TREATY.

treaty an object so important to their mutual and permanent welfare. To this end, the high contracting parties have conferred full powers and authority upon their respectively appointed plenipotentiaries, to wit, the President of the United States, John Sherman, Secretary of State of the United States; the President of the Republic of Hawaii, Francis March Hatch, Lorin A. Thurston and William A. Kinney.

Article I.-The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies; and it is agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawail.

Article II.-The Republic of Hawali also

cedes and hereby transfers to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipments and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining. The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands, but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition. Provided: That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military or naval purposes of the United States or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

Article III.-Until Congress shall provide for the Government of such islands, all the civil, judicial and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing Government in said islands shall be vested in such persons or persons, and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct, and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded between the United States and such foreign nations.

The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfilment of the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with this treaty, nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine.

Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands the existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged.

Article IV.-The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii lawfully existing at the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, including the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian postal savings bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of the United States, but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no case exceed $4,000,000. So long, however, as the existing Government and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued as herein before proided, said Government shall continue to pay the interest on said debt. Article V,-There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands. except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States, and Chinese by reason of anything herein contained shall be allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.

no

Article VI.-The President shall appoint five Commissioners, at least two of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands,

who shall as soon as reasonably practicable recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Territory of Hawaii as they shall deem necessary or proper.

Article VII.-This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate on the one part, and by the President of the Republic of Ilawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the Constitution of the said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seal.

Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven. JOHN SHERMAN,

FRANCIS MARCH HATCH,
LORIN A. THURSTON,
WILLIAM A. KINNEY.

The President's Message was, in part, as follows: "The incorporation of the Hawaiian Islands into the body politic of the United States is the necessary and fitting sequel to the chain of events which from a very early period of our history has controlled the intercourse and prescribed the association of the United States and Hawaiian Islands. The predominance of American interests in that neighboring territory was first asserted in 1820, by sending to the islands a representative agent of the United States. It found further expression by the signature of a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation with the King in 1826, the first international compact negotiated by Hawaii. It was signally announced in 1843, when the intervention of the United States caused the British Government to disavow the seizure of the Sandwich Islands by a British naval commander, and to recognize them by treaty as an independent State, renouncing forever any purpose of annexing the islands or exerting a protectorate over them.

"In 1851 the cession of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States was formally offered, and although not then accepted, this Government proclaimed its duty to preserve alike the honor and dignity of the United States and the safety of government of the Hawaiian Islands. From this time until the outbreak of the war in 1861 the policy of the United States toward Hawaii, and of the Hawaiian sovereign toward the United States, were exemplified by continued negotiations for annexation or for a reserved commercial union. The latter alternative was at length accomplished by the reciprocity treaty of 1875, the provisions of which were renewed and expanded by the convention of 1884, embracing the perpetual cession to the United States of the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island of Oahu. 1888 a proposal for the joint guarantee of the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States, Germany and Great Britain was declined, on the announced ground that the relation of the United States to the islands was sufficient for the end in view. In brief, from 1820 to 1893 the course of the United States toward the Hawaiian Islands has consistently favored their autonomous welfare, with the ex

In

clusion of all foreign influence save our own, to the extent of upholding eventual annexation as the necessary outcome of that policy.

"Not only is the union of the Hawaiian territory to the United States no new scheme, but it is the inevitable consequence of the relation steadfastly maintained with that mid-Pacific domain for three-quarters of a century. Its accomplishment, despite successive denials and postponements, has been merely a question of tinie. While its failure in 1893 may not be a cause of congratulation, it is certainly a proof of the disinterestedness of the United States, the delay of four years having abundantly sufficed to establish the right and the ability of the Republic of Hawaii to enter, as a sovereign contractant, upon a conventional union with the United States, thus realizing a purpose held by the Hawaiian people and proclaimed by successive Hawaiian governments through some seventy years of their virtual dependence upon the benevolent protection of the United States. Under such circumstances, annexation is not a change; it is a consummation.

"The report of the Secretary of State exhibits the character and course of the recent negotiation and the features of the treaty itself. The organic and administrative details of incorporation are necessarily left to the wisdom of the Congress, and I cannot doubt, when the function of the constitutional treaty-making power shall have been accomplished, the duty of the National Legislature in the case will be performed with the largest regard for the interests of this rich insular domain and for the welfare of the inhabitants thereof."

