of 1890 so far as the same inhibits dealing in slaves and in arms and ammunition in Ethiopia and the neighboring Italian dependencies.

"The question of the extent of the obligations incumbent upon the United States, which have no territorial interests in the regions covered by the said general act, and the steps to be taken in view thereof, has on previous occasions had the attention of this Government; and have the honor to recite the following passage in the annual message of the President to the Congress of the United States, dated December 4, 1893:

"By Article XII. of the general act of Brussels signed July 2, 1890, for the suppression of the slave trade and the restriction of certain injurious commerce in the Independent State of the Congo and in the adjacent zone of central Africa, the United States and the other signatory powers agreed to adopt appropriate means for the punishment of persons selling arms and ammunition to the natives and for the confiscation of the inhibited articles. It being the plain duty of this Government to aid in suppressing the nefarious traffic, impairing, as it does, the praiseworthy and civilizing efforts now in progress in that region, I recommend that an act be passed prohibiting the sale of arms and intoxicants to natives in the regulated zone by our citizens.'

"That recommendation has not yet been acted upon by Congress.

"Prior to this suggestion by the President, the Government of Belgium addressed this Government on the subject, advancing the proposition that the provisions of Article XII. of the general act of 1890 are obligatory upon all of the signatory powers, without distinction whether they have or have not possessions or protectorates in Africa, and that they are consequently constrained to adopt the measures contemplated by said article for the punishment of persons unlawfully trafficking in arms and ammunition.

"In response to this proposition, the minister of Belgium at this capital was informed on the 6th of February, 1893, that there was then pending a proposal made by the British Government to the several powers interested in the Western Pacific and trading therewith looking to the adoption, by international accord, of measures restrictive of the traffic in spirituous liquors, firearms, and ammunition in that region; that the Government of the United States had given its assent to the principle of that proposal; that the consummation of such an arrangement with the participation of the United States would call for some general legislation by Congress regulating and penalizing such traffic when engaged in by citizens of the United States, and that in such event the needful legislation might conveniently be made broad enough to cover not only that arrangement, but generally any obligation which this Government may have under the

Brussels general act as regards similar traffic on the African conti

nent.

"The Western Pacific project, in which our philanthropic citizens are deeply interested because concerning uncivilized regions and communities with which citizens of the United States carry on extensive trade, has not, however, as yet assumed international proportions, and no general legislation on the subject has been had.

"In the absence of appropriate statutory provisions, this Government is without judicial or other machinery to punish, in Ethiopia or any part of the African territory under Italian control or influence, infractions by American citizens of the general act of Berlin as regards traffic in firearms and ammunition. So far as is known, no commerce is carried on by citizens of the United States in those quarters, and no practical application of the considerations advanced by his excellency the minister for foreign affairs is thought to be likely."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Baron Fava, Italian ambass., June 20, 1895,
For. Rel. 1895, II. 964.

See the note of Baron Fava, May 11, 1895, id. 960.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 31st, inquiring when an international conference was held for the purpose of agreeing that no rum should be exported to African Congo; whether the United States, as reported, refused to sign such treaty; and if so was it because, as also reported, international complications were feared as a result.

"Your letter belongs to a numerous class which the Department has received from time to time for several years past, indicating unfamiliarity with the course of the Congo negotiations since 1885, and misapprehension as to the attitude of the United States in regard thereto.

"The first African conference was held at Berlin in 1884-1885, fourteen countries being represented-all European except the United States, which sent two delegates. In the opening session, November 15, the Italian delegates suggested the regulation of foreign trade in arms and liquors with the natives of the Congo and Niger basins. In the fourth session, December 1st, Great Britain adopted this proposition with reference to the transit of spirits in the lower Niger valley. This limited project was discussed in the fifth session, December 18th, and the American representative advocated general control of the liquor traffic through the whole treaty area. The Dutch, German, and French representatives all concurred in principle; but for commercial reasons the conference incorporated no restrictive measures in the general act of the 26th of February, 1885, and confined itself to a sentimental declaration of a wish that the powers might eventually find some way of reconciling the rights of commerce with the interests of humanity. Our representative protested against this

declaration as being inadequate. His attitude was strongly in favor of regulation and restriction of the injurious traffic, and under date. of January 26, 1885, the National Temperance Society of the United States addressed the minister a letter of thanks for advocacy of this measure by the representatives of the United States. The general act of 1885 was signed by the United States delegates as plenipotentiaries, under an erroneous impression touching their powers, their instructions having merely contemplated report of propositions to be considered by this Government. Consequently the treaty was not submitted to the Senate and the United States has not since become an adhering party to its obligations, which in several political aspects involved a departure from the established principle of nonintervention in foreign administrative concerns.

