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 tɔ Mr. Bayard, tel., Dec. 20, 1888, MS. Desp. from Japan. Mr. Blaine, 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 President Cleveland, in his annual message of Dec. 2, 1895, referring apparently to the treaty of 1878, said: We have reason for congratulation in the fact that the government of the United States, by the exchange of liberal treaty stipulations with the new Japan, was the first to recognize her wonderful advance and to extend to her the consideration and confidence due to her national enlightenment and progressive character." (For. Rel. 1895, I. xxx.) In his preceding annual message of Dec. 3, 1894, he declared that our relations with this progressive nation [Japan] should not be less broad and liberal than those with other powers." (For. Rel. 1894, xi.) As to the Chinese-Japanese war, see For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 5-106; supra, §§ 655. Concerning commercial and industrial conditions in Japan, see S. Rep. 450, 56 Cong. 1 sess.; H. Report 484, 56 Cong. 1 sess.; H. Report 878, 56 Cong. 1 sess. As to export of silk from Japan, see For. Rel. 1898, 438-450; and, as to tax on land, id. 433. As to the killing at Nagasaki, Sept. 2, 1897, of Frank Eppes, a sailor of the An account of the assistance rendered at Kobe to the disabled U. S. trans- By an imperial ordinance of July 12, 1899, it was declared that, besides the open ports theretofore designated, the following were also It was declared that at the port, Muroran only mugi (barley, wheat, rye, oats, etc.), sulphur, coal, and other commodities designated by the minister of finance could be exported, and that, if at any of the ports specified in the foregoing list the total amount of imports and exports fell short of 50,000 yen, the port would be closed on three months' notice. For. Rel. 1899, 477. "In the treatment of the difficult Chinese problems Japan has acted in harmonious concert with the other powers, and her generous cooperation materially aided in the joint relief of the beleaguered legations in Peking and in bringing about an understanding preliminary to a settlement of the issues between the powers and China. Japan's declarations in favor of the integrity of the Chinese Empire and the conservation of open world trade therewith have been frank and positive. As a factor for promoting the general interests of peace, order, and fair commerce in the Far East the influence of Japan can harldy be overestimated." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 3, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, xxiii. The deficiency appropriation act of February 26, 1896, provided for the purchase of the building and site occupied by the United States legation in Tokio. The purchase was speedily accomplished. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, No. 294, March 3, See, as to land for the legation, H. Ex. Doc. 187, 48 Cong. 2 sess. The treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Japan, concluded November 22, 1894, on going into effect (July 17, 1899), "supersedes [art. 18] all existing treaties between this country and Japan," including Art. II. of the treaty of July 29, 1858. Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Grout, consul at Malta, Protests against the new treaties with Japan were made by Americans residing in that country in regard to land tenure, criminal procedure, the condition of Japanese prisons, and certain other matters. The position of the United States on these protests was summed up in the phrase: "Give the treaty a trial." For. Rel. 1898, 450-464. By an act of the Imperial Diet of Japan, passed March 24, 1897, it was provided that, for a period of seven years after April 1, 1898, Japanese subjects, or commercial companies of which the shareholders were all Japanese, engaged in the direct export of raw silk produced in Japan and stamped with a registered trade-mark, should receive a bounty, the amount of the bounty and the classification of the silk to be determined by imperial ordinance. The United States objected to the law, not only as a discrimination against American exporters of Japanese silk, but also as a violation of Article VI. of the treaty of November 22, 1894, which provides that "the citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall enjoy in the territories of the other exemption from all transit duties, and a perfect equality of treatment with native citizens or subjects in all that relates to warehousing, bounties, facilities, and drawbacks." It was also declared to be "distinctly antagonistic to the spirit if not the letter" of Article II. of the same treaty, in that it impaired "reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation between the territories of the two parties," and prevented. citizens of the United States from enjoying the same treatment in matters of commerce as citizens or subjects of Japan. The United States adverted to the fact that the treaty of November 22, 1894, was not to go into effect till July 17, 1899, but intimated that, although the precise rights under it might not be invoked before that date, an injury might in the mean time be done which would render some of its most important provisions nugatory and which might be considered a "repudiatory act.” a The Japanese government, while suggesting that the bounty would be limited to the highest grades of silk, and consequently to a comparatively small quantity, and that, as "penalties must necessarily form a part of the law," it was necessary to limit its operation to Japanese subjects, so long as consular jurisdiction lasted; nevertheless admitted that it would, after July 17, 1899, when the new treaties should come into effect and consular jurisdiction end, be necessary to apply it to the citizens and subjects of treaty powers and to Japanese subjects alike." The United States considered this reply as an admission that the law would establish till July 17, 1899, "a differential treatment adverse to foreigners;" and, as to the obstacle of consular jurisdiction to the extension of the law to foreigners, observed that, as the bounty was to be paid only upon a governmental examination of the origin, weight, and fineness of the silk, the whole matter appeared to be within the effective control of the government." The law went into effect according to its terms; but immediately afterwards, on the assembling of the Diet, a bill was introduced for its repeal. This bill was passed May 23, 1898. It received the imperial sanction on May 25, and was thereupon promulgated, to take effect immediately." a Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoshi, Japanese min., June 2, 1897; Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, June 2, 1897: For. Rel. 1898, 441–444. Mr. Hoshi, Japanese min., to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, June 4, 1897, For. Rel. 1898, 444. e Mr. Day, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, June 10, 1897, For. Rel. 1898, 446. d For. Rel. 1898, 447-449. The provisions in Japan's new treaties conferring upon aliens the right to purchase land in that country are held by the Japanese government to be inapplicable to the exclusive Japanese settlements in Corea. For. Rel. 1900, 769. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, inquiring whether there is a treaty between the United States and Japan whereby the United States is to control the immigration of Japanese into Hawaii after 1899. "In reply I have to inform you that there is no such treaty. The convention you have in mind is probably that between the United States and Japan signed at Washington on November 22, 1894, which takes effect on July 17, 1899. By Article I. of that convention the subjects of Japan are given full liberty to enter, travel or reside in any part of the territories of the United States." Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sasse, April 21, 1898, 227 MS. Dom. XXIV. LIBERIA. 1. DECLARATIONS OF AMERICAN POLICY. § 852. Early in the nineteenth century a society, called the American Colonization Society, was organized by benevolent individuals from various parts of the United States for the purpose of promoting and executing a plan for colonizing, with their consent, the free people of color, residing in the United States, in Africa or such other place as Congress should deem expedient; and to this end the society was to cooperate with the general government and with such of the States as might adopt regulations on the subject. The society was later incorporated by an act of the legislature of Maryland. The first purchase of land in Africa was made by the society's agent, Dr. Ely Ayres, aided by Captain Robert F. Stockton, of the U. S. S. Alligator, in December, 1821, and a colony, formed of a few colored emigrants from the United States, was founded at Cape Mountserado, in July 1822. The government of the United States also sent thither recaptured Africans, under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1819. At the beginning of 1824, disaffection and insubordination in the colony had attained such a growth that the managers of the American Colonization Society solicited from the government of the United States the sending out of an armed vessel, with some individual duly commissioned by the government and the society to examine the conditions then existing and make arrangements for the |