No. 138.

This is to certify that the foregoing document is executed and properly legalized according to the requirements of the German law. Washington, D. C., May 26, 1899.

[SEAL.]

HOLLEBEN,

Imperial German Ambassador.

August 30, 1900, telegrams were exchanged between the German Emperor and the President of the United States on the opening of the cable.

For. Rel. 1899, 314–315

September 19, 1899, the minister of the United States at Tokyo, acting under instructions of his Government, drew attention to the desirability of direct telegraphic communication between Japan and the United States under American auspices, and stated that it would be agreeable to the United States if the Pacific Cable Company of New York should be authorized to establish cable communications between the two countries.

The Japanese Government exhibited a favorable attitude toward the project, and a draft of proposed conditions for the laying and working of the cable was informally handed to the American minister. These conditions provided that the cable should be laid within five years after the date of the Japanese concession; that the Japanese Government should grant an annual subsidy of 150,000 yen, during a term of twenty years after the opening of the cable; that the rate for private telegrams should not exceed two yen per word, and that the rate per word for Japanese Government telegrams should be half the amount collected from the general public for ordinary telegrams; that during the term of twenty years the Japanese Government should not authorize the laying of another cable between America and Japan, either with or without intermediate stations, with the reservation, however, of the right to grant a concession for another cable if it should be important to do so, and if the company, after having had an offer of the first chance to lay it, should decline to accept such offer.

For. Rel. 1899, 481-483.

VIII. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

1. PREVENTION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.

$228.

As each nation's sphere of action is circumscribed by jurisdictional limits, it is obvious that there are interests common to all for the preservation of which international cooperation is essential, Such

cooperation is secured by international agreements, whereby measures beyond the ordinary scope of national authority are mutually permitted and regulated.

The effort by international arrangement and concerted action to put an end to the African slave trade has formed the subject of many treaty stipulations and international regulations. An obstacle in the way of the accomplishment of this object has been the natural unwillingness to do anything that might lead to the revival of the practice of visitation and search on the high seas.

By a convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at Washington April 7, 1862, for the suppression of the African slave trade, it was agreed, in order to facilitate the adjudication of vessels which might be detained under the treaty, to establish three mixed courts, to be composed of an equal number of individuals of the two nations, and to sit at Sierra Leone, Cape of Good Hope, and New York. The formal proposal for this convention came from the United States. The members of the courts were duly appointed." It was stated in March, 1868, that no vessels were known to have been condemned in the mixed courts. By an additional convention of June 3, 1870, these courts were abolished. The additional convention went into effect August 10, 1870, the day on which the ratifications were exchanged, none of the courts then having any unfinished causes before it."

July 2, 1890, a general act was concluded in a conference at Brussels, under which a plan of joint action in certain seas adjacent to a specified part of the coast of Africa has been put into effect. The parties to this convention are Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Independent State of the Kongo, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, the United States, and Zanzibar. See, infra, § 310.

a Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, Brit. min., March 22, 1862, MS. Notes to Great Britain, IX. 140. See, also, same to same, March 26 and March 31, 1862, MS. Notes to Great Britain, IX, 144, 145.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stuart, Brit. chargé, Oct. 14, 1862, MS. Notes to Great Britain, IX. 306; Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, Brit. min., July 1, 1863, X. 128; Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Haven, March 28, 1865, 68 MS. Dom. Let. 522.

© Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, M. C., March 13, 1868, 78 MS. Dom. Let. 189.

d Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boutwell, Sec. of Treasury, July 27, 1871, 90 MS. Dom. Let. 218.

RESTRICTIONS OF TRAFFIC IN FIREARMS AND LIQUOR.

§ 229.

b

By a note of August 11, 1884, the British minister at Washington proposed that an international understanding should be entered into for the protection of the natives of the islands of the Pacific Ocean. by prohibiting the supply to them of arms, ammunition, explosives, and liquors. A similar proposal was made by Great Britain to the Governments of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, and subsequently Hawaii. Mr. Frelinghuysen, who was then Secretary of State, replying for the United States, stated in a note of August 22, 1884, that his Government looked "with favor upon any humanitarian work, and would like more information as to the scope and form of the proposed agreement." April 6, 1885, the British minister wrote that all the other governments had given a general assent to the suggestion of an international agreement, and requested an early communication of the views of the United States. Mr. Bayard, who had then become Secretary of State, replied, April 11, that, "Whilst recognizing and highly approving the moral force and general propriety of the proposed regulations, and the responsibility of conducting such traffic under proper and careful restrictions," the Government of the United States did "not feel entirely prepared to join in the international understanding proposed," and would "therefore for the present restrain its action to the employment, in the direction outlined by the suggested arrangement, of a sound discretion in permitting traffic between its own citizens in the articles referred to and the natives of the Western Pacific islands." e

In a note of July 4, 1892, the British legation recurred to the subject. It stated that the trade in question was already prohibited to British subjects throughout the western Pacific, and was strictly regulated in the German possessions in that region; that it was prohibited under severe penalties in the French colony of New Caledonia, and was "strictly regulated in the Navigator's [Samoan] Islands by the provisions of the final act of the Samoan Conference, to which Great Britain, Germany, and the United States" were parties; but that Her Majesty's Government continued to receive frequent representations as to the prevalence of the demoralizing traffic, showing that some more general action was required to put a stop to it entirely. A draft of the declaration was therefore submitted prohibit

a For. Rel. 1884, 253; id. 1892, 287, 320.

