Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-16
AS TO PEARL RIVER.
Ex-senator Edmunds' Views on the
Rights Of the United States.
THE GRANT WAS AN ABSOLUTE One
And We Have Exclusive Dominion
Over This River.
THE KEY TO THE PACIFIC

Ex-senator Edmunds of Vermont, who is
the author of the amendment to the Ha-
waiian reciprocity treaty by which the
United States acquired Pearl River harbor
as coaling station, today gave an inter
view upon the rights of the United States
| to that station. He said:
Il am sorry to see that Senator Lodge
appears from newspaper reporcs 10 be un-
der the impression that the grant Of Pearl
| River harbor by the Hawaiian government
| to the United States was lmiteI only to
seven years. during which Hawaiian su
gar, ETC., were to be introduced into the
United States duty free. And I am sur
prised at what is reported to be the con-
tention of President Dole to the same effect.
l regret that proceedings of the Senate in
considering and ratifying the last conven-
ton with Hawaii have not been made pub
lie. but without violating any duty Of conf
dence l can say that the convention was
agreed upon between Mr.. Frelilghuysen
and Mr.. Carter, the Hawaiian minister, on
December T. 1884, and soon afterward sent
to the Senate for consideration. The Senate
did not advise the ratification until January
~, 1887. Evidently there was ..ircIlty in
the Senate in respect of allowing further
Introduction Of free sugar, and that ii last,
lOT some reason WHICH all not y
to state the details of. the Senate agreed to
ratify, with one most important additional
clause, which appears as article = OF the
convention, as published in he statutes.
That article is in these words:
His majesty, the King OF the Hawaiian
Isle nds, grants to the government of the
United States the exclusive right to enter
the harbor of Pearl river, in the Island or
Oahu, and to establish and maintain there
a coaling and repair station for the use of
vessels of the United States, and to that
end the United States may improve the en-
trance to said harbor, and do all other
things needful to the purpose aforesaid.
Positive and Unlimited Grant.
1T will be seen that it was a positive and
unlimited grant in present. from one poiit-
ical community having perpetual existence
to another, and therefore necessarily both
in its literal and general sense a perpetual
right, which became then and forever the
absolute and exclusive property of the
United States. This is familiar law to
every lawyer and publicist.
The only contention of President Dole
and the only suggestion of Senator Lodge,
appears to be that On the exchange of rati-
hcatlons between Mr.. Secretary Bayard
and Minister Carter on the 9th of Novem-
Der. 1881, Mr.. Bayard stated that he un-
derStood the meaning of the article to be
that IL was to expire with the expiration of
the sugar part of the convention. But 1t is
que 10 Mr. Bayard TO say that he told Mr.
carter that he had no right whatever TO
pace any construction upon the article or
IN any manner to change its effect Both
lF. bdyard and Mir. Carter, as well as
lhelr respective governments were un-
uouDtedly familiar with the principles and
precedents Of public law and international
intercourse on the subject, which can be
found stated in Lawrence edition of
Nheaton's International Law, pp 454, 1856
ana notes. There had been repeated occa-
sions when other powers had endeavored
on the exchange of ratincations to place
particular Interpretation upon some parts
OF treaties, and in all of which the repre-
sentatives of the United States had stated
as they were clearly bound to do that they
had no power 10 say anything or do any
thing which could, in the slightest degree
aHect the meaning and scope of the words
That the Senate had agreed upon And for
TINS reason when In lS4g President Polk
sent to Congress the treaty with Mexic.on
May 20 1913, he did not send the confer
encss ana so-called protocol that had taken
pace on ire exchange of ratifiCations for
tue reason that had the protocol varied the
treaty, as amended by the Senate IL would
have had no binding effect
The United States Has Exclux;x. m
minion.
II Is certain therefore, that the United
states has and will continue to have ,,r,il
they choose to part with.tt (Which T hove
VIII never occur the absolute and eyc1u-
slve dominion of Pearl river harbor for tba
purposes named in the article have MOI
toned. Whether the United States will
be guilty of a moral wrong in innos;ne
duties on Hawaiian sugar &c, before the
expiration or the convention upon the pro1,-
er notice of twelve months aftar next NJ
Vember Is quite different natter. and
10 winch, of course, there can lie only one
answer. But that now and hereafter.
whatever else may happen the United
states are the lawful masters of the kew NJ
the Pacinc is a fact which all nations in
teiested should perfectly understand: for
eearl river harbor in the posscsson Of o,r
government for the PURPOSES ramad ,,i,ss
us that mastery
Does the remission Of Iuties on sugars
from other countries in any way invalfdate
the Hawaiian treaty." was asked
NO, II does not i'll the least Hawaii has
no rlght to complain of anything either in
imposing or taking off duties upon the
products OF other countries
Senator Davis Opinion.
Senator Davis of Minnesota, q member
Of the committee on foreign relations
speaking Of the Hawaiian treaty. and tho
effect its abrogation would have upon The
rights acquired by the United States a,
Pearl river harbor, said: There is a differ
ence of opinion upon this point. but it's a
fact that the rights of the United STATES
70 fearl river harbor are secure, whether
the treaty Is abrogated or not. Ii is an
executive grant and cannot he set aside
me same question came up betwaen this
country and Great Britain over the treaty
IN reIatIon to the three-nile limit of tie
hsheres. The treaty was aprogaIed, ard
Great Britain wanted that portion in re-
iation to the three-nlile limit set aside
but we came in with the claim that the
grant was executed and became a vested
right.
senator Davis was asked what effect the
tGrin bill repeating the Mckinley law
would nave upon the reciprocity treaties
executed IN lou .,,I bN q
opinion that the treaties would fall with
the law under which they were negotiated
Changes in Senate Committee Clerks