Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

he was desired to accomplish were understood to have been obtained by the British in their then recent treaty with Siam. The United States, it was declared, could not allow its trade with Siam to be placed on a footing inferior to that of any nation. "You will be at no loss for arguments," said the instructions to Harris, " to show the difference between the foreign policy, especially in the East, of this country and Great Britain. While the latter is herself an eastern power, and as such by the late Burmese war has since become a near neighbor of Siam, we covet no dominion in that quarter. It is undoubtedly the interest of Siam to be liberal in her commercial policy towards the United States. It is also desirable that the Christian missionaries who may resort to Siam from this country should be exempt from molestation in their sacred calling and should be allowed free scope for their labors. In asking for a stipulation which will in effect confer this privilege, you will, however, cause it to be understood that in this country there is no connection between religion and the government, and that we have no desire or intention to interfere with the Siamese policy on this subject." Mr. Harris concluded a new treaty of amity and commerce on May 29,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Annexed to it were trade regulations. The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged at Bangkok June 15, 1857. It was communicated to Congress by President Buchanan December 10, 1858, with a recommendation that legislation be adopted to carry into effect Article II. in relation to the judicial powers of the United States consul at Bangkok.

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, No. 1, Sept. 12, 1855, MS. Inst.
Japan, I. 1.

Message of President Buchanan, Dec. 10, 1858, H. Ex. Doc. 8, 35 Cong.

2 sess.

The trade regulations annexed to the treaty were amended in 1867. (Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 995-1003.)

In 1880 Mr. Sickles, United States consul at Bangkok, reported, at the request of the Siamese government, the intention of the King to visit Europe and America. Mr. Evarts, who was then Secretary of State, addressed a note to the Senate and House committees recommending an appropriation for the King's reception and entertainment and for the employment of a naval vessel to bring His Majesty from Europe to America. Before any action was taken in the matter, the King announced the postponement of his voyage to America. Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Barrett, min. to Siam, April 15, 1897, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 238.

In 1884, the President recommended to Congress an appropriation to
defray the expenses of a special embassy from Siam. (H. Ex. Doc.
137, 48 Cong. 1 sess.)

No appropriation was made, but the embassy, on its arrival in the United
States, was duly received and entertained. (For. Rel. 1884, 454-456.)

As to an alleged effort of China to resume her old suzerain power over
Siam, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Halderman, No. 8,
March 3, 1883, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 9.

Owing to remoteness of interests, unfamiliarity with the merits of the
dispute, and lack of reason to suppose that such action would be
acceptable to both parties, the United States declined the request of
Siam to tender its good offices to France in the Anam boundary ques-
tion. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Suriya, April 27, 1893,
MS. Notes to Siam, I. 2; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nuvatr,
May 18 and June 3, 1893, id. 3, 6.)

An Anglo-French agreement as to Siam, signed at London, Jan. 15, 1896, is printed in For. Rel. 1896, 139.

"An envoy from Siam has been accredited to this government and has presented his credentials." (President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

In a letter of January 5, 1900, the Secretary of State recommended an appropriation for securing legation premises at Bangkok. (H. Doc.

249, 56 Cong. 1 sess.)

As to repairs to the United States legation premises and grounds at
Bangkok, see S. Doc. 251, 56 Cong. 1 sess.

As to the donation of property at Ratburi by the King of Siam to the
American Presbyterian mission, for the establishment of a hospital,
see For. Rel. 1889, 657.

With a despatch, No. 26, of July 21, 1870, Mr. Partridge, United States consul at Bangkok, enclosed to the Department of State certain correspondence in relation to the execution of two native servants of the Rev. Messrs. Wilson and McGilvary, citizens of the United States. The Department of State declared the proceeding to have been a plain violation not only of Article I. of the treaty of 1856, which stipulates that American citizens in Siam shall receive from the government full protection and assistance to enable them to reside there in security, but also of Article V., which stipulates for the free exercise of religion and for the right of Americans to employ Siamese subjects as servants. It appeared, however, that the Siamese government had ultimately receded from the ground, which it at first assumed, that the stipulations of the treaty were not applicable to the case in question.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, No. 25, Oct. 5, 1870, 60 MS.
Desp. to Consuls, 68.

By the treaty of amity and commerce of March 20, 1833, between. the United States and Siam, the citizens of the former are forbidden to import or sell in Siam (except to the King) "munitions of war." As to the meaning of this term, "I feel clear that a nomen generalissimum, such as munitions of war,' is far more comprehensive in its operation than would be any group of specifications, no matter how exhaustive. The rule, as you well know, is that the introduction of specifications operates to limit even general terms which may precede

them, and in this view I can not but think that the terms firearms,
shot, or gunpowder,' which are quoted as used in the treaty between
Siam and Great Britain, cover a much more restricted area than
does the term munitions of war.' If, for instance, poisoned arrows
were called for in Siam as weapons likely to be peculiarly efficacious
in Siamese warfare, they would be excluded under the term ‘muni-
tions of war,' but not under those of firearms, shot, or gunpowder.'
The same might be said of preparations of dynamite. I hold, there-
fore, that the term munitions of war' gives all the protection to
Siam, as to the question at issue, that could be secured by an enumera-
tion of particulars, no matter how exhaustive.”

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, Jan. 7, 1886, MS. Inst. Gr. Brit.
XXVII. 640.

Mr. Bayard offered, however, in case Siam should make a formal applica-
tion to that effect, to adopt a new and additional stipulation declar-
ing the provisions of the treaty of 1833 as to “munitions of war" to
be still in force, and adding the words and weapons to "muni-
tions," so as to prohibit the importation, without royal assent, of all
"munitions and weapons of war."