On the following day ex-Queen Liliuokalani presented the Secretary of State a formal protest against the treaty and urged upon the Senate to decline to ratify it.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on July 14 made a favorable report urging the ratification of the treaty without amendment. Only seven of the eleven members were present. Senators Davis, Cullom, Foraker, Clark and Morgan cast their votes for the resolution of ratification. Senators Daniel and Turpie did not take a positive stand in opposition to the treaty, but expressed the opinion that it was neither expedient nor consistent with the vast importance of the subject that the treaty should be pressed to immediate consideration.

Both houses of the Hawaiian Legislature ratified the treaty by unanimous vote on September 10.

The Japanese Minister at Washington submitted a protest against the treaty in a letter to Secretary Sherman on June 15, in which. he said: "My Government cannot view without concern the prospects of a sudden and complete change in the status of Hawaii, whereby the rights of Japan and of Japanese subjects may be imperilled. While, therefore, they confidently rely upon the United States to maintain toward them a just and friendly attitude in this as in all other matters, they feel that, under the circumstances, they cannot be regarded as spectators merely, without inerest in the important change which it has been so possitively asserted is about to take place in the relations of the United States and the Hawaiian Islands.

For this reason, if it is really true that treaty of annexation is about to be concluded, I feel that I am justified in inquiring from you, Mr. Secretary, what pr vision has been made therein for the preservation and maintenance of the rights acquired and enjoyed by Japan in her intercourse with Hawaii under the solema sanctions of law and of treaty?”

Secretary Sherman sent this letter on the following day to the Japanese Minister:

"Sir: Replying to your note of the 15th inst., just received. I have to say that the governments of Hawaii and the United States, by their duly authorized representatives, have signed a treaty annexing the Hawaiian Islands to this country. This

As to

has been done in pursuance of the policy long since adopted by the United States, and the treaty will, I understand, be submitted to the Senate of the United States by the President for ratification. your inquiry as to the provision made therein concerning the treaties which may be in existence between Japan and the present Hawaiian Government, my understanding is that the Government of the United States does not take upon itself any obligations of the Hawaiian Government arising from treaties or conventions made by it with other governments. It is be lieved that there is nothing in the proposed treaty prejudicial to the rights of Japan, and certainly the United States has no disposition to disturb the friendly relations which have long existed between the Government of Japan and this country."

Three days later the Japanese Minister, under instructions of the Emperor of Japan. filed the formal protest, citing the following as the reasons for such protest: "First-The mainter.ance of the status quo of Hawaii is essential to the good understanding of the Powers which have interests in the Pacific.

"Second-The annexation of Hawali would tend to endanger the residential, commercial and industrial rights of Jap anese subjects in Hawaii, secured to them by treaty and by the Constitution and laws of that country.

"Third-Such annexation might lead to the postponement by Hawail of the settlement of claims and liabilities already existing in favor of Japan under treaty stipulations.

"With reference to the mischievous suggestion or report, which has been so industriously circulated in this country and elsewhere, that Japan has designs against the integrity or sovereignty of Hawail. I am further instructed by the Imperial Government to state most emphatically and unequivocally that Japan has not now and never had such designs, or designs of any kind whatever, against Hawaii.

"Permit me to add, in conclusion, Mr. Secretary, that in making this protest, ari in asking full and careful considerauin for it, the Imperial Government are a tuated by what they regard as an imperative duty, and not in the remotest de gree by a desire to embarrass the Unit States. They prize most highly the cordi relations which have always existed 1etween our countries, and they confidently trust that their representations on this occasion will be received in that spirit of justice and fair dealing which has so not

ably characterized the intercourse of Japan and the United States."

On December 16 the Japanese Minister at Washington presented the reply of his Government to Secretary Sherman's pote, in which the protest was withdrawn. It was suggested, in addition, that the purpose of the Japanese authorities was to secure specific assurances from the United States that, in case Hawaii should be annexed, all Japanese interests would be fully protected.

JAPAN-HAWAII DISPUTE.

