the English consul had sent for a man-of-war. A few days later Mr. Sill, the American minister at Seoul, confirmed what had been reported, and stated that the representatives of England, Russia, and France and himself were urging the Japanese to protect the King and restore the previous status by necessary temporary force. He afterwards stated that Japan would do this if it were approved by the foreign governments; that Russia had telegraphed approval, and that an answer was expected from the other powers. He expressed the hope that the United States would signify its approval, and requested a telegraphic answer. November 11, 1895, Mr. Olney cabled: "Intervention in political concerns of Corea is not among your functions, and is forbidden by diplomatic instruction 64." Again, on November 20th, Mr. Olney cabled: "Confine yourself strictly [to] protection of American citizens and interests. You have no concern in internal affairs. Your actions to be taken independently of other representatives unless otherwise instructed." For. Rel. 1895, II. 971-973. See, further, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, Nos. 274 See, also, the following references to Corea : Rules for the council of state, For. Rel. 1898, 473. Convention between Japan and Russia, April 25, 1898, concerning Corea, Concession of whaling privileges to a Russian subject, For. Rel. 1899, Treaty between China and Corea, Sept. 11, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 491–496. Protection of the interests of American citizens in the Seoul electric railway against Japanese interference, by agreement between the American and Japanese ministers, For. Rel. 1900, 771. The Emperor of Japan, in his declaration of war, February 10, 1904, declared that the integrity of Corea was a matter of constant concern to his empire, not only because of Japan's traditional relations with that country, but because the separate existence of Corea was essential to the safety of his realm, and that the absorption of Manchuria by Russia would render it impossible to maintain the integrity of Corea and preserve the peace in the Far East. February 26, 1904, the Japanese minister at Washington communicated to the Department of State a copy of a protocol concluded by his government with that of Corea on the 23d of the same month. By this protocol the Corean government agreed to place full confidence in that of Japan and adopt its advice with regard to improvement and administration, while Japan agreed to insure the safety and repose of the imperial house of Corea and to "definitely guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of the Corean Empire.“ By a later agreement, concluded on the 19th of August, the Corean government undertook to employ a Japanese subject recommended by Japan as financial adviser and to employ a foreigner recommended by Japan as diplomatic adviser, to the foreign office. For the former function the Japanese government designated Mr. Megata, a Japanese, educated in America and a graduate of Harvard University, and for the latter function Mr. D. W. Stevens, an American. For. Rel. 1904, 414, 437-440. March 28, 1904, Count Cassini, Russian ambassador at Washington, left with Mr. Hay a memorandum, in which it was stated that, as Japan had "openly violated the neutrality of Corea and usurped the power in that country," the Russian government was obliged to consider it as being within the area of hostilities. (For. Rel. 1904, 727.) By the treaty of peace between Japan and Russia, signed at Portsmouth, Aug. 23/Sept. 5, 1905, Russia (Art. II.), "acknowledging that Japan possesses in Corea paramount political, military, and economic interests, engages neither to obstruct nor interfere with measures for the guidance, protection, and control which the Imperial Government of Japan may find it necessary to take in Corea." Russian subjects are placed on the same footing as citizens of the most favored nation. It is also agreed that the contracting parties "will abstain on the Russian-Corean frontier from taking any mili tary measures which may menace the security of Russian or Corean territory." Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 275. A similar acknowledgment may be seen in the treaty of alliance between Great Britain and Japan of August 12, 1905, which (Art. III.) reads: "Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests in Corea, Great Britain recognizes the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and protection in Corea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations." For the instruction of Lord Lansdowne to the British ambassador at St. XIII. DENMARK. § 817. The relations of Denmark to the United States prior to the treaty of 1826 are discussed in 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, chap. xii. 66 Quasi relations were opened with Denmark during the war of the Revolution by Dr. Franklin, who, on the 22d of December, 1779, in a letter to M. Bernstorff, minister for foreign affairs at Copenhagen, remonstrated against the seizure of American prizes within the territorial jurisdiction of the King of Denmark. This question lingered into the middle of the present century. "On the 27th of February, 1783, the Danish minister for foreign affairs wrote a letter to Mr. de Walterstorf, one of his countrymen, in which he said: 'As I know you are on the point of making a tour to France, I cannot omit recommending to you to endeavor, during your stay at Paris, to gain as much as possible the confidence and esteem of Mr. Franklin. . You have witnessed the satisfaction with which we have learned the glorious issue of this war for the United States of America, and how fully we are persuaded that it will be for the general interests of the two states to form, as soon as possible, reciprocal connections of friendship and commerce. Nothing certainly would be more agreeable to us than to learn by your letters that you find the same dispositions in Mr. Franklin.' "De Walterstorf went to Paris and made the acquaintance of Franklin, and assured him that the King had a strong desire to have a treaty of friendship and commerce with the United States. Franklin informed Robert Livingston of the advances, and suggested that Congress should send the necessary powers for entering into the negotiations, but nothing came of it. Franklin would not go on without a special power, and no special power came. "It was not until 1826 that a commercial convention was concluded at Washington with Denmark. This was transmitted to Congress with President Adams's message at the beginning of the second session of the 19th Congress." Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1285. See, as to the Danish spoliations and indemnity, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4549 et seq. For attempts to acquire the Danish West Indies, see supra, § 123. XIV. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. § 818. President John Adams, by a proclamation of June 26, 1799, remitted and discontinued as to Santo Domingo the restraints and prohibitions on trade between the United States and France under the act of February 9, 1799. The proclamation announced that " arrangements" had been made at Santo Domingo for the safety of the commerce of the United States and for the admission of American vessels into certain ports of the island, so that after August 1, 1799, such vessels might enter Cape François and Port Republicain, formerly called Port au Prince, and after entering those ports depart for any port in the island between Monte Christi on the north and Petit Goave on the west, "provided it be done with the consent of the government of St. Domingo, and pursuant to certificates or passports expressing such consent, signed by the consul-general of the United States, or consul residing at the port of departure.” Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 240. In a note to the case of the United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, decided at the December term, 1801, it is stated that in April, 1800, Toussaint was "on terms of amity, commerce, and friendship with the United States duly entered and ratified by treaty." Mr. Justice Cushing, in the circuit court, said that there were some friendly arrangements respecting commerce" between Toussaint and the United States, and he spoke of "the regulations between General Toussaint and the American consul.” (1 Cranch, 105.) For negotiations for the annexation of Santo Domingo to the United States and the lease of Samana Bay as a naval station, see supra, § 121. In 1896 Mr. Olney, as Secretary of State, recommended that the missions to Hayti and Santo Domingo be put on a plenipotentiary footing. He declared that the existing scheme, by which the minister-resident and consul-general at Port au Prince was accredited to Santo Domingo as chargé d'affaires, was "not only inconsistent with our national interests in those states," but also stood in the way of carrying out the design of the act of March 1, 1893, which authorized the President to give to the representative of the United States in a foreign country the same designation as that of the representative sent by such country to the United States. Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, December 7, 1896, As to the recognition of the independence of the Dominican Republic, see As to proposals for the annexation of Santo Domingo and Samana Bay, As to the assassination of President Heureaux, in July, 1899, see For. As to a treaty between Hayti and the Dominican Republic of 1874, against October 26, 1894, the Dominican chargé d'affaires at Washington stated that this government acquiesced in the rescission of the com mercial arrangements of June 4, 1891, which had "been effected in virtue of one of the alternatives of termination contained in a clause of the said arrangement." For. Rel. 1895, I. 235. January 12, 1897, the Dominican minister at Washington communicated to the Department of State a notice signed by the Dominican minister of foreign affairs on November 5, 1896, of the denunciation of the treaty with the United States of February 8, 1867, in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXI. The Department of State acknowledged the receipt of the notice, saying that it accepted the denunciation of the treaty, which would terminate, in virtue of the article in question, on January 13, 1898. For. Rel. 1897, 125. February 7, 1905, a protocol of agreement was signed at Santo Domingo City, between the United States and the Dominican Republic, by which the former power was to undertake the adjustment of all the obligations of the Dominican Government, foreign and domestic, and to this end to take over for the time being the administration of the Dominican customs. The protocol was submitted to the Senate of the United States on February 15, 1905. Message of the President to the Senate, Feb. 15, 1905, Confid. Exec. V, 58 Cong. 3 sess. See infra, § 962. As to the award in the case of the San Domingo Improvement Company and its allied companies, see Confid. Exec. V, 58 Cong. 3 sess. 13-31; also, For. Rel. 1904, 270–286. XV. ECUADOR, § 819. A treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation was concluded between the United States and Ecuador June 13, 1839. H. Ex. Doc. 2, 27 Cong. 3 sess. 156. November 25, 1862, a convention was concluded for the adjustment of claims. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1569. As to the convention of February 28, 1893, for the settlement of the October 25, 1900, the President of Ecuador approved a bill of the Ecuadorian Congress granting civil registry of marriages, births, and deaths. |