66

[ocr errors]

In 1887 a law was agreed upon, by a committee of representatives
of the treaty powers in Siam, for the purpose of regulating the
importation and sale of spirituous liquors in that country. By Arti-
cle I. of the treaty between the United States and Siam of May 14,
1884, regulating the liquor traffic in the latter country, it was pro-
vided that beer and wines might be imported and sold by citizens of
the United States on payment of the same duty as was levied on
similar articles manufactured in Siam, but that in no case should
the import duty exceed ten per cent ad valorem, while by Article V.
of the same treaty it was stipulated that spirits, beer, wines, and spir-
ituous liquors coming from the United States should enjoy most-
favored-nation treatment. By section 4 of the law above referred to
it was provided that no spirituous liquors, except "wine and beer
actually made in Europe," should be imported or sold unless they
had paid the import or excise duty, which was fixed at 5 per cent ad
valorem. The United States made representations against the law
as proposing a clear violation of the provisions of the treaty of 1884.
The Siamese government accordingly altered the law by inserting in
section 4, after the word "Europe," the words "or in the United
States of America."

For. Rel. 1887, 972-974.

As to the discussion among the foreign diplomatic and consular repre-
sentatives in Siam of the questions whether the treaties regulating
the liquor traffic abrogated the privilege enjoyed by foreign residents
under previous treaties of importing, as provisions." liquors for
private consumption, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boyd, No.
5, March 9, 1891, MS. Inst. Siam, I. 111.

XXXVII. SPAIN.

The correspondence of Messrs. Carmichael and Short, United States ministers at Madrid in 1792, in reference to the Florida boundary, to Indian incursions aided by Spain, to commercial restraints, and to the navigation of the Mississippi, is given in 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 260, 304.

The delays of Spain in making treaty with the United States are noticed in 7 John Adams's Works, 145, 385, 389, 485, 496, 517, 520, 565, 582, 644.

The papers in respect to the negotiations by Mr. Pinckney, minister of the United States, with the Spanish ministry in 1795 are given in 1 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 535, together with the projects and counter projects.

The correspondence as to the ratification of the convention of August 11, 1802, is given in 2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 624; that connected with the boundary negotiations of 1805 in 2 Am. St. Pap. For. Rel. 613. The ratification of the treaty of 1795 is noticed in 2 Madison's Works, 73, 75, 86, 94.

1. TREATY Of October 27, 1795.

§ 883.

"From the middle of 1793 to the middle or close of 1794 the problem of preserving peace appeared to be difficult. Negotiations. Great Britain occupied military posts within the United States, on the northern frontier, and had pushed a garrison far south towards Cincinnati. Spain occupied Natchez, and proposed to support the Indians who dwelt within what are now the States of Mississippi, Alabama, and a large part of Georgia, in maintaining their independence. The Indians in the Northwest were in open hostilities. Genet set the administration at defiance in the Atlantic States, and appealed to the nation to support him. Washington solved the difficulty by asking the recall of Genet, by sending Jay to London, and by ordering Thomas Pinckney to Madrid with full power and authority 'for and in the name of the United States to meet, confer, treat, and negotiate with the ministers, commissioners, deputies, or plenipotentiaries of his said Majesty [the King of Spain], being furnished with sufficient authority of and concerning the navigation of the river Mississippi; and such other matters relative to the confines of the territories of the United States and His Catholic Majesty, and the intercourse to be had thereon, as the mutual interests and general harmony of neighboring and friendly nations require to be precisely adjusted and regulated; and of and H. Doc. 551-vol 5-54

concerning the general commerce between the United States and the Kingdoms and dominions of His Catholic Majesty; and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, thereon.' He also had a separate power to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and causes of difference subsisting between the United States and his said Majesty, relative to the instructions of his said Majesty, or of any of the tribunals or authorities of his said Majesty, to his ships of war and privateers, of whatsoever date, as well as of and concerning restitution or compensation in the cases of capture or seizure made of the property of the citizens of the United States by the said ships of war and privateers, and retribution for the injuries received therefrom by any citizen of the United States, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises.'

"Pinckney arrived in Madrid on the 28th of June, 1795. Short, who was there as chargé, had written the government that the moment was opportune for concluding a treaty. Pinckney was met at the outset by a proposal for a triple' alliance between France, Spain, and ourselves, which he declined. He also declined to guarantee the Spanish possessions in America. By the 10th of August the parties began to put their ideas on paper. The first projét for a treaty came from Spain, and was handed Pinckney by the Prince of Peace before the 23d of September. On the 27th of October the parties signed a treaty, which has formed the basis of the relations between Spain and the United States from that day to this.

"It defined the southern boundary of the United States in accordance with the definitions in the treaty with Great Britain. It conceded the navigation of the Mississippi, and gave us a right of deposit and storage for our produce at New Orleans. It embodied many of the leading commercial provisions of the previous treaties with France or Prussia. And a provision was made for a commission to terminate all differences on account of the losses sustained by the citizens of the United States, in consequence of their vessels and cargoes having been taken by the subjects of His Catholic Majesty during the late war between Spain and France.' A copy of this treaty was sent to Congress by President Washington on the 29th of March, 1796, and an act was passed to carry it into effect. Though transmitted in the midst of debate on 'Jay's treaty,' it was considered and acted on without more than a casual allusion to it in that debate, and without discussion on its own merits.

"The provisions of this treaty respecting limits and the withdrawal of garrisons had not been carried out when Louisiana was acquired by the United States, and meanwhile disputes had arisen in consequence of the arbitrary order discontinuing the right to deposit and store American produce at New Orleans, and reclamations were made

« PředchozíPokračovat »