and refreshment for our vessels engaged in the whale fishery, and by the consideration that they lie in the course of the great trade which must, at no distant day, be carried on between the western coast of North America and Eastern Asia. "We were also influenced by a desire that those islands should not pass under the control of any other great maritime state, but should remain in an independent condition, and so be accessible and useful to the commerce of all nations. I need not say that the importance of these considerations has been greatly enhanced by the sudden and vast development which the interests of the United States have obtained in California and Oregon, and the policy heretofore adopted in regard to those islands will be steadily pursued." President Fillmore, Second Annual Message, Dec. 2, 1851, Richardson's Messages, V. 120. Attempted annexation, 1854. September 22, 1853, Mr. Marcy, who had then become Secretary of State, observed that the islands would, at some period perhaps not far distant, come under the protectorate of or be transferred to some foreign power. It was not, said Mr. Marcy, the policy of the United States to accelerate such a change, but if in the course of events it became unavoidable, the United States would rather acquire their sovereignty than see it transferred to any other power. "The intercourse between our Pacific ports and the ports of the distant East is," continued Mr. Marcy, "destined perhaps to be upon as large a scale as that which we now enjoy with all the world, and the vessels engaged in that trade must ever resort to the Sandwich Islands for fuel and other supplies, as has ever been the case with our whale ships in their outward and inward voyages. It is consequently indispensable to our welfare that the policy which governs them should be liberal, and that it should continue free from the control of any third country." a Dispatches subsequently received from Mr. Gregg indicated that the Hawaiian Government had become convinced of its inability to sustain itself any longer as an independent state, and that it was prepared to throw itself upon the protection of the United States, or to seek incorporation into the American political system. To Mr. Marcy it seemed inevitable that they [the Hawaiian Islands] must come under the control of this Government,” and to be “but reasonable and fair" that England and France "should acquiesce in such a disposition of them, provided the transference was effected by fair means.' Both England and France were already "apprised of our determination not to allow them to be owned by or to fall under the protection of either of these powers or of any other European nation." a Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gregg, min. to Hawaii, Sept. 22, 1853, MS. Inst. to Hawaii, II. 43. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, minister to France, December 16, 1853. For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 106. ity, 1855, 1867. Mr. Marcy subsequently instructed Mr. Gregg to negotiate a treaty of annexation." Mr. Gregg negotiated such a treaty, but it was unsatisfactory to the United States, not only because of the excessive amount of annuities which it pledged to the native rulers, but also because it provided that the islands should be "incorporated into the American Union as a State." Before the necessary changes in the treaty could be obtained the reigning king died, and as his successor was unfavorable to annexation the negotiations failed. July 20, 1855, Mr. Marcy signed, with a commissioner of the Hawaiian Government, at Washington, a treaty of Efforts for reciproc- reciprocity. This treaty was not ratified, although the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is said to have been favorable to it. During the Civil War in the United States, the Hawaiian Government sought to revive the reciprocity treaty, but, in view of the probable effect of such a measure on the public revenue at that time, it was not thought advisable at Washington to entertain the subject. The rank of the diplomatic officer of the United States at Honolulu was raised in 1863 to that of minister resident. In December, 1866, Emma, Queen Dowager of Hawaii, visited the United States on her way from England to Honolulu. On May 21, 1867, a new reciprocity treaty was concluded, but after remaining in suspense three years it was rejected by the United States Senate June 1, 1870.ƒ 66 Meanwhile the question of annexation was again agitated and the minister of the United States at Honolulu was Revival of annexainstructed that a lawful and peaceful annexation of tion project. the islands to the United States, with the consent of the people of the Sandwich Islands, is deemed desirable by this Government; and that if the policy of annexation should really conflict with the policy of reciprocity, annexation is in every case to be preferred." a Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gregg, April 4, 1854, For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 121. b For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 121–131. с Mr. Marcy, after the signature of the treaty, said: "In view of the geographical position of those [Hawaiian] islands, and the magnitude of the American interests therein, the United States would not regard with unconcern an attempt on the part of any foreign power, and especially any European maritime power, to disturb the repose or interfere with the security of the Hawaiian Government." (Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, Hawaiian comr., Sept. 21, 1855, MS. Notes to Hawaii, I. 4.) d For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 136, Report of Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to the President. See, also, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Allen, Jan. 11, 1864, MS. Notes to Hawaii, I. 32; to Mr. McBride, Feb. 8, 1864, and Oct. 17, 1864, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 113, 120. e Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCook, Sept. 24, 1866, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 146. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCulloch, Sec. of Treasury, Jan. 30, 1867, 75 MS. Dom. Let. 168. 9 Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCook, September 12, 1867, For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 143. A year later, however, Mr. Seward wrote that "the public attention sensibly continues to be fastened upon the domestic questions which have grown out of the late Civil War. The public mind refuses to dismiss these questions even so far as to entertain the higher but more remote questions of national extension and aggrandizement." a Early in 1871, the discussion of annexation was reopened by the minister of the United States at Honolulu.' His dispatch was confidentially communicated to the Senate by President Grant without any recommendation, but with the statement that the views of the Senate, if it should be deemed proper to express them, "would be very acceptable with reference to any future course which there might be a disposition to adopt."e "The position of the Sandwich Islands as an outpost fronting and commanding the whole of our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, gives to the future of those islands a peculiar interest to the Government and people of the United States. It is very clear that this Government can not be expected to assent to their transfer from their present control to that of any powerful maritime or commercial nation. Such transfer to a