The significant growth of the Japanese population in Hawaii led to unpleasant complications between the two countries early in 1897. A treaty made in 1871 guaranteed to Japanese subjects all the rights of the most favored nations. In 1895 an act was passed excluding all immigrants from Hawaii not having $50 in coin, except contract laborers who were duly to be sent back. It was claimed later that the Japanese companies or their agents had resorted to the device of making temporary loans to immigrants to secure their landing, and that many immigrants, practically paupers, had been thrust upon the community. The influx of "Japanese laborers" rose to the number of about a thousand a month, and it was claimed that there were many infractions of the spirit of the law, and that the Mikado's object was to secure political control of the islands in the near future. The next step taken by the Hawaiian Government was to prohibit the landing of 535 out of 670 so-called immigrants arriving on a Japanese steamer, and the Supreme Court decided that the Collector at Honolulu had jurisdiction in the matter; but after a reinvestigation made in the presence of the Japanese representative the number of refusals was reduced to 413, and these were promptly returned to Japan at the expense of the company bringing them out. A later and similar case was that where 163 out of 316 were rejected. The Japanese residents in Hawaii then appealed to their home Government for redress, and the Japanese Minister entered a vigorous protest against the action of the Honolulu authorities, with demands for indemnity. These protests, etc., were emphasized by the appearance of the Japanese warship Naniwa in the harbor of Honolulu. Next, Hawaii proposed to submit the dispute to arbitration, which was accepted by Japan in July. The subjects of arbitration included that relating immigration; the increase of duty upon saki (a liquor largely imported and consumed by the Japanese on the islands) from 15 cents to $1 a gallon, and questions of minor importance.

HAWAII STATISTICS.

to

British Miscellaneous

than

The population of Americans is comparatively small, but the official figures show that the commercial interests of citizens of the United States are larger than those of all other countries. Of a total invested capital of $32,146,601 in sugar plantations the proportion held by United States citizens and others of American origin is $25,516,474; the total value of American property in the islands is estimated at $43.731,544, while the total amount of foreign capital other American is only about $9,000,000. BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERIES. On April 8, 1897, President McKinley appointed John W. Foster and Charles S. Hamlin a commission to consider and report how best to protect the seal fisheries of Behring Sea. It had been represented to the President that as the rules for the prevention of poaching were not satisfactory or efficient, more efficacious measshould be devised against pelagic sealing. The Commission was authorized to report wherein the existing rules, adopted in pursuance of the provisions of the Paris award, were inadequate to insure the protection of the seals, and what further rules should be agreed to by the United States and Great Britain to prevent poaching.

ures

The modus vivendi of 1891 provided that for the purpose of preserving the seal species in Behring Sea, England should prohibit seal killing in that part of the sea lying eastward of the line of demarkation, described in Article I of the treaty between the United States and Russia, and that she should use her best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects and vessels. This country agreed to prohibit seal killing under the same conditions in excess of 7,500 to be taken for the subsistence of the natives in that region. Persons or vessels violating the agreement were to be seized and handed over to the country to which they belonged and punished.

In July Secretary of State Sherman sent to the American Ambassador at London, important and exhaustive instructions for his guidance in urging upon the British Government a compliance with the provisions of the Bchring Sea award. The instructions were prepared as a reply to a note received from Lord Salisbury, the Premier of the British Government. Lord Salisbury's letter was a reply to the proposals of the President for a modus vivendi for the suspension of all killing of seals for the season of 1897, and for a joint conference of the Powers concerned, with a view to the necessary measures being adopted for the preservation of the fur seal in the Northern Pacific.

Mr. Sherman noted that the President was greatly disappointed that the proposals should be rejected, especially as such rejection was based unsubupon He anstantial and inadequate reasons. alyzed at some length reports made by Dr. Jordan and Professor Thompson to the Lord British which Government, upon

say

Salisbury based his rejection of the proposals, and declared that in view of the explicit language used in these reports "it is not easy to understand how Lord Salisbury can reconcile his refusal to entertain the proposals of the President with the into own countrymen, terests of his nothing of the friendly relations which he desires to maintain with the United States, Russia and Japan." Mr. Sherman then noted the operations of the pelagic fleet in Behring Sea since the Paris regulations had been in force, as follows:

1894-Thirty-seven vessels, 31,585 seals taken, or an average of 853 per vessel. 1895-Fifty-nine vessels, 44,169 seals taken, or an average of 748 per vessel. 1896-Sixty-seven vessels, 29,500 seals taken, or an average of 440 per vessel.