"The provisions of the general act of Berlin, being mainly political and commercial and dealing imperfectly with existing abuses injurious to the natives of the unappropriated regions of central Africa, a second conference for the purpose of dealing explicitly with the slave trade and providing international remedies, was convoked at Brussels in 1890, this Government being one of the first to respond to the invitation. The United States representative from the outset contended for practical restriction, and in some localities prohibition, of the liquor traffic and proposed an amendment to that end. Articles in that sense were incorporated in the draft of the general act agreed upon by the conference. After this had been done, Mr. Blaine insisted that the tariff regulations for the Congo and central Africa, then under discussion, should impose prohibitive duties upon spirits. This demand nearly wrecked the negotiations and, upon the United States insisting upon their position, the other powers framed a separate tariff convention which our representatives did not sign. There were consequently two general acts of Brussels, to one of which the United States became a party, while the other binds only the signatories of the general act of Berlin. The United States subsequently negotiated a special treaty with the Congo State covering questions of commerce and navigation, in which the liquor question was not the subject of stipulations between the two contracting parties, the subject having been already covered by articles 90 to 95 of the general act of July 2, 1890. That act was ratified by the United States and proclaimed April 2, 1892. A copy is enclosed for A copy is enclosed for your information. "You will thus observe that both in the conference of Berlin of 1884-85 and the conferences of Brussels, in 1890, the United States went beyond the other powers in advocating repressive measures in regard to foreign liquor traffic with the interior of Africa; that their representations were ineffectual as to the first general act of 1885, to which the United States did not become a ratifying party; and that the more effective provisions included in the general act of Brussels

of 1890 were due in great measure to the initiative and insistence of this Government, although as finally adopted not fully responding to our demands.”

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Editor of The Voice, February 10, 1896, 207
MS. Dom. Let. 625.

By a convention between various powers, including the United States, signed at Brussels, June 8, 1899, and proclaimed by the President of the United States, February 6, 1901, provision is made for the regulation of the importation of spirituous liquors into certain regions of Africa. It is recited in the preamble that the contracting parties wish to provide for the execution of article 92 of the general act of Brussels of July 2, 1890, which prescribed the revision of the regulations concerning the importation of spirituous liquors into the regions in question.

3. GENEVA AND HAGUE CONVENTIONS.

$230.

Another international arrangement, benevolent in its object, is that which was concluded at Geneva in 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in the field. Substantially all civilized powers have become parties to this convention, which provides for protection to ambulances and military hospitals, and to those employed in and about them, and for succor to the wounded, and contains various stipulations designed to secure the ends of humanity. Additional articles, adopted at the conference at Geneva in 1868, for the purpose of extending the advantages of the convention to naval forces, have not become internationally effective, but they were provisionally adopted by the United States and Spain as a modus vivendi during the war in 1898.

Certainly one of the most striking examples of an effort to accomplish objects of philanthropy by international action is that afforded by the Congress at the Hague in 1899, whose acts in relation to the pacific settlement of international disputes and the laws and rules of war are given elsewhere in this work.

4. RULES OF NAVIGATION.

$231.

By an act of Congress approved July 9, 1888, the President was authorized to invite all maritime nations to send delegates to confer at Washington upon the practicability of devising uniform rules and regulations for the greater security of life and property at sea.o

a President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1888.

The conference met in Washington in the autumn of 1889, twentysix nations being represented. Rules were adopted for the prevention of collisions at sea, and by an act of Congress of August 19, 1890, they were adopted by the United States, subject to the action of the other powers. Protracted negotiations ensued, and, with certain modifications, the rules were put into operation July 1, 1897.

Protection of cables.

5. PROTECTION OF SUBMARINE CABLES.

§ 232.

"The President thinks the present moment favorable for the negotiation of a joint convention by the maritime powers of the world for the protection of submarine cables. "The United States have peculiar interest in fostering the construction of these indispensable avenues of intelligence, and in protecting them against wanton injury. Its domains extend from ocean to ocean, and its commerce plies at regular intervals alike from the ports of the Atlantic and of the Pacific to the ports of Europe and of Asia. Its citizens on the shores of both oceans are in constant communication with each other across the continent both by rail and the telegraph. This central position in the commerce of the world entitles the United States to initiate this movement for the common benefit of the commerce and civilization of all.

"The features which the President desires to incorporate into the proposed convention are:

"1st. Suitable provisions for the protection of such cable lines in time of peace and war against wilful or wanton destruction or injury. We have seen, during the present year, the submarine cable connecting Cuba with the United States severed, and communication through it interrupted. The President proposes to prevent similar destruction and injury hereafter by a joint declaration that such acts shall be deemed to be acts of piracy and punished as such.

"2d. Suitable provisions to encourage the future construction of such lines. Experience has already shown that the assumption, by one nation, to control the connections with the shores of another, will lead to complications that may, unless arranged, result in preventing all direct telegraphic communication between the two countries. The President deems that this can be best prevented in the future, by providing that hereafter no exclusive concession shall be made, without

a President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 3, 1889.

S. Ex. Doc. 75, 53 Cong. 3 sess.

e See acts of May 28, 1894, and Feb. 23, 1895; see, also, For. Rel. 1894, 217, 219, 261, 262–270, 270–275; For. Rel. 1895, I. 683–686; report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxiv.