New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-03
sHERMAN's REPLY TO JAPAN
ANSWER TO THE PROTEST AGAINST
ANNEXATION OF HAWAII.

| ANNEAAllON Op An " HAA
FULL TEXT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATES LET
TER LAID BEFORE THE FOREIGN RELATIONS
| coMMIrTEE--JAPAN'9 INTERESTS NOT
IEyAcED By THE PROPOSED UNION.
[DY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrDuSE.l
Washington July 1.-The Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations has received the full text
| Of Secretary 5herman's answer to Japan's pro-
| test against the annexation OF Hawaii by this
country. Members Of the committee are giving
serious attention to the answer In connection
with the annexation treaty and the protest OF
Minister Toru Hoshi. Secretary Sherman's
reply to the Japanese Minister Is az follows:
Department Of State, washington,-
June rs, 1897.
| Sir: have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt Of your note OF the 10th inst, whereby you
| acquaint me with the views entertained by your
| Government in regard to the proposed annexa.
States. and under instructions from your Gov
| eminent you make formal protest against an
nexation on the grounds
| First-That the maintenance Of the status quo
| of Hawaii is essential to the good understanding
| Of the Powers which have interests In the Pacihc.
Second-That the annexation Of Hawaii would
tend to endanger. certain rights OF japanese
subjects In Hawaii under the treaties. constitu-
ton and laws OF that country: and,
Third-That such annexation might lead TO
the postponement by Hawaii Of the settlement
of claims and liabilities already existing In favor
Of Japan under treaty stipulations.
This recital Of the grounds Of protest is OF IT.
self proof that your Government has misappre.
hended the statements and assurances contained
In my note of the 10Th nst and. In Its relation to
the treaty question involved, strongly suggests
confusion between the formal st!pu!ations OF
treaties and the vested rights which the subjects
of one country may acquire In another under
treaty or the law Of the land. The principle OF
public law whereby the existing treaties OF
State cease upon its Incorporation into another
State is well defined by Haleck. who says
But the obligations Of treaties. even where some
Of their stpulations are In terms perpetual expire
In case either Of the contracting parties loses Us
Internal constitution = 50 changed as e render
the naRpGas to the new seer s o.
MANY PRECEDENTs CITED.
So also Wheaton. in the 275th SECTION Of his
Elements Of International Law. Both OF the
stated conditions necessarily attend the annexa-
ton Of one State. or Of It's territory to another.
Vattel went further. holding In effect that even
partial loss Of sovereignty. as In the &c case OF
compatible with such alliance. This. however.
Is O refinement not necessary to examine here.
The question concerns the absolute union OF two
States whereby one ceases TO exist and becomes
merged In the body polite OF the other. The
history OF Europe, OF America, OF the whole
TO our own u DAYS Where independent States have
ceased to be such through constrained or volun-
tary absorption by another, with attendant ex-
tinction Of their former treaties with other
States 1t needs no stipulation In a formal an
nexation treaty to work this result for 1t attends
de facto annexation, however accomplished. The
forcible Incorporation Of Hanover into the Prus-
sian Kingdom instantly destroyed previous
Hanoverian treaties. The admission Of Texas to
Statehood In our Union by joint resolution ex-
tinguished the treaties Of the Independent Re-
public Of Texas. The recent French law declar-
Ing Madagascar TO be colony of France ended
the former treaties OF that Kingdom IT Ia the
fact not the manner OF absorption that deter
mines treaties. 1t does not even follow that the
existing treaties Of the absorbing State extend
to the acquired Territory. The treaties OF the
German Empire are held not to apply to the
coded French provinces Of Alsace and Lorraine.
What the Hawaiian treaty of annexation pro-
poses Is the extension of the treaties OF the
United States to the Incorporated territory to
replace the necessarily extinguished Hawaiian
treaties. In order that the guarantees OF treaty
rights to all may be unquestionable and continu-
ous To this end the termination OF the exist
ing treaties of Hawaii Is recited as condition
precedent. The treaty OF annexation does not
abrogate those Instruments; It Is the fact OF
Hawars ceasng to exist as an independent con-
tractant that extinguishes these contracts
AS to the vested rights. II any be established,
In favor of Japan or of Japanese subjects In
Hawaii the case is different. and repeat what
l said in my note Of the 10Th inst, that there
the rights OF Japan" Treaties are ,termnable
In a variety Of ways; that OF 1886 between Japan
and Hawaii, to which your protest Is supposed
months notice. but It's extinction would no more
extinguish vested rights previously required
under Its stipulations than the repeal OF
municipal law affects rights Of property vested
under its provisions.
ONLY GOOD RESULTS EXPECTED
These observations, am persuaded, fully meet
the second and third points OF your protest. As
TO the first point that the maintenance OF tins
status quo OF Hawaii Is essential to the good UNI
Outstanding Of the Powers which have interests
ala % rk tINnt
a fact through three-quarters of century. In
which the constitution and government OF Ha-
wall ard the commerce Of the Islands with the
world have undergone notable changes, the one
essential feature Of the status quo has been the
predominant and paramount influence OF the
United States upon the fortunes OF the group.
and that the union of that island territory to the
United States. often foreshadowed and at times
taking tangible shape. has been recognized as
q necessary contingency drawing nearer year
by year with the passage OF events. Four years
ago. when a similar project Of annexation fol-
loved the Hawaiian revolution, the occasion for
maintaining the status quo was not even sug-
gested by any Power having interests In the Pa
cifc. This Government cannot be expected to
proclaim or admit that any such occasion has
since arisen-just as 1t can neither intend nor
admit that the projected more perfect union OF
Hawaii to the United States, by which the pro.
gressive policies and dependent associations OF
some seventy years have their destined culmi.
nation can injure any legitimate interests oi
other Powers In the Pacific. That II Will tend
to strengthen. develop and perpetuate all such
commonly beneficial interests is. OH the con-
trary. to be expected.
In thus reviewing the protest you present, II
gives me pleasure to say that welcome It's
frank and friendly spirit. SO far as you take oc-
casion to deny what you aptly call 1.-The mis-
chievous suggestion or report" that japan has
designs against the integrity or sovereignty OF
Hawaii, am glad to assure you that such de-
NAL was entirely unnecessary. inasr1uch as this
Government has not doubted. and cannot for
an instant doubt. the sincerity and friendliness
Of Japan in all that concerns her relations 20
the United States and to the Hawaiian Islands.
Accept, Mr.. Minister. the renewed assurances
Of my highest consideration.
JOHN SHERMAN.
REPORTS ABOUT NORTHERN NEW-JERSEi.