5 of the treaty between the United States and Hayti of November 3, 1864, which expressly declares that citizens of the United States in Hayti shall not be compelled "to pay any contributions whatever higher or other than those that are or may be paid by native citizens."

Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, Oct. 11, 1897,
For. Rel. 1898, 389, 390, citing Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett,
min. to Hayti, No. 261, March 13, 1876, and Mr. Gresham, Sec. of
State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, No. 7, Nov. 27, 1893.

See, also, Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti,
Nov. 2, 1897, For. Rel. 1898, 392, and Mr. Day, Acting Sec. of State,
to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, Dec. 2, 1897, For. Rel. 1898, 395.

In a dispatch to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, of May 5, 1898, Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, reported that the question had been "definitely and satisfactorily adjusted" in favor of the contention of the United States. (For. Rel. 1898, 399-402. See, also, id. 387 et seq.)

The Haytian government having adopted a new license law, which provided that foreigners should apply to the President of Hayti for licenses on stamped paper costing four gourdes, and that the licenses should be delivered on stamped paper costing fifteen gourdes, the American minister at Port au Prince protested against the law as contravening Article V. of the treaty of 1864. His action was approved, and he was instructed to renew his protest. The law clearly involved, said the Department of State, "a discrimination in matters of trade against American citizens in favor of Haytian citizens, and is therefore in violation of the stipulations of Article V.”

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, No. 276, Dec. 5, 1898, MS. Inst.
Hayti, IV. 94.

The purpose and extent of Art. V. were explained by Mr. Fish, Secretary
of State, in an instruction to the American minister at Port au
Prince, No. 261, March 13, 1876. See, also, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of
State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, Nov. 27, 1893, For. Rel. 1894, 349.

XXII. ITALY.

§ 844.

The question of immigration, including the padroni system and the protection of Italian immigrants against it, and the consular inspection of emigrants at Naples, is discussed in For. Rel. 1894, 367– 369; For. Rel. 1898, 406-409, 411-418.

"You say, 'My government supposes you would like to continue. a common reciprocity in Italian ports not mentioned in the convention [of Feb. 8, 1868], which is, that your consuls be notified by the Italian authorities of certain visits they are sometimes compelled to make on board American merchant vessels. Hoping you will give the Federal authorities instructions to grant these reciprocal favors to Italian consuls, my government will not fail to issue similar in

structions to the proper authorities in Italy. In health visits to an arriving ship and in many other customary visits, where the consul's presence could be of no use such notice is not necessary.'

"In regard to this point, the visits which I understand you to mean are such visits as are made where the search of a merchant vessel, for fiscal purposes, is instituted by the local authorities in the ports of either party.

"It is in regard to these visits that you suggest that the consul of the nation whose flag the vessel bears shall be notified of the intended visit.

"I have the honor to say that the suggestion seems a very suitable one, and that the proper instructions will be given to the collectors of customs in the ports of the United States to comply with the request of the Italian government, with the understanding that reciprocal proceedings will be adopted by that government.

"With what may seem to you extreme caution I am to inform you that the assurances given in this letter are only assurances which this Department makes for itself, and cannot be taken as constituting a part of a consular treaty for modifying its provisions."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cerruti, Sept. 15, 1868, MS. Notes to
Italy, VII. 27.

The consular convention of Feb. 8, 1868, above referred to, was termi-
nated Sept. 17, 1878. (Treaty Vol. (1776–1878), 1234.)

The word "officers" in Art. XIII., line 2, of the convention of Feb. 8, 1868, relating to the recovery of deserters, includes the captain of a ship. This view is concurred in by both governments.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cerruti, Sept. 15, 1868, MS. Notes to
Ital. Leg. VII. 27.

This treaty was terminated Sept. 17, 1878. (Treaty Volume (1776-1887).
1234.)

The words "infamous punishment" (peines infamantes), in par. 8. Art. II. of the extradition convention of March 23, 1868, "are to be understood as applying to the reciprocal description of punishment for crimes prevailing in Italy just as it is expressed in the text of the Italian code. This opinion of the Department, however, must not be understood as legally modifying the language of the convention."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cerruti, Sept. 15, 1868, MS. Notes to
Italy, VII. 29.

Jan. 21, 1869, a convention was concluded, amending the paragraph in
question by adding to the words "subject to infamous punishment
the words " according to the laws of the United States, and criminal
punishment according to the laws of Italy."

The treaty between the United States and Italy of Feb. 26, 1871, secures (Art. I.) to American vessels the same rights and exemptions as are enjoyed by Italian vessels, as well as (Art. XXIV.) mostfavored-nation treatment.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, Dec. 6, 1887, 166 MS. Dom. Let. 281, transmitting copy of a dispatch from the American minister at Rome, No. 167, Oct. 15, 1887, with enclosures.

Art. III. of the treaty between the United States and Italy of February 26, 1871, requires merely equality of treatment, and that the same rights and privileges be accorded to a citizen of Italy that are given to the United States under like circumstances. This requirement applies to criminal procedure.

Storti v. Mass. (1901), 183 U. S. 138.

The question of the Holy See is elsewhere discussed.

Supra, §§ 18, 45.

As to the question of the withdrawal of the exequatur of the pontifical
consul at New York, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Baron Blanc,
Italian min., June 24, 1876, MS. Notes to Italy, VII. 301; same to
same, July 18, 1876, id. 306; Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Osborn,
circular, April 3, 1877, MS. Inst. Argentine Republic, XVI. 117.

As to the Propaganda and the American College at Rome, see H. Ex.
Doc. 143, 48 Cong. 1 sess.; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Baron
Fava, Ital. min., June 28, 1884, MS. Notes to Italy, VIII. 85.

XXIV. JAPAN.

1. EARLY ATTEMPTS TO NEGOTIATE.

§ 845.

"Edmund Roberts, a sea captain of Portsmouth, N. H., was named by President Jackson his agent for the purpose of examining in the Indian Ocean the means of extending the commerce of the United States by commercial arrangements with the powers whose dominions border on those seas.' He was ordered on the 27th of January, 1832, to embark on board of the United States sloop-ofwar the Peacock,' in which he was to be rated as captain's clerk.' On the 23d of the following July he was told to be very careful in obtaining information respecting Japan, the means of opening a communication with it, and the value of its trade with the Dutch and Chinese,' and that when he should arrive at Canton he would probably receive further instructions. He had with him blank letters of credence, and on the 28th of October, 1832, Edward Livingston, Secretary of State, instructed him that the United States had it in contemplation to institute a separate mission to Japan,' but that if he should find the prospect favorable he might fill up one

of his letters and present himself to the Emperor for the purpose of opening trade."

Davis' Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1346. See, also, H. Doc. 138, 28
Cong. 2 sess., proposing a mission to Japan in the interest of
American commerce.

In case Roberts went to Japan he was directed not to go in a national
vessel, which could not submit to the indignity of being disarmed,
as foreign vessels were required to do in Japanese ports, a "degrad-
ing custom" with which a Russian frigate, it was said, had "con-
descended to comply." He might charter a coasting vessel, which the
Peacock might convoy. (S. Ex. Doc. 59, 32 Cong. 1 sess. 63.)
Roberts in March, 1833, concluded a treaty of amity and commerce with
Siam, and in the following September a similar treaty with the
Sultan of Muscat. His mission was prematurely ended by his death.
See, generally, Foster's American Diplomacy in the Orient, a work of
great interest and merit. See, also, Early American Visitors to
Japan, by Charles W. Stewart, in Proceedings of the United States
Naval Institute, XXXI. 945; Moore, American Diplomacy, 120 et seq.

In 1845 Alexander Everett, when he went as commissioner to China, took with him a full power to negotiate with Japan. At this time. only the Chinese and the Dutch were allowed to trade with that country. The Dutch had a factory at Nagasaki, and were allowed to fit out one ship a year from Batavia for that port. Every third year they were permitted to dispatch an embassy from Nagasaki to Yeddo.