It thus appears that nearly double the number of vessels in 1896 were not able to take as many seals as were taken in 1894, and the catch per vessel fell off nearly one-half. Mr. Sherman next reviewed the manner in which the waters embraced in the award area had been patrolled, in order to see that the regulations were not violated by the sealing vessels, and criticised the British patrol as not being adequate. He continued thus:

"The obligations of an international award, which are equally imposed on both parties to its terms, cannot properly be assumed or laid aside by one of the parties only at its pleasure. Such an award, which in its practical operation is binding only on one party in its obligations and burdens and to be enjoyed mainly by the other party in its benefits, is an award which, in the interest of public morality and good conscience should not be maintained. Having in view the expressed object of the arbitration at Paris and the declared purpose of the arbitrators in prescribing the regulations when it became apparent, as it did after the first year's operation of them, and with increased emphasis each succeeding year, that the regulations were inadequate for the purpose, it was the plain duty of the British Government to acquiesce in the request of that of the United States for a conference to determine what further measures were necessary to secure the end had in view by the arbitration.

"A course so persistently followed for the last three years has practically accomplished the commercial extermination of the fur seals, and brought to naught the patient labors and well-meant conclusions of the Tribunal of Arbitration. Upon Great Britain must therefore rest, in the public conscience of mankind, the responsibility for the embarrassment in the relations of the two nations which must result from such conduct. One of the evil results is already indicated in the growing conviction of our people that the refusal of the British Government to carry out the recommendations of that tribunal will needlessly sacrifice an important interest of the United States. This is shown by the proposition seriously made in Congress to abandon negotiations and destroy the seals on the islands as the speedy end to a dangerous controversy, although such a measure has not been entertained by this Department. We have felt assured that. as it has been demonstrated that the prac

tice of pelagic sealing, if continued, will not only bring itself to an end, but w work the destruction of a great interest of a friendly nation, Her Majesty's Government would desist from an act suicidal and so unneighborly, and whica certainly could not command the approval of its own people.

"The President therefore cherishes the hope that even at this late day the British Government may yet yield to his continued desire, so often expressed, for a conference of the interested Powers, and in delivering to Lord Salisbury a copy of this instruction you will state to him that the President will hail with great satisfaction any indication on the part of Majesty's Government of a disposition to agree upon such a conference."" UNITED STATES-RUSSIA-JAPAN CONFERENCE.

Her

Both Russia and Japan made arrangements for the conference and appointed! delegates. Subsequently the Canadian Government requested the withdrawal of Great Britain from the Conference if Russia and Japan were to be represented, and on October 6 the officials of the British Foreign Office communicated to Colonel John Hay, the United States Ambassador at London, that their Government declined to take part in any conference with the representatives of Russia and Japan. The British Government, however, asserted its willingness to confer with the United States, alone on the subject, but insisted that Russia and Japan were not interested in the Behring Sea seals to a degree entitling them to a representation at conference. On October 12 Secretary Sherman sent a reply in which he expressed astonishment that Great Britain should withdraw, inasmuch as in the verbal negotiations between Ambassador Hlay and Lord Salisbury, and in the written respondence, specific reference was made to the participation of Russia and Japan. In view of the differences which had arisen, Secretary Sherman suggested a conference in accordance with Lord Salisbury's proposition-that is, between ex perts of Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Lord Salisbury accepted this solution on October 15.

the

cor

The Russia-Japan-United States Conference assembled at Washington on October 23, with the following as delegates: Russia-Pierre Botkine, M. De Routkowsky. M. De Woliant, Charge d'Affaires. Russian Legation. Japan-Shiro Fujita, Professor Kakichi Mitsukuri. United States-John W. Foster, Charles S. Hamlin, President David Starr Jordan. The Conference ended its sittings on October 28, first agreeing to a proposition calculated to bring about a complete change in the sealing question. Its special features contemplated an absolute suspension of all pelagic sealing, and a restriction of such sealing within narrow limits. UNITED

STATES-ENGLAND-CANADA

CONFERENCE.

On November 5, acting upon the propesition of Lord Salisbury, Canada selected Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada, and Sir Louis Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, delegates to a tripartite conference to be conducted by the experts