society are philanthropic. It does not aim at permanent political control, but seeks the neutrality of the valley. The United States can not be indifferent to this work, nor to the interests of their citizens involved in it. It may become advisable for us to co-operate with other commercial powers in promoting the rights of trade and residence in the Congo Valley free from the interference or political control of any one nation."

President Arthur, annual message, Dec. 4, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, IX.

The citizen of the United States who was referred to as the chief executive officer of the International African Association, was Mr. Henry S. Sanford.

See supra, § 42.

By a note of October 10, 1884, the German minister at Washington, in behalf of his Government, which was acting in concert with that of France, invited the United States to send a representative to a conference to meet in Berlin, with a view to form an agreement as to (1) the freedom of commerce in the basin and the mouths of the Congo, (2) the application to the Congo and the Niger of the principles of the Vienna Congress touching the free navigation of international rivers, and (3) the definition of the formalities to be observed in order to render the occupation of territory on the African continent effective. In response to this invitation, Mr. Kasson, then American minister at Berlin, was authorized to represent the United States at the conference. His course was practically left to his discretion, with a caution that it was not the policy of the United States "to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations to decide territorial questions between them." Mr. Henry S. Sanford was afterwards associated with Mr. Kasson. The fullest liberty of action upon the conclusions of the conference was reserved to the United States. The general act of February 26, 1885, was signed on the part of the United States by Mr. Kasson and Mr. Sanford. President Cleveland deemed it inexpedient to submit the treaty to the Senate.

Mr. von Alvensleben, German min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, Oct. 10, 1884, S. Ex. Doc. 196, 49 Cong. 1 sess. 7; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, No. 37, Oct. 17, 1884, id. 13; general act of the Berlin conference, id. 297; President Cleveland's annual message, Dec. 8, 1885, supra, § 42.

As the President had deemed it inexpedient to submit the general act to the Senate and had announced in his annual message of December 8, 1885, views adverse to its ratification, the Department of State declined to ask that the term for the exchange of ratifications be kept open in favor of the United States, or to make such an announcement as might be construed to be a formal and final rejection of the general act by the United States." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr von Alvensleben, German min., Apr. 16, 1886, S. Ex. Doc. 196, 49 Cong. 1 sess. 321.)

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tree, min. to Belgium, No. 5, Sept. 11,
1885, For. Rel. 1885, 60.

The United States, however, recognized the Independent State of the
Congo, as founded on the general act of Berlin. (Supra, § 42.)
For the reports of Mr. W. P. Tisdel, special agent of the United States
to the Congo, see S. Ex. Doc. 196, 49 Cong. 1 sess. 349–387.
For extracts from the instructions of Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State,
to Mr. Tisdel, Sept. 8, 1884, see S. Ex. Doc. 196, 49 Cong. 1 sess. 346.
"The fact that the discoveries of an American citizen first revealed the
importance of the Congo country seems to justify this government
in claiming a special influence upon the determination of the ques-
tions touching all foreign arrangements for the administration of
that region, especially as to its commerce." It was suggested that
one or more naval vessels be sent "to linger, while making sound-
ings and surveys, in the lower Congo;" and that they should as-
certain whether a healthier point, well situated for a commercial
resort, not already lawfully appropriated by another power, could
be found there, and whether a concession from the native authori-
ties for the exclusive use of a limited district for a depot and
factorial establishment" could be obtained for the use and benefit of
American citizens in that region. (Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State,
to Mr. Chandler, Sec. of Navy, Nov. 22, 1884, 153 MS. Dom, Let. 267.)
As to the protection of missionary enterprises in the Congo, see Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, Feb. 10, 1885, 154 MS.
Dom. Let. 207.

July 2, 1890, a general act was signed at Brussels for the repression of the African slave trade and the restriction of the importation and sale of firearms, ammunition, and spirituous liquors in a certain defined zone of the African continent. This act was signed on the part of the United States by Mr. E. H. Terrell, American minister at Brussels, and Mr. H. S. Sanford, who together represented the United States in the conference. They were originally authorized to assent to the conclusions of the conference only ad referendum, but they were afterwards specifically instructed to sign. The treaty was approved by the Senate of the United States January 11, 1892, with the declaration that the United States disclaimed any interest in the possessions or protectorates established or claimed on the African continent by the other powers.