Mr. Everett proceeded to Macao in the U. S. S. Columbus, Commodore James Biddle commanding. Commodore Biddle was instructed to ascertain whether the ports of Japan were accessible, and, if Mr. Everett should incline to endeavor to gain access to them, to hold the squadron at his disposition for that purpose. Should he decline to do so, Commodore Biddle was authorized to " persevere in the design, yet not in such a manner as to excite hostile feeling, or a distrust of the Government of the United States." Mr. Everett did not go to Japan, but transferred his full power to the Commodore. The latter, on the Columbus, accompanied by the Vincennes, anchored in the Bay of Yeddo July 20, 1846. The Japanese surrounded the ships during the whole of their stay. Biddle gave a Japanese officer who came on board, accompanied by a Dutch interpreter, a written statement of the object of his visit. This letter was sent to Yeddo, and an answer was sent refusing access for trade and ordering Biddle away. Biddle consented to go on board a Japanese junk to receive the Emperor's reply, which proved to have no address or signature and to be rude in terms. And when he first attempted to step on board a Japanese gave him a blow or push which threw him back into his boat. Biddle demanded, through the interpreter, that the man be seized, and he then returned to his ship. He was followed on board by the interpreter and some Japanese officers, who declared

that they were not expecting his visit and therefore were not on deck and that they would have the man severely punished. It has been said that this affair produced a very bad effect, as the Japanese spread the report that they had not only refused to treat, but had inflicted an indignity on the American officer.

S. Ex. Doc. 59, 32 Cong. 1 sess. 64, 66 et seq.

66

An interesting and instructive account of Commodore Biddle's expedition
has lately been given by Rear-Admiral S. B. Luce, who was a mid-
shipman on Commodore Biddle's flagship, the Columbus. Admiral
Luce repels the report that soon afterwards became current, largely
through its publication by the United States government, that the
expedition produced an unfavorable impression. He calls attention
to the injunction laid upon Commodore Biddle not to excite "a hos-
tile feeling, or a distrust of the government of the United States,"
and says:
Commodore Biddle was careful to carry out the spirit
of his instructions, and from his report to his government it may be
readily seen that by his courtesy and conciliatory bearing toward
the Japanese officials a most favorable impression was made and one
which could not fail of predisposing them to look with favor on
those Americans who might subsequently visit Japan." Admiral
Luce also speaks of the “able and tactful manner" in which Com-
modore Biddle's negotiations were conducted. (Commodore Biddle's
Visit to Japan in 1846, by Rear-Admiral S. B. Luce, U. S. Navy,
Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, XXXI. 555.) See,
also, Early American Visitors to Japan, by Charles W. Stewart, id.
945.

A French squadron, under Admiral Cécile, made an unsuccessful attempt,
about the same time as Commodore Biddle, to open negotiations with
the Japanese, but had a displeasing reception. It was surrounded
from the time of its arrival at Nagasaki by armed boats, and was not
allowed to communicate with the shore. It remained only twenty-
four hours. The erroneous report was spread that the French were
fired upon and subjected to other violence. (S. Ex. Doc. 59, 32 Cong.
1 sess. 67.)

January 27, 1849, Commodore David Geisinger reported from the U. S. S. Plymouth, then at Whampoa, that he had instructed Commander Glynn to proceed in the Preble to Nagasaki and inquire into the case of the wreck of the American whaler Lagoda on the Japanese coast, and demand the release of the survivors of the crew, who were detained by the Japanese authorities. Commander Glynn found that the men were deserters, but he obtained their release. Besides, as the result of his visit, he took an active interest in urging another effort to open intercourse with Japan. He reported that the time was favorable for entering upon a negotiation. He arrived at New York January 3, 1851, in the Preble, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that to his representations the sending out soon afterwards of the expedition under Commodore Aulick is largely to be ascribed. In a letter to the President on June 10, 1851, the day on which Au