V. Territorial expansion of United States-Continued. Assertions of American predominance. Pearl Harbor. Constitution of 1887; insurrection of 1889. Death of Kalakaua; succession of Liliuokalani. Overthrow of monarchy, 1893; treaty of annexation. Proposal to restore the Queen. President Cleveland's message, December 18, 1893. Formation of constitutional Republic. Native revolt, January, 1895. New annexation treaty, June 16, 1897. Protest of Japan, and its withdrawal. Joint resolution of annexation, July 7, 1898. Transfer of sovereignty, August 12, 1898. Provisional measures: consular representation. Navigation. Quarantine. Immigration. Chinese. Claims. President's message, 1900. 10. Spanish West Indies (except Cuba), Philippines, and Guam. Message of Queen Regent, July 22, 1898. President's reply, July 30, 1898. Spanish note, August 7, 1898. Protocol of August 12, 1898. Instructions of September 16, 1898. Decision as to the Philippines. Occupation of Cuba. Isle of Pines. 11. Tutuila, and other Samoan Islands. § 110. Early relations. Meade agreement: Pagopago. Steinberger's mission. Treaty with the United States. Treaties with Germany and Great Britain. American rights in Pagopago. Native disturbances in Samoa. Reprisals by Germany. Action of the United States. Washington conference, 1887. Rupture of status quo. Attitude of the United States. Hostilities between Germany and Samoa. Instructions to Admiral Kimberly. President Cleveland's message, January 15, 1889. Prince Bismarck's assurances. Renewal of conference. General act of Berlin. H. Doc. 551—17 $ 109. V. Territorial expansion of United States-Continued. 11. Tutuila and other Samoan Islands. § 110—Continued. Joint commission of treaty powers. Report of Mr. Tripp. Division of the group. Tutuila, and the harbor of Pagopago. Titles to land. 12. Horseshoe Reef; Brooks or Midway Islands; 13. Guano Islands. (1) Legislation of Congress. § 112. (2) Conditions of appurtenance. § 113. Discovery. Occupation. Executive action. Bond. (3) Rights of the discoverer. § 114. (4) Lists of islands. § 115. 14. Proposals of annexation. (1) Canada. § 116. (2) Salvador. § 117. (3) Cuba. $118. (4) Yucatan. §119. (5) Islands at Panama. § 120. (6) Santo Domingo; Samana Bay. § 121. (7) Islands of Culebra and Culebrita. § 122. (8) Danish West Indies. § 123. (9) Mole St. Nicholas. § 124. Sovereignty may be gained or lost, as the case may be, (1) by the transfer of territory, (2) by revolution, or (3) by internal development. We may discuss these modes in their order and also the effects produced by a change of sovereignty. I. THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY. 1. OCCUPATION. Title by occupation is gained by the discovery, use, and settlement of territory not occupied by a civilized power. Discovery gives only an inchoate title, which must be confirmed by use or settlement. (1) DISCOVERY. "On the discovery of this immense [American] continent the nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. . . . The potentates of the Old World found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the New, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independ ence. But, as they were nearly all in pursuit of the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the rights of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession, The exclusion of all other Europeans necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, and establishing settlements upon it." Marshall, C. J., Johnson . McIntosh (1828), 8 Wheaton, 543. See supra, § 16. See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, Dec. 27, 1853, 42 MS. Dom. Let. 124. The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but of discovery, and were held by the King, as the representative of the nation, for whose benefit the discovery was made. When the Revolution took place, the people of each State, in their sovereign character, acquired the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soil with them. The grant from Charles II to the Duke of York of the territory which now forms the State of New Jersey, passed to the Duke the soil under the navigable waters as one of the royalties incident to the powers of government, which were also granted, to be held by him in the same manner and for the same purposes as this soil had been previously held by the Crown, and the same is true of the grantees of the Duke. And when these grantees surrendered to the Crown all the powers of government, the title to the soil passed to the Crown, and at the Revolution became vested in the State of New Jersey. Martin . Waddell, 16 Peters, 367. "How far the mere discovery of a territory which is either unsettled, or settled only by savages, gives a right to it, is a question which neither the law nor the usages of nations has yet definitely settled. The opinions of mankind, upon this point, have undergone very great changes with the progress of knowledge and civilization. Yet it will scarcely be denied that rights acquired by the general consent of civilized nations, even under the erroneous views of an unenlightened age, are protected against the changes of opinion resulting merely from the more liberal, or the more just, views of after times. The right of nations to countries discovered in the sixteenth century is to be determined by the law of nations as understood at that time, and not by the improved and more enlightened opinion of three centuries later.” Mr. Upshur, Sec. of