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. FrankJin 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. 66 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. October 18, 1900, he also approved a bill forbidding priests or monks to teach anything but religion in any school under government control, and also a bill forbidding any school under the control of priests or monks from conferring any but an ecclesiastical degree. October 5, 1900, he approved a law enabling the government to expropriate the cemeteries of the country in order that anyone might be buried there. For. Rel. 1901, 144. As to United States citizens in Ecuador, see For. Rel. 1897, 127. XVI. EGYPT. § 820. "Your dispatch No. 69, of the 5th of August last, in relation to Egyptian finances, and particularly to the question of the adhesion of the powers, other than the signatories, to the decree of the Khedive of Egypt of the 27th of July, 1885, has been received. "The attitude of this government with reference to the settlement of the Egyptian debt question has been one of friendly neutrality. At the time of the organization of the commission of liquidation in 1880, the United States maintained for a time an attitude of reserve, owing to the fact that acquiescence in the scheme pledged, or appeared to pledge, the government to accept as binding upon any of the citizens of the United States whose interests might be involved, the action to be thereafter taken by a commission in the composition or control of which the United States had no part. It appearing, however, that no interests of American citizens were then in fact to be submitted to the decisions of the commission, and animated simply by the desire that no action on our part should embarrass the Egyptian government in making with the actual creditors such arrangements as might be acceptable to them, this government, at the urgent wish of the Khedive's government, instructed its representative at Cairo, on the 17th of July, 1880, to adhere to the plan of liquidation, if the Egyptian government regarded such action as material to the success of the scheme. The government of the United States thus concurred in the plan, without being positively interested therein, and simply to avoid embarrassing the friendly government of the Khedive. "So, with regard to the subject of your dispatch, this government is disposed to preserve the same attitude that it has heretofore maintained towards the management of the Egyptian finances, and would not embarrass the government of the Khedive by withholding its adherence to the decree of the 27th of July, should it appear that such a course would be in opposition to the Khedive's wishes and an obstacle to the accomplishment of his plans for the liquidation of the Egyptian debt.” Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to England, No. 113, As to the adhesion of the United States in 1880, see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of For the Khedival decree of March 31, 1880, establishing the commission to liquidate the Egyptian debt, see 71 Br. & For. State Papers, 549, 551. For the Khedival decree of July 27, 1885, see 76 id. 352, 358. "On November 2, 1883, the British minister here addressed to my predecessor a note, accompanied by a memorandum, in regard to the levying of a house tax on foreigners in Egypt by the Khedive's government under the Turkish law of 1867, and expressed the hope that the United States would find no objection thereto. "Mr. Frelinghuysen replied to Mr. West, November 10, 1883, that as the proposed tax had not yet been formerly presented to the United States by the Khedive's government, we could not, in advance of the presentation of the measure and without a full knowledge of its terms, commit ourselves to its acceptance. "A copy of this correspondence is herewith transmitted for your information. "However, by a despatch from your predecessor of February 28, 1884, No. 84, Mr. Pomeroy advised the Department of the proposed action of the Egyptian government, and enclosed a copy of a note from the minister for foreign affairs upon the subject. "Mr. Frelinghuysen in his reply, No. 53, of March 28, 1884, stated that this government had no objection to such taxes being charged to · United States citizens if they shall also be impartially levied upon foreigners in Egypt as well as upon the inhabitants who owe it allegiance. "With this explanation I now enclose to you a copy of a further note from Mr. West of the 19th ultimo, stating that the decree of the Egyptian government for the house tax on foreigners has been modified in accordance with the financial declaration signed at London, March 17 last, and been submitted to the several powers represented at Cairo. The assent of this government is therefore invoked. "You will accordingly examine the decree in question and if it should appear to be the wish of the Khedive's government that we should assent, and if on such examination the proposed measure should be found unobjectionable and involve no discrimination |