The San Francisco call., 1897-07-03
Secretary Gives Rea-
sons Why Hawaii May
Be Annexed.
Nothing in the Treaty That Is
Prejudicial to the
Japanese.
Union OF the Islands to This Coun-
try Long Considered a Neces-
sary Contingency.

WASHIN GTON, D. c., July I'm his
reply to Minister Hoshlso's formal pro-
test, Secretary Sherman, under date of
June 25, reciies Japan's reasons for oppos-
ing annexation, which are as follows:
First, that the maintenance of the
status quo of Hawaii is essential to
the good understanding of the powers
which have interests in the Pacific;
second, that the annexation of Hawaii
would tend to endang.r certain rights of
Japanese subjects inHawaii under treaties !;
third, that such annexation might lead
to the postponement by Hawaii of the set
tlement of claims and liabilities already
ex sling in favor of Japan under treaty
stpuiations.
Contin uing, Sherman says: This re-
cital of grounds OF protest is of itself proof
that your Government has misappre-
hended the statements and assurances
contained in my note OF the 10th inst,
and in its relation to the treaty the question
involved strongly suggests confusion be-
tween formal stipulations of treaties and
vested rights which subjects of one coun-
try may acquire in another under treaty
or law OF the land. The principle of pub
lie law whereby existing treaties OF a
state may cease upon its Incorporation
into another state is well defined by Hal
lock, who says:
But obliga ations OF treaties, even when some
OF their stlpulations are in terms perpetual.
expire in case either of the contracting g
pa rites loses lis existence as an dependent
state or in case its international situation Is so
changed as to render the treaty inapplicable
to the new condition of things.
1t is contended that these conditions
necessarily attend annexation. The ad-
mission of Texas and Frances absorption
of Madagascar are cited 10 show that the
treaties terminated as soon as the inde-
pendent states ceased to exist. 1t is
pointed ont that the Hawaiian treaty pro-
poses the extension OF United States trea-
ties to replace Hawaiian obligations.
Sherman contends that there is nothing
in the treaty prejudicial 10 Japan. OF the
point that the maintenance OF Hawaii 8
statu quo is essential to the good under
standing of the powers having interests
in the Pacific, Sherman says:
Through three-quarters of a century
one essential feature of the status quo has
been the predominant influence of the
United States, and that the union
of that island to the United States
has been recognized as neces-
sary contingency. Four years ago
when similar project OF annexation fol-
lowed the Hawaiian. revolution the occa-
sion for maintaining the status quo was
not even suggested by any power having
interests in the Pacific. This Government
cannot be expected to admit that any such
occasion has since arisen, nor that the
projected more perfect union of Hawaii 10
the United States, by which the progress
siYe policies and depende ssociations
oi seventy years have their destined cul-
mination, can injare any legitimate in
terests of other powers in the Pacific.
I'm thus revie wing the protest you pre-
sent it gives me pleasure to say that
welcome its frank and friendly spirit. So
far as you take occasion to deny what you
aptly call a mschievous suggestion
or report that japan has designs against
Hawaii, | gladly assure you that such de-
Mai is entirely unnecessary, ihasmuch as
this Government cannot for an instant
doubt. the sincerity and friendliness OF
Japan in all that concerns her relations
to the United States and Hawaii"