Russia had assumed an influential position in Japan; and Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland had also established relations with that country. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, tel., See despatches of Mr. Bingham, No. 1461, March 30, 1882; No. 1485, May 20, 1881, Mr. Bingham was instructed, with reference to a report "I do not see that I need at present repeat or add to the previous in- See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, to Mr. Bingham, No. 649, Feb. 28, 1882, Mr. Hubbard, minister to Japan, in his No. 100, Jan. 21, 1886, stated. upon authoritative information," that Japan has neither colonies nor dependencies," and that the Loochoo Islands, properly speaking, were considered a part of Japan itself and formed part of the district of Okinawa. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Manning. Feb. 23, 1886, 159 MS. Dom. Let. 143.) As to the absorption of the Loochoo (Lew Chew) Islands by Japan, see 5 Moore, Int. Arbitrations, 5046-5048; Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, No, 380, Oct. 9, 1878, II, 455. See, as to American interests in Japan, S. Ex. Docs. 52 and 58, 41 Cong. 2 sess. After the final adjournment in September, 1882, of the treaty conference of that year, Mr. Bingham suggested that the United States forthwith conclude a separate revised treaty with Japan on a basis proposed by that government. In view of the fact that the convention of July 25, 1878, still remained inoperative, owing to the refusal of the other powers to conclude similar arrangements, Mr. Bingham's suggestion was not adopted; but the President in his annual message of 1883 announced that the United States was disposed to concede the requests of Japan to determine her own tariff rates, to provide such judicial tribunals as might commend themselves to the Western powers for the trial of causes to which foreigners were parties, and to assimilate the terms and duration of her treaties to those of other civilized states. The United States, as Mr. Frelinghuysen afterwards explained, was "not yet prepared to accept unreservedly the Japanese claim to exclusive jurisdiction," but preferred "an intermediate period of mixed jurisdiction," although it was considered possible that Japan might offer such positive and effective guarantees of impartial judicial administration as to overcome this preference. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, No. 707, Jan. 16, 1883, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 153; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. von Eisendecher, Jan. 10, 1884, MS. Notes to Germany, X. 269; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Bingham, No. 808 (confid.), March 5, 1884, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 238; same to same, tel., May 10, 1884, id. 247; same to same, No. 859, Sept 16, 1884, id. 283. October 31, 1885, Mr. Hubbard, then American minister at Tokio, was instructed to attend another conference for the revision of the treaties. He was to support Japan's claim to make separate terminable treaties covering both the tariff and judicial administration, but was to accept an equitable compromise, so as not to obstruct Japan's agreeing with the other powers. In instructions to Mr. Hubbard of July 14, 1886, Mr. Bayard said: "The chief object of the United States is to secure to Japan, as far as practicable, complete autonomy. The speediest and most effectual way of accomplishing this end appears to be by cooperating with the other treaty powers, at the same time taking care not to depart from our settled policy of avoiding entangling alliances. The object, as understood by this government, of the past and present conferences of revision is to seek and frame a common basis for independent treaties. . The most important and essential object to Japan is to obtain control of her own revenues. The arrangement of 1866 has the disadvantage of being made jointly with other powers and of not being terminable on notice given. . The United States are indisposed to accept any result of the pending revision which does not embrace the terminability of the treaties within a reasonable period. The objective point to be kept in view in the discussion is the recognition of Japan's autonomy. This being established and conceded on all sides, the regulation by Japan of her foreign commerce and of her domestic affairs follows as an attribute of sovereignty, to be restrained only so far as she may deem it expedient by independent treaties. Every . step, therefore, that tends to establish the unquestionable autonomy of Japan is a progression towards our position. If the work of revision should fail to secure to Japan, now or within the near future, the measure of autonomy to which we think she is entitled, it wil remain for this government to determine its course, and consider whether the desired result may be otherwise reached by independent negotiation between the United States and Japan, on more practical and more immediately applicable bases than are found in the separate treaty of 1878." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, tel., Oct. 31, As to the most-favored-nation clause, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to "As the first to open relations with that Empire [Japan], and as the "A treaty of extradition between the United States and Japan, the first concluded by that empire, has been lately proclaimed." (President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 6, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, vi.) The extradition treaty was concluded April 29, 1886; the ratifications were exchanged at Tokio Sept. 27, 1886, and it was proclaimed Nov. 3, 1886. It was recognized as a step in the direction of yielding to Japan's desire for judicial autonomy. The United States, while deprecating the discrimination shown by the Japanese government against citizens of the United States and in favor of German subjects in the letting of contracts for the construction of public works, did not permit its attitude to be affected by that circumstance. