Young to the Secretary of State, and Aug. 9 1844, Geo. M. Bibb to the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Miscellaneous Letters, and Treasury Department Archives: Cabinet & Bureaus, letterbooks, No. 4). — Neither Bibb nor any other official taking this attitude can be quoted seriously upon the subject, however, since none had sufficiently studied the historical background of the whole question.
Communicated by the Dutch chargé d’affaires andagain quoted in a report of May 31 1858, the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister Resident at Washington (R. A. B. Z. A 1 No. 3120).
Ibid.
See footnote 3.
The Hague, Sept. 17 1861, Van Zuylen to Pike (to be found in R. A. and D. o. S. Desp. Neth.). Published in: Papers relative to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1861 (edited by D. o. S.), p. 368. Cf. The Hague, June 111862, Pike to Secretary of State, No. 51: “From an interview with Mr. Van der Maesen [de Sombreff, Minister of Foreign Affairs] I learn that his government views the Treaty of 1782 as obsolete”, (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
E. J. Kiehl: Ons verdrag met Amerika. ’s-Gravenhage 1863.
P. 139 f.
p. 150. „Vooreerst blijkt uit de opgesomde voordeelen van dat verdrag dat onzer-zijds alles moet gedaan worden wat zijne verbindbaarheid kan doen uitkomen en verder kan versterken. AUes moet worden vermeden wat den minsten twijfel aan die geldigheid zou kunnen veroorzaken.”
Jan. 29 1873, Westenberg to Fish. In: Papers relative to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1873, p. 714 f., where the further correspondence is published also.
Febr. 19 1873, Fish to Westenberg.
March 8 1873, Westenberg to Fish. Cf. on this argument p. 40, footnote 2.
April 9 1873, Fish to Westenberg.
For instance in: A Digest of the international law of the United States .... edited by F. Wharton (Washington 1887, 3 vols.), II § 137.
Kloos for instance does not mention any more cases. Nor have they been noticed in other works.
P. 26.
Referring to several writers on international law.
Treaties and Conventions, concluded between the United States of America and other Powers, since July 4 1776. Washington 1889.
Vol. V (Washington 1906), p. 344/345 (§ 773: Termination of treaties, changes in sovereignty and government).
Moore has arrived at a defective representation of the “Case of the Netherlands”, by blindly following Davis’ statements. He outlines only those arguments of Secretary Fish which stress the Dutch attitude in 1815, when Holland was in favor of a termination of the treaty; his conclusion that since that time the United States also had acquiesced in this attitude, is clearly wrong.
Washington 1910, p. 1223.
H. A. van Dijk, Répertoire historique et chronologique des traités conclus par la Hollande depuis 1789 jusqu’à nos jours (Utrecht 1846), — a continuation of Kluit, Index chronologicus .... (Leiden 1790) —. E. G. Lagemans, Recueil des traités et conventions conclus par le royaume des Pays-Bas avec des puissances étrangères, depuis 1813 (La Haye 1858 f,). C. J. E. Bosmans et M. Visser, Répertoire des traités et des engagements internationaux concernant les Pays-Bas (1845–1900), (La Haye 1928). None of these works mentions the treaty of 1782. The two first-named give the convention of 1839, the last one gives that of 1852 as being the first agreement with the United States in force at the time. Finally there is a collection entitled: De Handelsverdragen van Nederland. Overzicht van de regeling der handelsbetrekkingen tusschen Nederland en andere landen, be-staande op 1 Jan. 1911. (Verslagen en Mededeelingen van de Afdeeling Handel van het Departement van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel, jaargang 1911, No. 1.) On page 1, under the heading United States of America, it states: „Van kracht waren op 1 Januari 1911 de verdragen van 19 Januari 1839 en van 26 Augustus 1852”, and thus gives another argumentum e silentio for the conclusion that also with the Netherlands government Jan eventual reinforcement of the treaty öf 1782 was wholly out of the question.
Verzameling van handels- en scheepvaartovereenkomsten gesloten tusschen Nederland en vreemde mogendheden. Uitgegeven . . . door S. van Citters. ‘s-Gravenhage 1891. The Preface, p. I, announces that he intends to give only treaties which have not been recalled. Annex A is the treaty of 1782, from De Martens’ Recueil des principaux traités d’alliance .... (etc.).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). Supplementary Chapter on the Further History of the Treaty of 1782 after 1820. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive