by the Mexican minister January 24, 1895.

(For. Rel. 1895, II. 979

987.) The United States expressed a strong desire that the question might be arbitrated. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gray, min. to Mexico, tel., Jan. 21, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 987.) April 1, 1895, a convention between Mexico and Guatemala was signed at the City of Mexico for the settlement of the dispute. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 989.) By Article II. the government of Guatemala agreed to make indemnity for property occupied or destroyed by its agents, and it was agreed that an arbitrator should be mutually selected to fix the amount. Mr. Ransom, minister of the United States to Mexico, was chosen as arbitrator, and his government gave him the permission so to act. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 993.)

May 17, 1898, a new convention was signed by Mexico and Guatemala, extending the time for the completion of the labors of the boundary commission. (For. Rel. 1899, 501.)

6. ZONA LIBRE, OR FREE ZONE.

§ 862.

"The problem of the Mexican Free Zone has been often discussed with regard to its inconvenience as a provocative of smuggling into the United States along an extensive and thinly guarded land border. The effort made by the joint resolution of March 1, 1895, to remedy the abuse charged by suspending the privilege of free transportation in bond across the territory of the United States to Mexico failed of good result, as is stated in Report No. 702 of the House of Representatives, submitted in the last session, March 11, 1898. As the question is one to be conveniently met by wise concurrent legislation of the two countries looking to the protection of the revenues by harmonious measures operating equally on either side of the boundary, rather than by conventional arrangements, I suggest that Congress consider the advisability of authorizing and inviting a conference of representatives of the Treasury Departments of the United States and Mexico to consider the subject in all its complex bearings, and make report with pertinent recommendations to the respective governments for the information and consideration of their Congresses."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LXXIX, As to the Mexican Zona Libre, or Free Zone, and its effects on trade between the United States and Mexico, see Dip. Cor. 1867, II. 412; Dip. Cor. 1868, II. 594, 626; For. Rel. 1870, 486, 497; For. Rel. 1871, 608; For. Rel. 1872, 381, 388, 401; For. Rel. 1878, 654, 660; For. Rel. 1880, 724; For. Rel. 1881, 778, 782, 797, 803, 805; For. Rel. 1888, II. 1266, 1282-1284.

See, also, message of June 12, 1884, S. Ex. Doc. 185, 48 Cong. 1 sess., relating to the law creating or modifying the Zona Libre.

7. CROSSING OF BORDER BY CATTLE.

§ 863.

Congress, by a joint resolution of January 15, 1894, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to permit owners of cattle and horses in the United States to pass over into Mexico for the purpose of pasturing them and afterwards to reimport them into the United States free of duty within twelve months from the date of the resolution. The Mexican government declined to concur in the carrying out of the resolution on the ground that a convention between the United States and Mexico, signed July 11, 1888, for the reciprocal crossing of cattle from one country to the other was still pending before the Mexican Senate, and that, in view of the opposition to the convention among the inhabitants of the frontier States, the President of Mexico did not consider it opportune to take any action in the matter.

For. Rel. 1894, 415, 417, 418.

See For. Rel. 1888, II. 1252, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1298, 1299.

XXVII. MUSCAT.

§ 864.

See Zanzibar, infra, § 895; supra, 267.

A treaty with Muscat was negotiated by Edmund Roberts. It was signed Sept. 21, 1833, and was proclaimed June 24, 1837.

See Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1360. As to Edmund Roberts, see Japan, supra, § 845; Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, 52-55; Moore, American Diplomacy, 120, 121, 125.

XXVIII. NETHERLANDS.

§ 865.

The history of the negotiations with the Netherlands prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States is given in Mr. J. C. B. Davis's Treaty Notes, Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1360.

As to the award of the King of the Netherlands in the northeastern boundary dispute, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 90, 119, 136-137.

As to claims against the Netherlands, growing out of the seizure and sequestration, or confiscation, of American vessels in Dutch ports in 1809 and 1810, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4473.

As to salt and sugar duties, see For. Rel. 1895, II. 1019.

For corespondence relating to the inauguration of Her Majesty Queen Wilhelmina, see For. Rel. 1898, 512-517.

For the establishment of diplomatic relations with Luxemburg, the mission being added to that to the Netherlands, see For. Rel. 1903, 643.

XXIX. OTTOMAN PORTE.

1. TREATY OF 1830.

§ 866.

As to the treaty of commerce and navigation of May 7, 1830, see supra, §§ 284, 285.

As to Art. VII. of this treaty, see Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Porter, No. 5, April 3, 1832, MS. Inst. Turkey, I. 243; Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Sept. 13, 1898, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 274.

For the establishment of direct diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria, see For. Rel. 1903, 21–23.

2. TREATY OF 1862.

§ 867.

February 25, 1862, a new treaty of commerce and navigation was concluded.

"This treaty, by its 20th article, was to continue for 28 years, counting from the day of the exchange of ratifications, subject however to one year's notice of termination to be given by either party at the end of the 14th or 21st year. By the 22d article, a tariff was stipulated for the Ottoman Empire, subject to revision at the end of the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth or any subsequent septennial period, counting from the date of exchange of ratifications, on notice duly given by either party of desire for such revision one year before the close of the current seven years.

"Aristarchi Bey, the Turkish minister, under date of January 15, 1874, informed the Secretary of State of the desire of his government to terminate the treaty, and that the Sublime Porte had resolved to invite the United States to examine the question of a new treaty. The note stated that, although the time fixed for giving notice to terminate the treaty has not yet arrived, the imperial government had thought proper to give such notice, with a view to giving time to the high contracting parties to come to an early understanding. Under date of January 21, 1874, Aristarchi Bey was informed that no objection existed to receiving the notice in advance of the period fixed by the treaty, but called attention to the fact that by the twentysecond article the second term of the seven years prescribed for its existence would only expire upon the 5th day of June, 1876. Timely

notice of termination was not in fact given by Turkey before that date, and thus the treaty, and the tariff thereunder, entered upon their third septennial periods.

"On March 12, 1883, Aarifi Pasha gave notice to the United States minister, Lewis Wallace, of the desire of Turkey to terminate the treaty one year from that date. Under the terms of the 20th article, the treaty, its ratification having been exchanged June 5, 1862, would not end its twenty-first year until June 5, 1884, and the United States government declined to accept notice of an earlier termination, and suggested a new notice to be given before June 5, 1883. Such notice was not in fact tendered until after that date, and the treaty entered upon a fourth septennial period. This was contested by the Turkish government, which claimed that its announced intent to terminate the treaty, simultaneously with the acceptance by the United States of its proposal for a tariff revision, operated as a sufficient notification.

"Throughout this discussion, the government of the Porte appears to have confounded the dates at which tariff revision became practicable under article twenty-two of the treaty, and the dates when the treaty itself might be terminable under article twenty. The acceptances (ratifications) of the tariff were exchanged March 12, 1862, and the tariff was therefore subject to revision at the end of each seventh year thereafter on one year's prior notice. The treaty was terminable at the end of the fifteenth, twenty-second and twentyninth years from date of exchange of ratifications (June 5, 1862) on one year's notice given at the expiration of the fourteenth, twentyfirst and twenty-eighth years of its life. The tariff and treaty periods therefore differed by about fifteen months."

Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1371.

"The Sublime Porte, in the exercise of its incontestable and uncontested right, gave notice, at the prescribed time and in due form, of its desire for the cessation of the effects of the treaty concluded between the imperial Ottoman government and the United States in 1862. As a consequence, the treaty in question has ceased to exist as far as the Sublime Porte is concerned.

"It is true that the Washington Cabinet, endeavoring to base its action upon certain matters of form, has sought to maintain that this notice was null and void. The Sublime Porte, however, strong in the justice of its cause, has energetically and unceasingly opposed this view, and has always insisted that the treaty was definitively abrogated.

"The Department of State, after many negotiations, finally consented to acknowledge the validity of the notice, on condition that

the Ottoman government would agree to grant to American citizens trading in Turkey the same privileges and immunities that are granted to the subjects or citizens of nations whose treaties of commerce with the Ottoman Empire have not yet expired, and provided that the said American citizens might enjoy the same until the expiration of the treaty of commerce that had the longest time to run.

"The Sublime Porte, while recognizing the spirit of conciliation shown by the Washington Cabinet in this matter, has found it impossible to accept this proposition. To do so would have been to admit that the notice given by it was an empty formality, since, according to the new convention proposed by the United States, the consequences of the said notice were to be null and void, and American citizens trading in Turkey were, in a word, to be placed in the same position in which they were before the notice was given.

"The Sublime Porte has therefore been compelled to declare to the chargé d'affaires of the United States at Constantinople that, considering the treaty as no longer having any legal force, it will levy an ad valorem duty upon American goods introduced into Turkey. Still, out of regard for the United States, with which it so much desires to maintain friendly relations, and with a view to avoiding even the shadow of a complication, it has repeatedly solicited the American legation at Constantinople to be pleased to appoint delegates for the purpose of negotiating a new treaty and a new tariff. Mr. Heap, however, has as yet taken no such step. He has confined himself to informing the imperial government that he has referred the matter to his government.

"The Sublime Porte trusts that the honorable Secretary of State, being convinced that it is in the right, will be pleased to instruct the representative of the United States at Constantinople to negotiate a new treaty and a new tariff with the Ottoman delegates; for, once more, it is impossible for the imperial government to recede from the position which it has taken in relation to this question."

Tevfik Pasha, Turkish min., to Mr. Davis, Aug. 30, 1884, For. Rel. 1885, 895.

"I have had the honor to examine the note verbale dated the 30th August last, and handed by you to the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Davis, on that date. I have noted especially the concluding words of your note verbale, that it is impossible for the imperial government to recede from the position which it has taken in relation to this question.'

"I regret to see in this communication an apparent departure from assurances repeatedly made by the government of the Porte, both at Constantinople and through its representatives in this capital, that