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, No. 183, Jan. 31, 1888, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 506.) In the renewed conference Count Inouye proposed a plan of revision embracing (1) the opening of Japan to foreigners, who were to be subject to exclusive Japanese jurisdiction outside of the existing foreign settlements; (2) the enforcement by the consular courts of Japanese laws and regulations; (3) the withholdment from foreigners of the right to acquire real estate outside the foreign settlements, except on temporary leases, till extraterritorial jurisdiction should have been abolished; (4) the concession to Japan of autonomy in tariff matters, and, this principle granted, the putting into effect for a term of years of the commercial treaty drawn up by the last conference; (5) the abolition of consular jurisdiction. In 1886, a compromise, known as "the Anglo-German project," was considered, by which mixed tribunals, after the manner of those of Egypt, were to be established to deal with foreign interests. The publication of this project greatly roused popular feeling against Count Inouye, who was forced to resign. August 9, 1887, the Japanese minister at Washington gave notice of the adjournment of the treaty-revision conference, owing to the objection of his Government to the provision of the draft jurisdictional convention which required the submission of the criminal code of the Empire to the powers in advance of its becoming operative. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, No. 234 (confid.), Aug. 13, 1888, MS. Inst. Japan, II. 543. See also Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 140-141, citing Siebold, Japan and the Comity of Nations, 83-84; For. Rel. 1887, 665. Count Inouye was succeeded by Count Okuma. In February, 1887, Count Okuma, who had reverted to the policy of negotiating with each nation separately, concluded a treaty of amity and commerce with Mexico, by which Japan's fiscal and judicial autonomy were completely acknowledged. The great problem, however, was that of forming new relations with the old treaty powers, to whom Japan's engagements were of a different character. The United States was disposed to approve Count Inouye's original plan, except as to the proposal that the consular courts should enforce Japanese laws. Mr. Bayard, who was then Secretary of State, thought that it would be more logical to fix a term after which consular jurisdiction should, under certain conditions, be entirely abolished, or, in lieu of this, to have a mixed tribunal for a term of years. President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 3, 1888, expressed the hope "that improvements may soon be secured in the jurisdictional system as respects foreigners in Japan, and relief afforded to that country from the present undue and oppressive foreign control in matters of commerce." On February 20, 1889, Mr. Richard B. Hubbard, American minister at Tokio, acting under instructions, signed with Count Okuma a new treaty of amity and commerce. By this treaty Japan was to be thrown open to the residence and travel of citizens of the United States, but they were not to be permitted to acquire fee titles to land till after the term of five years from the date at which the treaty should become operative. Meanwhile, they were to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts outside of the ports of Hakodate, Tokio, Osaka, Yokohama, Kobe, and Nagasaki, where, for the term above mentioned, consular jurisdiction was to continue. After that term it was to cease altogether. By a separate declaration, however, it was promised that a certain number of foreign judges should be appointed to sit as associates in the Japanese supreme court in foreign matters, so that a majority of the tribunal would in cases of appeal by American citizens be composed of foreign jurists. The tariff was still to be partly conventional, The treaty was transmitted by Mr. Hubbard to this Government in his No. 551, of February 20 1889, the receipt of which was acknowledged by Mr. Blaine on March 18, 1889. On December 6, 1889, Mr. Hubbard's successor, Mr. Swift, who had since his arrival at Tokio written despatches strongly adverse to the acceptance of the treaty, was advised that it would "not be approved nor submitted to the Senate by the President, without serious modifications." No particular modifications were then suggested, but in an instruction to Mr. Swift, of October 2, 1890, it was intimated that the opposition to the provisions of the treaty was radical," and certain objections were specified, embracing among others the stipulation in favor of alien ownership of land, the engagement for the eventual recognition, without experiment or further negotiation, of Japan's exclusive jurisdiction, and comparative inequalities in tariff duties, such as, for instance, the duties to be levied, respectively, on American kerosene and British cotton stuffs. Nor was the treaty acceptable, on the other hand, to the Japanese people. An outline of a similar treaty, proposed by Count Okuma to Great Britain, having been published in the London Times on April 29, 1889, an outcry of disapproval was raised in Japan, especially on account of the provisions as to the appointment of foreign associates in the supreme court and the ownership of real estate. The popular agitation" became so intense that on October 19, 1889, a fanatic threw a bomb at Minister Okuma." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, No. 234 (confid.), August 13, 1888, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 543; Mr. Hubbard to Mr. Bayard, tel., Dec. 20, 1888, MS. Desp. from Japan. Mr. Blajne, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, No. 293, March 18, 1889, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 599; Mr. Blaine to Mr. Swift, min. to China, No. 40, Dec. 6, 1889, id. 633; same to same, No. 104, Oct. 2, 1890, id. 698; same to same, No. 131, Jan. 29, 1891, MS. Inst. Japan. IV. 8. See the following dispatches from Mr. Swift: No. 17 (confid.), June 14. 1889; No. 25, July 16, 1889; No. 37, Aug. 16, 1889; No. 42, Sept. 6, 1889; No. 148, Aug. 28, 1890; Nos. 190, 191, 192, and 193, of Dec. 23 and 24, 1890: MS. Desp. from Japan. See, also, Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 141-143. 7. EMANCIPATION OF JAPAN. A separate treaty acknowledging Japan's fiscal and judicial autonomy was concluded by Great Britain July 16, 1894. A similar treaty was signed by the United States November 22, 1894. Like action was taken by the other treaty powers. The results are elsewhere detailed. Supra, § 281. See Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a |