January 24, 1891, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation was concluded at Brussels between the United States and the Independent State of the Congo. The ratifications were exchanged February 2, 1892.

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Belgium, No. 18, Sept.
24, 1889, MS. Inst. Belgium, II. 557.

See further, as to the conference, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell,
No. 44, Jan. 14, 1890, MS. Inst. Belgium, II. 576; Mr. Blaine to Mr.
Sanford, March 15, 1890, id. 580; same to same, April 18, 1890, id.
585; same to same, April 25, 1890, id. 588; Mr. Blaine to Mr. Terrell,

།

tel., June 2, 1890, id. 594; same to same, tel., June 16, 1890, id. 596:
same to same, tel., June 17, 1890, id. 597.

June 24, 1890, Messrs. Terrell and Sanford were specifically authorized to
sign the general slave-trade act and also to sign the general tariff
act if all references to the Berlin treaty were eliminated, with the
express understanding that a separate treaty of amity, commerce, and
navigation was to be immediately negotiated between the United
States and the Congo State. If it should be found to be impossible
to sign the general tariff act, they were authorized provisionally to
sign a separate tariff arrangement with the Congo State, to have
effect until a commercial treaty should be concluded. (Mr. Blaine,
Sec. of State, to Messrs. Terrell and Sanford, tel., June 24, 1890, MS.
Inst. Belgium, II. 599.)

As it was found to be impracticable to sign a separate general act with
the Berlin signatories, under the conditions specified, the American
delegates, upon the assumption that the general tariff act did not
discriminate against the United States in the Congo basin, were
authorized to sign a separate act of the same tenor provisionally with
the Congo State. (Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, tel..
June 28, 1890, MS. Inst. Belgium, III. 1.)

was

The declaration of the Senate of Jan. 11, 1892, in relation to the exchange
of the ratifications of the general act of Brussels of July 2, 1890,
though it was not recited in the President's proclamation,
communicated to all the signatory powers, was taken cognizance of
and accepted by them, and was with their consent included in the
protocol" of exchange. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Chandler,
U. S. S., March 14, 1899, 235 MS. Dom. Let. 431.)

"The adjournment of the Senate without action on the pending
acts for the suppression of the slave traffic in Africa and for the
reform of the revenue tariff of the Independent State of the Congo
left this government unable to exchange those acts on the date fixed,
July 2, 1891. A modus vivendi has been concluded by which the
power of the Congo State to levy duties on imports is left unimpaired.
and, by agreement of all the signatories to the general slave-trade
act, the time for the exchange of ratifications on the part of the
United States has been extended to February 2, 1892."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 1891, For. Rel. 1891, x.
See, also, President Harrison's annual message of Dec. 1, 1890.
See, further, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Weckherlin, Dutch min.,
Dec. 16, 1890, MS. Notes to Netherlands, VIII. 268; Mr. Blaine, Sec.
of State, to Mr. Terrell, No. 108, Dec. 16, 1890, and No. 132, May 2,
1891, MS. Inst. Belgium, III. 28, 40, the last instruction enclosing
copies of correspondence concerning the levying of duties in the
Congo State, as follows: (1) Mr. Le Ghair, Belgium min., to Mr.
Blaine, Sec. of State, April 28, 1891; (2) Mr. Blaine to Mr. Le
Ghait, April 28, 1891; (3) original draft of agreement, with unofficial
note to Mr. Le Ghait of April 9, 1891.

January 22, 1895, Mr. Ewing, American minister at Brussels, refer-
ring to a previous despatch in which he had communicated the
request of the King of Belgians that the President of the United

States would consent to act as mediator in the settlement of certain questions of boundary affecting the Independent State of the Congo, reported that those questions were amicably settled between the King and the French Republic by an arrangement concluded August 14, 1894. Mr. Ewing enclosed a paper in which the boundary was fully described.

For. Rel. 1895, I. 37-40.

As to a loan by Belgium to the Independent State of the Congo, with an option of annexation by the former for a certain term, see supra, § 42; For. Rel. 1887, 33, 38.