maritime power would threaten a military surveillance in the Pacific similar to that which Bermuda has afforded in the Atlanticthe latter has been submitted to from necessity, inasmuch as it was congenital with our Government-but we desire no additional similar outposts in the hands of those who may at some future time use them. to our disadvantage. "The condition of the Government of Hawaii and its evident tendency to decay and dissolution force upon us the earnest consideration of its future-possibly its near future. "There seems to be a strong desire on the part of many persons in the islands, representing large interests and great wealth, to become annexed to the United States. And while there are, as I have already said, many and influential persons in this country who question the policy of any insular acquisitions, perhaps even of any extension of territorial limits, there are also those of influence and of wise foresight who see a future that must extend the jurisdiction and the limits of this nation, and that will require a resting spot in the midocean, a Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Spalding, July 5, 1868, For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 144. See, also, confidential circular, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dix, min. to France, Aug. 31, 1868, referring to a special mission from Hawaii to Europe for the revision of treaties, and saying: "While the opinion extensively prevails among us that the sovereignty of those islands ought to be acquired without delay by the United States, the opinion is universal that it would be incompatible with the interests of the United States to let the islands fall under the jurisdiction, protection, or dominating influence of any foreign power." (MS. Inst. France, XVIII. 191.) Mr. Pierce to Mr. Fish, February 25, 1871, For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 17. Confidential message to the Senate, April 5, 1871, For. Rel. 1894, App. II. 16; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierce, April 5, 1871, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 212. between the Pacific coast and the vast domains of Asia, which are now opening to commerce and Christian civilization." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierce, min. to Hawaii, March 25, 1873, For. Reciprocity treaty, In 1874 King Kalakaua, with a suite of several persons and accompanied by the American minister, visited the United States. He arrived in San Francisco at the end of November, and after visiting Washington made a journey through New England and other parts of the country. He returned to Hawaii in February, 1875, on the U. S. S. Pensacola. One of the principal objects of his visit was to obtain a reciprocity treaty." January 30, 1875, there was concluded between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands a convention concerning commercial reciprocity. Article IV., as amended by the Senate, provided that His Hawaiian Majesty should not, while the treaty remained in force, "lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in his dominions, or grant any special privilege or rights of use therein to any other power, state, or government, nor make any treaty by which any other nation shall obtain the same privileges, relative to the admission of any articles free of duty, hereby secured to the United States." Another amendment of the Senate, in Art. V., provided that the treaty should not take effect till a law to carry it into operation should be passed by the Congress of the United States. Such a law was approved Aug. 15, 1876, and on the 9th of September the President by proclamation declared the treaty to be in operation.' Claims were afterwards made by British and German merchants, with the support of their Governments, for the benefits of the treaty in Hawaii under the most-favored-nation clauses in their treaties with that Government. By a separate article to the treaty between Germany and Hawaii, concluded at Berlin March 25 and at Honolulu Sept. 19, 1879, it was expressly agreed that "the special advantages granted by said convention [of Jan. 30, 1875] to the United States of America, in consideration of equivalent advantages, shall not in any a For. Rel. 1875, I. 669–679; S. Ex. Doc. 2, 44 Cong. 1 sess. See Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierce, April 8, 1875, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 286. The treaty is discussed in the President's Message of Dec. 6, 1875, H. Ex. Doc. 1, 44 Cong. 1 sess.; reports, favorable and unfavorable, on the bill to carry it into effect may be found in H. Report 116, parts 1 and 2, 44 Cong. 1 sess. and the debates may be seen in the Cong. Record. See also the President's Message, Dec. 9, 1876, H. Ex. Doc. 1, 44 Cong. 2 sess.; and the President's proclamation of Sept. 9, 1876, 19 Stats. 666. by the case be invoked in favor of the relations sanctioned present treaty," though it contained (Art. III) a most-favored-nation clause. In respect of the claims of the British merchants, the Government of the United States informed that of Hawaii that it would consider their admission as a violation of the treaty, and that "if any other power should deem it proper to employ undue influence upon the Hawaiian Government to persuade or compel action in derogation of this treaty, the Government of the United States will not be unobservant of its rights and interests, and will be neither unwilling nor unprepared to support the Hawaiian Government in the faithful discharge of its treaty obligations." a can predominance. "The position of the Hawaiian Islands in the vicinity of our Pacific coast, and their intimate commercial and political Assertions of Ameri- relations with us, lead this Government to watch with grave interest, and to regard unfavorably, any movement, negotiation, or discussion aiming to transfer them in any eventuality whatever to another power." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, Apr. 23, 1881, MS. Inst. Gr. Brit., "The Government of the United States has always avowed and now repeats that, under no circumstances, will it permit the transfer of the territory or sovereignty of these islands to any of the great European powers. It is needless to restate the reasons upon which that determination rests. It is too obvious for argument that the possession of these islands by a great maritime power would not only be a dangerous diminution of the just and necessary influence of the United States in the waters of the Pacific, but in case of international difficulty it would be a positive threat to interests too large and important to be lightly risked. "Neither can the Government of the United States allow an arrangement which, by diplomatic finesse or legal technicality, substitutes for the native and legitimate constitutional Government of Hawaii the controlling influence of a great foreign power. This is not the real and substantial independence which it desires to see and which it is prepared to support. And this Government would consider a scheme by which a large mass of British subjects, forming in time not improbably the majority of its population, should be introduced into Hawaii, made independent of the native Government, and be ruled by British authorities, judicial and diplomatic, as one entirely inconsistent with the friendly relations now existing between us, as trenching upon Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Comly, minister to Hawaii, June 30, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 624–626, |