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 time. 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 en.er, 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 a treaty of annexation is about to be concluded, I feel that I am justified in inquiring from you, Mr. Secretary, what provision has been made therein for the preservation and maintenance of the rights acquired and enjoyed by Japan in her intercourse with Hawaii under the solemn sanctions of law and of treaty?"

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

This

"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. has been done in pursuance of the policy long since adopted by the United States, and the treaty will, I understand, be subImitted to the Senate of the United States by the President for ratification. As to 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 believed 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 maintenance 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 Hawaii would tend to endanger the residential, commercial and industrial rights of Japanese 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii, 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, and in asking full and careful consideration for it, the Imperial Government are actuated by what they regard as an imperative duty, and not in the remotest degree by a desire to embarrass the United States. They prize most highly the cordial relations which have always existed between 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

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. 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 to 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.

The

British Miscellaneous

Totals

.109,020 72,517 36,503 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 than 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 measures should 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.

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 Behring 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 upon unsubstantial and inadequate reasons. He analyzed at some length reports made by Dr. Jordan and Professor Thompson to the British Government, upon which Lord

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 interests of his own countrymen, to say 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 sea's 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 will work the destruction of a great interest of a friendly nation, Her Majesty's Government would desist from an act SO suicidal and so unneighborly, and which 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 the 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 Hay and Lord Salisbury, and in the written correspondence, specific reference was made to the participation of Russia and Japan. In view of the differences which had arisen, Secretary Sherman suggested conference in accordance with Lord Salisbury's proposition-that is, between experts of Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Lord Salisbury accepted this solution on October 15.

a

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 Wollant, Chargé 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 proposition 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

representing the United States, England and Canada. The convention began at Washington on November 10, with the following experts present: Professor Jordan, United States; Professor Thompson, England, and Professor Macoun, Canada. The other representatives present were John W. Foster and Charles S. Hamlin, United States; Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Louis Davies. These last-named five representatives were privileged only to ask questions and exchange views incidental to the taking of expert testimony. This conference ended its sittings on November 21, and a protocol was signed by the two secretaries-Mr. Venning, on behalf of Canada; Mr. Clark, on behalf of the United States-and Mr. Hamlin, the chairman of the Conference, which set forth the circumstances under which the meeting was held, with the minutes of the proceedings, and to some extent showing the circumstances leading up to the agreement. A few days later the Canadian Government sent its reply to the proposition of the United States that the Canadians should stop killing seals for a year beginning January 1, 1898, to the effect that it was not possible to comply with the proposal, as every British subject has a right to engage in pelagic sealing unless prohibited by imperial decree, which could only be issued by authority of Imperial Parliament, and the Parliament would not meet till February. The reply also suggested that the proposed joint commission be appointed and meet at once, when, on conclusion of negotiations on the questions at issue, the necessary legislation could be secured from the British Parliament and the suspension of pelagic sealing go into effect in the spring. It was stated that the United States had offered to pay the Canadian Government a lump sum of money to extinguish pelagic sealing, but that the Canadian Premier refused the proposition.

CLAIMS AWARD.

The arbitrators appointed to adjust the claims of Canadian sealers for losses sustained by the seizure of their vessels made an award on December 22, 1897, of $464,000, with two reserved cases-those of the Black Diamond for $5,000, and the Ada for $1,000. In 1894 the United States offered $400,000, and Canada claimed $450,000 as a settlement. Afterward a compromise was reached, and the amount was placed at $425,000, but Congress refused to vote this sum.

SEAL-CATCH STATISTICS.

The official statistics of the catch of seals for the season of 1897 were made public at the conference of Russia, Japan and the United States, and they showed two features most important in sustaining the American contention: That the catch had fallen off about one-half, showing conclusively that the seal herd was being rapidly wiped out; and, second, that the catch of seals from the American islands in Behring Sea was about 15 to 1 as between the Canadian sealers under the British flag and American sealers. The same proportion was shown to exist throughout the waters of the North Pacific. In detail, the figures for the season were: Total

catch of seals in the North Pacific for the season, 38,700, against 73,000 in 1896. The total catch of seals in 1897 is divided as follows: Taken by British vessels, 30,800; by American vessels, 4,100; by Japanese vessels, 3,800. The catch in Behring Sea was 16,650 for 1897, against 29,500 in 1896. Of the catch in Behring Sea, British vessels took 15,600 and American vessels 1,050. The figures make no distinction between British and Canadian vessels, practically all the sealing is done by Canadian vessels, which, however, nominally classed as British.

as

are

In view of the statement of experts that the season was a better one for the taking of seals than in 1896, the conclusion to be drawn from the figures is that the seal herd has been greatly reduced by indiscriminate slaughter.

THE CUBAN REVOLT.

The principal features of the insurrection in Cuba in the first three months of 1897 were the communication to the United States Senate on January 5 by Mr. Olney, the Secretary of State, regarding the power of the President of the United States in the matter of recognition of the Cuban Republican Government; the campaign of General Weyler in the eastern provinces and his complete failure to take advantage of the shock caused to the insurgents by the loss, in December, 1896, of their boldest leader, General Antonio Maceo, and the serious doubt he aroused as to the ability of the Spanish commanders to cope with the forces against them; also the capture of the insurgent General Juan Ruis Rivera, on March 28. In connection with the latter incident Senator Allen, of Nebraska, on April 1, introduced in the United States Senate a resolution protesting against the alleged purpose of the Spanish authorities in Cuba to try General Rivera by summary court martial, upon which there was an exciting debate. In the meanwhile Mr. Sherman, Secretary of State, made a verbal protest to the Spanish Minister at Washington, and a few days later there was made public the reply from the Spanish Government that General Rivera would not be executed, but would be treated as a prisoner of war.

On January 25, in response to a resolution of the Senate, President Cleveland submitted a list of American citizens, either native born or naturalized, who had been arrested in Cuba since the beginning of the insurrection, together with the action taken in each case. The total arrests were seventy-four; of these seven had been tried, and appeals were taken in the cases of Sanguilly and Someillah from the sentences imposed. Seven were correspondents of American newspapers who had been arrested and banished. Another case was that of Dr. Ricardo Ruiz, a physician resident in Guanabacoa, who had died in the prison at that place, his friends claiming that his death was due to inhuman treatment by his jailers. On February 21 Secretary Olney directed the American Minister at Madrid to demand of the Spanish Government a full inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Dr. Ruiz. Later, in April, President McKinley appointed William J. Calhoun, of Illinois,

special counsel to Consul General Lee, with directions to investigate the case, and he went to Havana for that purpose. The report was that, although no positive or direct proof was found that the doctor died from an actual assault, his death was due to congestion of the brain.

After Mr. McKinley became President notice was served upon the Spanish Government that the United States recognized a state of civil war in Cuba which demanded a treatment of prisoners taken in action by either side different from that followed by General Weyler. It was also stated that American citizens pursuing lawful occupations in a lawful way would be held to be entitled to the protection of the law. On May 17 President McKinley sent a message to Congress suggesting an appropriation to be used in relieving the distress of American citizens resident in Cuba, and a week later a bill making an appropriation of $50,000 became a law.

On April 20 the Queen Regent of Spain signed a decree instituting certain reforms of government in Cuba. It provided among other things a Council of Administration, a sort of parliament for the government of the island, subject to certain supervisory authority of the Crown; also a scheme to permit Cuba to revise her own tariff schedules. The decree was the direct result of the announcement by General Weyler that the western part of the island was completely pacified. This was proved later to be a mere theory of General Weyler.

Following the assassination of Senor Canovas, Prime Minister of Spain, Senor Sagasta was made Prime Minister on October 2. Six days later General Weyler was recalled and Captain-General Blanco was chosen to succeed him. General Blanco reached Havana on October 30 and at once assumed control of affairs and instituted several changes in the conduct of the campaign against the insurgents.

On November 27 the Spanish Government officially published a decree tendering to Cuba and Porto Rico a system of autonomy. The scheme provided that the Spanish Parliament or Cortes should be the central executive power, and that the government in the colony should be the colonial parliament, the colonial chambers, legislative assemblies, and the GovernorGeneral. It was proposed that the Council of Administration should consist of thirtyfive members, eighteen of whom to be elected, and the others nominated by the mother country. The Governor-General is to exercise the supreme command, is given complete liberty to appeal to the officials of his secretariat, to issue and execute laws and decrees, negotiate international treaties and conventions, etc. It is proposed that the secretaries of the Cuban autonomous government shall be five, viz.: Justice and Interior, Finance, Public Instruction, Public Works and Communications, and Industry and Commerce, all to be appointed by the Governor-General.

On December 14 Governor-General Blanco issued a proclamation granting

complete amnesty to all political exiles, going to the extent of encouraging the return of all who emigrated from Cuba voluntarily and those who considered themselves obliged to remain in exile for a purely political motive, reason, cause or act, and giving guarantees of protection and assistance to life and property.

CRETE.

Disorders broke out afresh on the Island of Crete on February 1, 1897, arising from the hatred existing between the Christians and their Turkish rulers. Four days later the Mahometans and Christians had a pitched battle in the city of Canea, when the city was set on fire and fully 300 Christians were killed. On February 8 the union of Crete and Greece was proclaimed by the people at Halepa, and the Greek fleet reached Canea on the same day. On February 11 the Greek Government formulated a notification to the Powers that the ties of race and religion compelled her to intervene on behalf of the Christians of Crete. The Greek forces attacked and captured the Turkish garrisons on February 17, and the foreign Powers landed their naval forces at Canea and Sitia later. On February 20 the United States Senate adopted a resolution of sympathy for the Greeks and Cretans. On February 23 a mass-meeting of sympathizers was held in Chickering Hall, New-York City. On the same day King George of Greece issued a proclamation enjoining the Cretans to pacify themselves and to confide in the efforts of Greece to uphold and maintain the rights of the Hellenic people. On February 24 the Governor's palace at Canea was burned; the Powers ordered Greece to withdraw her army of occupation, and Queen Olga of Greece returned her Russian insignia. King George replied to the demands of the Powers on the following day that it was impossible to withdraw the troops from Crete.

On February 25 Lord Salisbury, Premier of Great Britain, presented a scheme of autonomy for Crete, which Turkey opposed. The Cretans rejected it three days later, and pleaded for union with Greece. The Greek Government, on March 8, sent word to the Powers that it was doubtful that autonomy could fulfil their aim, and requested that the Cretans be permitted to declare their preference of government. On May 21 the Cretan insurgents were advised by the Greek Government to accept autonomy on condition that the Turkish troops should be previously withdrawn from the island. On the same day the Mussulmans telegraphed to the Sultan that autonomy under the conditions existing on the island of Crete "cannot fail to perpetuate race wars, and will only briefly postpone the revival of the annexation question with all its disastrous consequences. The withdrawal of the Greek troops followed, and on May 23 the last detachment of the Greek expeditionary force embarked for Greece. Then followed the war between Turkey and Greece