A conference charged with the revision provided for by article 92 of the general act of July 2, 1890, of the duties on spirituous liquors in Africa, met at Brussels April 20, 1899, and closed its labors by signing a convention on the 8th of the following June. The government of the United States, since it possessed no territorial interests in the zone to which the conference related, did not send a representative, but reserved the right to adhere to the results, and the minister of the United States at Brussels was instructed on suitable occasions to express to any of the members of the conference whom he might meet the desire of the United States that action might be taken to repress, so far as possible, the traffic in liquors among the African tribes, thus accentuating the declarations made. by the delegate of the United States to the conference which framed the general act of 1890. The new conference greatly increased the duty on spirits, and the Department of State expressed the cordial acquiescence of the United States in the result, and stated that the new convention would be laid before the Senate with the President's recommendation that it be approved. The United States adhered to the convention February 1, 1901.

Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Joostens, Belgian chargé, Jan. 6, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 81; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, No. 216, Jan. 9, 1899, MS. Inst. Belgium III. 461; Mr. Hay to Count Lichtervelde, Belgian min., July 23, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 82. As to the submission of the convention to the Senate, Dec. 11, 1899, and the subsequent adhesion of the United States, see For. Rel. 1900, 35, 38-40, 41.

First attempts to negotiate.

XII. COREA.

§ 816.

The destruction of the American merchant schooner General Sherman in the waters of Corea, and the reported massacre of some or all of her passengers and crew, led the United States to consider the question of establishing relations with that country. The then recent failure of a French naval expedition to obtain satisfaction for a similar outrage dis

couraged the adoption of that mode of procedure. On the other hand, it was suggested by certain Corean agents at Shanghai that possibly that government might send an embassy to the United States and Europe to explain the occurrences in question and to enter into treaties of amity and commerce. But, in case no such steps should be taken, Mr. George F. Seward, consul-general of the United States at Shanghai, was authorized to request the admiral of the North Pacific Squadron to give him passage and a suitable convoy, in order that he might endeavor to obtain from Corea a release of the surviving seamen, if any, of the General Sherman, an official explanation of the outrage, and treaty stipulations for the opening of Corean ports and the security of the life and property of foreigners in that country.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. G. F. Seward, consul-general at Shanghai, No. 171, June 27, 1868, 49 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 267. See, also, supra, § 42; and Foster's American Diplomacy in the Orient. The foregoing instructions were given to Mr. G. F. Seward in consequence of reports sent by him from Shanghai, conveying information as to the case of the General Sherman and other matters in Corea. In a dispatch of April 24, 1868, he reported that there were then at Shanghai four Coreans and a Roman Catholic bishop for Corea, all of whom had been sent thither by the Corean government to make inquiries concerning the state of feeling toward Corea, with a view to determine whether it would be wise for the Corean government to send an embassy to America and Europe. (For. Rel. 1870, 336339.) The first report concerning the General Sherman was that the vessel was burned and that all on board were murdered. It was afterwards reported that some of the company were killed and others held captive. The U. S. S. Wachusett visited Corea in 1867, but learned nothing. The U. S. S. Shenandoah paid a similar visit in 1868, but could learn little. It was eventually ascertained that all the company were killed. (Dip. Cor. 1867, I. 415, 416, 426-428, 459; Dip. Cor. 1868, I. 544; For. Rel. 1870, 333; For. Rel. 1871, 125, 143.) As to the execution of a number of French fuissionaries and native converts in Corea in 1866, and the French punitive expedition, see Dip. Cor. 1866, I. 536, 563; Dip. Cor. 1867, I. 415, 416, 417, 420-426.

When Mr. G. F. Seward received the instruction of June 27, 1868, the conditions were not favorable to the success of a mission to Corea. On April 20, 1870, Mr. Frederick F. Low, minister to China, was authorized to enter into negotiations with the Corean authorities. He was to have the aid of Admiral John Rogers, and was to secure, if possible, the presence and cooperation of Mr. Seward. Mr. Low was directed to exercise prudence and discretion and, while firmly maintaining the right of the United States to have their seamen protected, to avoid a conflict by force unless it could not be avoided without dishonor, and to seek in all proper ways the harmonious