But as the United States had no such complication and no immediate cause to apprehend it, the government did no act in the nature of such a recognition; and the mission of Mr. Mann was secret and confidential and did not become known so as to have influenced the result.

M. Hülsemann, in a letter to Mr. Webster, secretary of state, of September 30, 1850, reopens the subject and complains of the mission as a past transaction, on the ground that it was a violation of the law of nations and unfriendly to Austria. He objects to the language used in the instructions, especially the characterizing of "the rebel chief Kossuth as an illustrious man," and of the terms in which the Austrian system and the intervention of Russia, the ally of Austria, are spoken of, as offensive to Austria; and adds that the publicity given to the instructions by the communication to the Senate requires the Austrian Government to make a formal protest against them.

Mr. Webster replied, by letter of December 21, 1850, that the United States regards a communication from one department of its government to another, as from the President to the Senate, as a domestic communication, of which ordinarily no foreign state has cognizance, and that great inconvenience would result from making such communications matter of diplomatic correspondence and discussion. Mr. Webster says: "The undersigned reasserts to M. Hülsemann and to the cabinet of Vienna, and in the presence of the world, that the steps taken by President Taylor, now protested against by the Austrian Government, were warranted by the law of nations and agreeable to the usages of civilized states." As to the language in which the confidential instructions to Mr. Mann were couched, Mr. Webster says they were confidential between the President and his agent, "in reference to which the United States cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the government of His Imperial Majesty. No state deserving the appellation of independent can permit the language in which it may instruct its own officers, in the discharge of their duties to itself, to be called in question, under any pretext, by a foreign power." He reminds M. Hülsemann that they were communicated to the Senate after the war was over and that Austria obtained its first knowledge of the instructions from that communication.

It would seem that the only objection to the course of the United States was that it showed a desire to be prompt in recognizing Hungary. This Mr. Webster admits. He says that the people of the United States have a deep interest in the movements made by a nation to regain its independence with institutions like our own, which we deem to be real blessings to a people, against the force of governments which are not only hostile to those institutions but affect to consider them as never having a lawful origin, not being derived from the consent of those holding thrones by divine right. Mr. Webster's position is that, in such a contest, governments hostile to popular institutions must expect to see demonstrations of sympathy and feeling by the people of a free country, and expressions of it may appear in confidential domestic communications of the govern

ment itself; but such powers must be content if the government, in its relations with them during the contest, performs faithfully the duties enjoined upon it by international law, gives no public and official moral support to the insurrection, abstains from recognizing independence until it exists in fact, and executes faithfully the duties of neutrality in the contest, as regards all material aid. In reply to M. Hülsem.ann's complaint of the language of the President toward Russia, he reminds the writer that Russia has made no complaint. Mr. Webster's letter is, no doubt, a grave and skilful censure of Austria and of her system and relations to freedom and would have been open to the charge of being undiplomatic if the note of M. Hülsemann had not given Mr. Webster fair opportunity, if not provocation, to introduce the topics into his reply. Webster's "Works," VI, 488-506.

As a point in international law the transaction has little significance, as the United States undoubtedly did not act in the way of recognizing the independence or even belligerency of Hungary but confidentially and secretly took its own mode of making sure of its ground in being the earliest, consistently with international law, to recognize the independence of a nation with whose cause it sympathized. The episode belongs rather to history, as indicating the policy and feeling of the United States. See note 41 on Intervention in Mexico.-D.

APPENDIX II

CONVENTION

FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

"Animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of general peace;

"Resolved to promote by all the efforts in their power the friendly settlement of international disputes;

"Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;

"Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

"Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

"Having regard to the advantages attending the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;

"Sharing the opinion of the august initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an International Agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;

"Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure;

"Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes;

"The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, and have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:"

[Here follow the names of Plenipotentiaries.]

"Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:

PART I-THE MAINTENANCE OF GENERAL PEACE

ARTICLE 1

"With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between States, the Contracting Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.

PART II-GOOD OFFICES AND MEDIATION

ARTICLE 2

"In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Contracting Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

ARTICLE 3

"Independently of this recourse, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that one or more Powers strangers to the dispute should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.

"Powers strangers to the dispute have the right to offer good offices or mediation even during the course of hostilities.

"The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties in dispute as an unfriendly act.

ARTICLE 4

"The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance.

ARTICLE 5

"The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

ARTICLE 6

"Good offices and mediation undertaken either at the request of the parties in dispute or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute have exclusively the character of advice and never have binding force.

ARTICLE 7

"The acceptance of mediation cannot, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.

"If it takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.

ARTICLE 8

"The Contracting Powers are agreed in recommending the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form: "In case of a serious difference endangering peace, the States at vari

ance choose respectively a Power to which they intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations.

"For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless otherwise stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, the States in dispute cease from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the mediating Powers, which must use their best efforts to settle it.

"In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these Powers are charged with the joint task of taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.

PART III-INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY

ARTICLE 9

"In disputes of an international nature involving neither honor nor vital interests and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.

ARTICLE 10

"International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the parties in dispute.

"The Inquiry Convention defines the facts to be examined; it determines the mode and time in which the Commission is to be formed and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.

"It also determines, if there is need, where the Commission is to sit and whether it may remove to another place, the language the Commission shall use and the languages the use of which shall be authorized before it, as well as the date on which each party must deposit its statement of facts, and, generally speaking, all the conditions upon which the parties have agreed.

"If the parties consider it necessary to appoint Assessors, the Convention of Inquiry shall determine the mode of their selection and the extent of their powers.

ARTICLE 11

"If the Inquiry Convention has not determined where the Commission is to sit, it will sit at The Hague.

"The place of meeting, once fixed, cannot be altered by the Commis sion except with the assent of the parties.

"If the Inquiry Convention has not determined what languages are to be employed, the question shall be decided by the Commission.