For. Rel. 1884, 254; id. 1892, 320,

e Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, Brit. min., April 11, 1885, MS. Notes to Gr. Br. XIX. 669.

ing the trade altogether. By article 5 of the draft it was provided that any person charged with an offense against the declaration might, if difficulty or delay was likely to arise in delivering him over for trial to the authorities of his own country in the Pacific islands, be tried summarily, either before a magistrate or other judicial officer of any of the contracting powers having jurisdiction to try crimes or offenses in a summary manner, or before the commander of a ship of war of any of those powers. By section 11 it was stipulated that the contracting powers would severally take measures to procure such legislation as might be necessary to give full effect to the declaration." Mr. Foster, Secretary of State, replied:

"While the sentiments and convictions of this Government indorse the effective restriction of deleterious commerce with the native Pacific islanders, the method of giving expressions thereto is necessarily influenced by the disparity of policy and interests between the United States and the great European states in the Pacific Ocean. The disparity has become even greater since the present proposal was first put forth in 1884.

"Nearly all of Polynesia has now passed under European jurisdiction. Were the United States a colonizing power, expanding its jurisdiction in the same way as the other great powers among the islands of the Western Pacific, question might legitimately arise as to the share of responsibility that properly should fall to us in the police control of those regions. As it is, the Government of the United States is without colonial interest of any kind in that quarter of the globe, and its administrative responsibilities are remotely confined to participation in the encouragement of good government and autonomy in the Samoan group. To the colonizing or protecting powers the question at issue becomes largely a matter of local municipal government; to the United States it is one of moral influence and cordial cooperation within the just limits of domestic and international rights. Although its responsibilities in the matter are not so great, this Government is none the less interested in the humanitarian purposes of the proposed convention, and I am happy to express, by direction of the President, his assent to its general scope, provided paragraph 5 be so amended, with respect to American citizens, at least, that they shall be handed over to the authorities of their own Government when arrested for offenses against the declaration. Were it thought to be strictly permissible under our system of government to confer criminal jurisdiction over American citizens upon alien magistrates and officers, in practice it would not be likely to meet with favor.

a For. Rel. 1892, 287.

"It is proper that I should add that the character of the proposed declaration is such as to make its acceptance subject to the approval of the Senate, and in so far as any further legislation should be necessary in order to give it full effect, as contemplated in paragraph 11, contingent to that extent upon the future action of Congress. This Government will be glad to be advised in due time of the views upon this project of other governments whose adhesion to it has been solicited, and to give attentive consideration to the exact form which it is eventually proposed to have it take."

A copy of this note was communicated by Mr. Foster, with a circular of November 18, 1892, to the diplomatic representatives of the United States at the capitals of the principal powers, in order that they might be enabled to respond to any friendly inquiries respecting the views of their governments on the subject.'

By an act of Congress approved February 14, 1902, it is provided that "any person subject to the authority of the United States who shall give, sell, or otherwise supply any arms, ammunition, explosive substance, intoxicating liquor, or opium to any aboriginal native of any of the Pacific islands lying within the twentieth parallel of north latitude and the fortieth parallel of south latitude and the one hundred and twentieth meridian of longitude west and one hundred and twentieth meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, not being in the possession or under the protection of any civilized power, shall be punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months, with or without hard labor, or a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or both." Besides, any articles in the offender's possession similar to those in respect of which he was convicted may be forfeited. If opium, wine, or spirits has been given in good faith for medicinal purposes, the charge may be dismissed. Offenses against the act committed on the islands or on the waters in question are to be deemed to have been committed on a merchant vessel of the United States on the high seas and are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States courts accordingly.

66

с

Circumstances have prevented an earlier reply to the note you were pleased to address to the late Secretary of State on the 11th ultimo, communicating a copy of the circular dispatch of his excellency the Italian minister for foreign affairs, under date of April 20 last, touching the provisions of the general act of Brussels

a For. Rel. 1892, 320.

For. Rel. 1892, 198.

c 32 Stat. 33.

d Treasury Department Circular, No. 18, Feb. 21, 1902. For a compilation of treaties and laws for the protection of native races against intoxicants and firearms, and for other documents on the same subject, see S. Doc. 200, 57 Cong. 1 sess.