State, to Mr. Everett, Oct. 9, 1843, MS. Inst. Great Britain, The ground taken by the British Government, that a discovery made by a private individual, in the prosecution of a private enterprise, gives no right, cannot be allowed. There is nothing to support it, either in the reason of the case or in the law and usage of nations. To say the least of it, if a discovery so made confers no right, it prevents any other nation from acquiring a right by subsequent discovery, although made under the authority of Government, and with an express view to that object. In no just acceptation of the term can a country be said to be discovered,' if its existence has been previously ascertained by actual sight. This is a mere question of fact, which a private person can settle as well as a public agent. But be this as it may, Meares himself was but the agent of a private trading company, without any authority whatever from his Government, so that, in this respect, his discovery stands upon no better ground than that of Captain Gray." Id. 165. "Discovery alone is not enough to give dominion and jurisdiction to the sovereign or government of the nation to which the discoverer belongs; such discovery must be followed by possession. All mankind,' says that eminent and impartial writer on international law, Vattel, have an equal right to things that have not yet fallen into the possession of anyone, and those things belong to the person who first takes possession of them. When, therefore, a nation finds a country uninhabited and without an owner, it may lawfully take possession of it; and after it has sufficiently made known its will in this respect, it cannot be deprived of it by another nation. Thus, continues the learned author, navigators going on voyages of discovery, furnished with a commission from their sovereign, and meeting with islands or other lands in a desert state, have taken possession of them in the name. of their nation, and this title has been usually respected, provided it was soon after followed by a real possession.' (Vattel, Ch. XVIII., page 98, Philadelphia edition, 1849.)” 6 Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Preston, Dec. 31, 1872, MS. Notes to Hayti, The right of discovery is not recognized in the Roman law unless followed by occupation, or unless the intention of the sovereign or state to take possession be declared or made known to the world. And it must be conceded that modern diplomatists and publicists incline to the opinion that mere transient discovery amounts to nothing unless followed in a reasonable time by occupation and settlement, more or less permanent, under the sanction of the state." Mortimer . N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. (1889), 6 N. Y. Supp., 898. The fact that the discoveries of an American citizen first reveale! the importance of the Congo country seems to justify this Government in claiming a special influence upon the determination of the questions touching all foreign arrangements for the administration of that region, especially as to its commerce." 66 Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Chandler, Nov. 22, 1884, 153 MS. Dom. (2) SETTLEMENT. § 81. By the law of nations, recognized by all civilized States, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession and conquest; and when citizens or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its authority or with its assent, take and hold actual, continuous and useful possession, (although only for the purpose of carrying on a particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or working mines.) of territory unoccupied by any other government or its citizens, the nation to which they belong may exercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over territory so acquired. This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of Congress concerning guano islands. Vattel, lib. 1, c. 18; Wheaton on International Law (8th ed.) sections 161, 165, 176, note 104; Halleck on International Law (3d ed.) c. 6, sections 7, 15; 1 Phillimore on International Law (3d ed.) §§ 227, 229, 230, 232, 242; 1 Calvo Droit International (4th ed.) sections 266, 277, 300; Whiton v. Albany Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24, 31." Jones v. United States (1890), 137 U. S. 202, 212. "The law of nations will not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited country, except where actual possession has been taken and settlement formed, or of which it makes actual use. "When navigators,' says Vattel, have met with desert countries, in which those of other countries had, in their transient visits, erected some monument to show their having taken possession of them, they have paid as little regard to that empty ceremony as to the regulation of the Popes, who divided a great part of the world between the crowns of Castile and Portugal.' (Book 1, Chap. XVIII., Sec. 209.)" Black, At.-Gen., 1859, 9 Op. 364, 368. "Martens wrote in 1789 to the same effect [as Vattel, supra,] in his Précis du droit des gens, § 37; and so did Kluber in 1819 in his Droit des gens, § 126. "The principle and rule to be deduced respecting title to unoccupied regions, or those in the possession of the aboriginal inhabitants, from the writings of the accepted teachers of public law, are that acquisition and title may be original and derivative; that original title includes discovery, use, and settlement, which are ingredients of occupation, |