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 outery 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. 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 |