merchantmen alike. Hence he argued that it was necessary for England to determine at once, upon facts and probabilities, whether she would permit the right of search and blockade as acts of war, and whether the letters of marque and public ships of the rebels, which might appear at once in many parts of the world, should be treated as pirates or lawful belligerents."1 Earl Russell further asserted "that the proclamation of President Lincoln establishing a blockade under date of April 19, 1861, was itself a recognition and the first recognition of the state of belligerency of the Confederates States." As to the particular question of the precipitate nature of the Queen's proclamation, he says that "it was, on the contrary, your own government which, in assuming the belligerent right of blockade, recognized the Southern States as belligerents. Had they not been belligerents, the armed ships of the United States would have had no right to stop a single British ship upon the high seas."

In the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States the whole matter is found cogently expressed in the opinion that "the rights and obligations of the belligerent were conceded to the Confederate Government, in its military character very soon after the war began, from motives of humanity and expediency, by the United States."2

I have already narrated the history of the insurrections in Cuba in relation to the status of insurgency. President McKinley, in 1897, said in regard to the further recognition of belligerency that such a recognition would weigh heavily in behalf of Spain. "Possessing a navy," he said, "and controlling the ports of Cuba, her maritime rights could be asserted not only for the military investments of the island, but up to the margin of our own territorial waters." 3

The manner in which the status and rights of belligerency

1 Dana's "Wheaton," 8th ed. (Appendix I).

2 Moore's "Digest," I, p. 192.
3 Moore's "Digest," I, p. 199.

Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall.

are accorded to insurgents varies; it may be done tacitly or by express declarations or proclamations of neutrality, such as that issued by Great Britain in our Civil War, or as in declarations of neutrality in a regular war, with sovereign states as belligerents.

"Recognition of belligerency," says Hall, "when once it has been accorded, is irrevocable except by agreement, so long as the circumstances exist under which it was granted; for, although as between the grantor and grantee it is a concession of pure grace and therefore revocable, as between the grantor and third parties new legal relations have been set up by it which, being dependent on the existence of a state of war, cannot be determined at will so long as the state of war continues in fact. In other words, a state, whether it be belligerent or neutral, cannot play fast and loose with the consequences of a certain state of things; it cannot regulate its conduct simply by its own convenience."1

54. The Recognition of a New State. The recognition of the independence of a state and of its membership in the family of nations is the last of the conditions which are passed through by peoples or political organizations in insurrection before the attainment of full status as a sovereign state. This recognition is a matter of much gravity, as it involves possible disputes with the parent state. Of course, if there should be a tacit or definite recognition of the independence of a community in revolt by the parent state, its recognition by other nations would follow almost automatically. Otherwise the recognition of independence involves a question of fact as well as a question of interests and policy. The parent state sometimes delays a recognition of a state which has actually attained independence so unreasonably long that the interests of other states and possibly their sympathies make it necessary or advisable for them to recognize such independence without waiting for the recognition of the parent state.

1 Hall, 6th ed., p. 35.

Holland, for instance, was not recognized by Spain until nearly seventy years after the declaration of its independence, and the recognition of the Spanish-American republics by the mother country took place in 1834, the first revolt and declaration of independence having been by one of them in 1815. The final recognition of the independence of the United Colonies in North America by Great Britain terminated the Revolutionary War, though the premature recognition of the independence of the American colonies by France, in 1778, was at once followed by a declaration of war against that country by the parent state, Great Britain. In 1782, when Great Britain herself recognized our independence, the other states followed in the recognition without giving offence. The independence of Panama was recognized virtually by the United States in three days after its creation and formally within ten days after its declaration of independence. Naturally, Colombia was affronted, and, as Hershey says, "such action on the part of the United States was really a case of political intervention."1 The United States recognized the independence of Cuba, in 1898, by a declaration that the people of Cuba were free and independent. This may also be fairly called an instance of intervention. It can be seen that the time of the recognition of the independence of a new state plays an important part. On this subject Oppenheim says: "But between this recognition as a belligerent power and the recognition of these insurgents and their part of the country as a new state, there is a broad and deep gulf, and the question is precisely at what exact time the recognition of a new state may be given instead of a recognition as a belligerent power. For an untimely and precipitate recognition as a new state is a violation of the dignity of the mother state, to which the latter need not patiently submit." 2

The aspects of a recognition of the independence of a new

1 Hershey's "Essentials," p. 124.
2 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, p. 119.

state from the point of view of other states and the point of view of the new state is given in the following opinions of Westlake and Rivier.

Westlake says: "When insurgents aiming at separation have established a state occupying a certain tract of territory with supreme authority and a good prospect of permanence, the question of the recognition of the new state by foreign powers arises. They will find that intercourse with the local authorities, of a more regular and political kind than can be supplied by the expedients resorted to during the earlier stage of the insurrection, is necessary for their interests and that of those of their subjects residing in the territory or trading with it. The new authorities, in the position which they have achieved, will probably decline to tolerate irregular expedients any longer, and the old government, being dispossessed in that part of its territory, will be unable to supply the need. In these circumstances the case of necessity will have arisen which, by depriving the recognition of all gratuitous character, will take from the old government all reasonable ground for offence at it. It cannot be expected that foreign powers shall wait till the old government has itself made such recognition or even till it has withdrawn from all armed contest if there is no reasonable chance of its success in that contest. When the United States and England recognized the Spanish-American republics, Spain still maintained small forces at a few points in her vast former possessions, but their recognition was not further postponed by England except in the case of one of them and there only because of the internal instability of the new government."1

On the other hand, "recognition," says Rivier, "is the assurance given to a new state that it will be permitted to hold its place and rank, in the character of an independent political organism, in the society of nations. The rights and attributes of sovereignty belong to it, independently of all recognition, 1 Westlake, "Int. Law," I, p. 57.

but it is only after it has been recognized that it is assured of exercising them. Regular political relations exist only between states that reciprocally recognize them. Recognition is therefore useful, even necessary, to the new state. It is also the constant usage, when a state is formed, to demand it. Except in consequence of particular conventions, no state is obliged to accord it. But the refusal may give rise to measures of retorsion. When, after the formation of the kingdom of Italy, certain German states persisted in refusing to recognize it, Count Cavour withdrew the exequaturs of their consuls. Recognition was then accorded."1

A state may be recognized as a sovereign state without being considered a member of the family of nations. This was the case of Turkey before 1856 and is the case of some Asiatic states, like China and Siam, with whom European and American states entertain continual relations while refusing to comprehend them among the society of nations.

The manner of recognition of a new state varies; it may be by treaty, by formal declaration, or by proclamation. A recognition of the independence of a state may be made by implication, by the sending or receiving of diplomatic agents and the opening of full diplomatic intercourse, or by the granting of exequaturs to consuls. It may be done by the formal recognition of the flag of the new state by a salute of guns, as France did with respect to the American flag at the French port of Quiberon. Recognition may also be a collective one of nations or of European powers, as of Belgium in 1831, of Greece in 1832, of Rumania, Servia, and Montenegro in 1878, and of Bulgaria in 1908.

55. Continuity of States.-In speaking of a state we are apt at times to consider that word as synonymous with the government of the state. It must, however, be distinctly borne in mind that the government is but the agent of the state. There must be a government in order that the state 1 Quoted by Moore's "Digest," vol. I, p. 72.