power asserting such exclusive jurisdiction, and, in short, that the equality of their tenancy jointly with others, or the validity of their tenancy where they may be the sole occupants, shall be admitted according to the established principles of equity and justice." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, Feb. 27, 1886. MSS. Inst., Germ. "Nowhere were justice and the rights of the native inhabitants more cynically regarded than in Samoa by the great German trading firms. The people of that group belong to the finest of the Polynesian races. They are all nominally Christians, and have never deserved the title of 'savage' except in its acceptation of not civilized.' Unhappily tribal animosities and the machinations of interested and unscrupulous white men led to a series of wars. The combatants were anxious to procure fire-arms, and the traders declined to sell them except for land. The result was that between 1869 and 1872 not less than 100,000 acres passed into German ownership at a virtual cost of a few pence per acre. For much, not even this consideration was given. The ignorant natives were deluded into signing documents which they could not, in the least, understand, and which were held to give the white occupiers a secure title. At present the German land claims in Samoa comprise 232,000 acres. British subjects claim not less than 357,000. There is, however, this important difference between the positions of the German and the British claimants; the former have so far made their claims effective that they occupy and cultivate just as much of the soil as they can work, whilst the latter's exist only on paper and are not insisted on by our Government. The preservation of the native races, whose diminution is hastened by the labor trade, is of vital importance to the white settlers in Oceania. England has attempted to protect the isl anders, but not very successfully. Certain alterations in the law have been recommended, but it is doubtful if these, should they be made, will effect much. We concur with Baron Hübner in thinking that the only remedy is to be looked for in some international agreement, 'the terms of which should apply to all mankind living or moving in the archipelagoes or regions of the Western Pacific.' The precedent of Apia in Samoa is encouraging. That town and the immediate neighborhood are governed by a municipal board under the joint supervision of the consuls of Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. It still forms part of the dominions of the King of Samoa, but the administration is in the hands of the municipality and the consuls.'" Edinburgh Rev., (July, 1886,) 87, 92. As to title to Christmas Island, situated in the Pacific Ocean, see Mr. Evarts, As to American Missions in the Caroline Islands, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, same. As to seizure by British Government of Tigre Island in the Gulf of Fonseca, Central America, see message of President Fillmore, of July 22, 1850, with accompanying papers, House Ex. Doc. No. 75, 31st Cong., 1st sess. (8) COREA. § 64. The independence of Corea of China is to be regarded by the United Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, Aug. 4, 1882. MSS. Inst., "The existence of international relations between the two countries (the United States and Corea), as equal contracting parties, is to be viewed simply as an accepted fact." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, June 9, 1883. Ibid. "The United States, as you are aware, were the first western power to conclude a treaty with Corea. By reason of this fact, and perhaps to give greater emphasis to the friendship so happily initiated, the Corean Government sought the introduction into the treaty of the provision on which this application rests. It was admitted by us as evidence of our impartial desire to see the independence and peace of Corea well established. The second clause of Article I of the treaty of May 22, 1882, between the United States and Corea, reads thus: "If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Govern ment, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.' "Except that the provision is made reciprocal, it follows the phraseology of Article I of our treaty of 1858 with China. "This Government could not, of course, construe the engagement thus entered into as empowering or requiring us to decide and maintain that the acts in respect to which good offices are desired are, in fact, unjust and oppressive. Such a construction would naturally render nugatory any attempt to derive good results from the engagement." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, Aug. 19, 1885. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. See a series of interesting dispatches from Mr. Foulk, chargé d'affaires ad interim, at Corea, in For. Rel., 1885. (9) FALKLAND ISLANDS. § 65. The Government of the United States will protect citizens of the United States having fishing rights on the Falkland Islands from the interference of parties claiming under Buenos Ayres. Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baylies, Jan. 26, 1832. Ibid. MSS. Inst., Am. Vessels of the United States visiting the Falkland Islands have in them "customary privileges," which ought not to be abridged by arbitrary decrees of the British Government. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, Sept. 27, 1854. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. Islands, in 1854, of the ship Hudson and schooner Washington, are given The correspondence with Buenos Ayres with respect to the Falkland Islands will be found in the Br. and For. St. Pap. for 1832-23, vol. 20, 312. "The Argentine Government has revived the long dormant question of the Falkland Islands, by claiming from the United States indemnity for their loss, attributed to the action of the commander of the sloop-of-war Lexington in breaking up a piratical colony on those islands in 1831, and their subsequent occupation by Great Britain. In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington, and the derelict condition of the islands before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonists, this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless." President Cleveland, First Annual Message, 1835. "The right of the Argentine Government to jurisdiction over it (the territory of the Falkland Islands), being contested by another power (Great Britain), and upon grounds of claim long antecedent to the acts of Captain Duncan which General Alvear details, it is conceived that the United States ought not, until the controversy upon the subject between those two Governments shall be settled, to give a final answer to General Alvear's note, involving, as that answer must, under existing circumstances, a departure from that which has hitherto been considered as the cardinal policy of this Government." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to General Alvear, Dec. 4, 1841; quoted by Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Quesada, Mar. 18, 1886. MSS. Notes, Arg. Rep. "This Government is not a party to the controversy between the Argentine Republic and Great Britain; and it is for this reason that it has delayed, with the tacit consent of the former, a final answer to its demands. For it is conceived that the question of the liability of the United States to the Argentine Republic for the acts of Captain Duncan, in 1831, is so closely related to the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, that the decision of the former question would inevitably be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the merits of the latter. Such an expression it is the desire of this Government to avoid, so far as an adequate reference to the points of argument presented in the notes recently addressed to this Department on the behalf of your Government will permit. * "As the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been [CHAP. III. previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation. "If the circumstances had been different, and the acts of the British Government had been in violation of that doctrine, this Government could never regard its failure to assert it as creating any liability to another power for injuries it may have sustained in consequence of the omission. * "But it is believed that, even if it could be shown that the Argentine Republic possesses the rightful title to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, there would not be wanting ample grounds upon which the conduct of Captain Duncan in 1831 could be defended. "On the whole, it is not seen that the United States committed any invasion of the just rights of the Government of Buenos Ayres in putting an end in 1831 to Vernet's lawless aggressions upon the persons and property of our citizens.” Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Quesada, Mar. 18, 1886. MSS. Notes, Arg. The President, in a message to Congress, and in the correspondence carried on with the Government of Buenos Ayres, having denied the jurisdiction of that country over the Falkland Islands, the courts must take the facts to be so. Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, 13 Pet., 415. Where an officer of the Navy, without instructions from his Govern ment, seized property in the Falkland Islands, claimed by citizens of the United States, which, it was alleged, had been piratically taken by a person pretending to be governor of the islands, it was beld, that such officer had no right, without express direction from his Government, to enter the territoriality of a country at peace with the United States and seize property found there claimed by citizens of the United States. Application for redress should have been made to the judicial tribu pals of the country. Davison v. Seal-skins, 2 Paine, 324. (10) LIBERIA. "The United States are not averse to having the great powers know that they publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them and Liberia, and that they are prepared to take every proper step to maintain them. To this end, it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr. Lowell also on his return to his post from his present leave, should evince a lively interest in the movements of both Great Britain and France in the neighborhood of Liberia, without, however, showing any undue anxiety or offensive curiosity in the matter." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoppin, Apr. 21, 1880. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. As to suggested French "protectorate of Liberia," see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, Apr. 21, 1880, and preceding instructions. MSS. Inst., France. "On the 14th instant, in a conference with me, the minister of Germany at this capital stated that in October last the German steamer Carlos, Capt. P. C. Nickelsen, with a cargo from Hamburg for Lagos, via Sasstown, fell into distress on the coast of Liberia; that the natives of the coast of the "Kronbah" tribe took advantage of the helpless condition of the vessel to plunder her of the greater part of her cargo, besides robbing and maltreating her crew, who sought to escape in the vessel's life boats; and that the Liberian Government showed the sincerest wish to punish such proceedings, but declared itself unable to exert authority to that end over the lawless Kronbahs. Under these circumstances Mr. Von Schlözer said that the German Government had ordered the Victoria of the imperial navy to proceed to Liberia and there assist the Government of that Republic in the pursuit and punishment of the offenders, as a step in the general interest of all commercial nations. He at the same time asked that you might be informed of the occurrence, and of the purpose of his Government in the premises. "It is not understood that the coast-dwellers who committed this injury on a peaceable foreign vessel and her crew are unsubdued rebels to the Liberian Government, or pirates in the common international acceptation of the term; but it is inferred that they are simply lawless wreckers, outside of the prompt and efficacious control of the central Government. In this view, and to the end of securing foreign life and property from inhospitable attacks on the coast in question, it is presumed that the Liberian Government would gladly avail itself of any proper and friendly aid from without in making its own laws and power felt within its own jurisdiction. "Should the Liberian minister of state consult with you on this point in view of the attitude of advisory friendliness which this Government has constantly maintained toward that of Liberia, you are at liberty to express to him the view of the matter entertained here, adding that had the case affected an American vessel and crew, this Government would not have failed to consider in a proper spirit any request made to it by that of Liberia for aid such as Germany is now prepared to render. "It is not, however, needful for you to make any such statement in advance of the subject being brought to your attention." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth, Feb. 28, 1881. MSS. Inst., Liberia; The treaty of the United States with Liberia does not authorize or require the United States to interfere with their naval forces to preserve order or to compel obedience to law in Liberia. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smyth, July 12, 1879. MSS. Inst., Liberia. |