The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-07-04

NEW YORK. July "A special 70 the
Tribune from Washington gives the fol-
lowing text o. Secretary Shsrnan's answer
10 JSPan's protest against the anneNaTs' :
or Hawaii by the United States, Alter
quoting the grounds on which Japan made
It's protest. the secretary says;
This recital is OF Itself proof shat your
government mas nllSa rpreiiendea the state
Hents and assurances contained in nay
note. ana N It's relation IN the Treaty aueS-
non involved strongly suggests confusion
between the formal stipuistsens Of treat
les and the vested rights which the sub
lsctS OF one country MAY acquire IN an
other under the treaty or the law or the
land. The principle OF public law whereby
the existing treaties of a state cease upIa
Its incorporation into another state - Tes
denned oy Halleck, who says; But ine
ootisations OF treaties. even where some 81
their stlpulations are in terms perpetual.
expire IN case either Of the contracting
parties loses lis existence as an independ-
emit state. or IN case It's internal constito-
ton IS 50 changed as 20 render the treaty
inappiscable 20 the new condition OF
things "
Continuing. the secretary says:
No question concerns the union OF TWO
states whereby one ceases 10 exist ana be-
comes merged in the body polite OF the
o!her The history Of Earope 81 America,
from remote periods TO our OWN day. where
inde pendent states have ceased 10 be sleh
through constrained or voluntary ahsofp-
OF their former treaties with other states.
X needs no stipulation in a forna. an
nexation treaty TO work this result for II
attends de facto annexation however ac-
cOmpliShed The fofclbie incorporation OF
Hanover into the Prussian Kingdom IN
stantiy destroyed previous Hanoverlan
treaties. The admission OF Texas 10 state
hood by joint resolution extnsaished the
treaties of the independent republic OF
Texas. The recent French law declaring
Madagascar 10 be Il colony OF France eAu-
ma for ~ hat
II is the fact. not the manner. OF absorb
ton. that determines treaties. 1t does not
even follow that the existing treaties q
the absorbing state extend 10 the acquired
territory. The treaties OF the German en-
pre- are held not 10 apply 10 the coded
French PROVINCES OF Alsace and Lorraine.
What the Hawaiian treaty of anneXa-
ton proposes is the extension OF the urea
ties OF the United States 20 the Incorporate
ed territory 70 replace the necessarily eN-
tinguished Hawaiian treaties in order tina,
the guarantees OF treaty rights TO all may
be unquesfionahie and continuous. To this
end. the termination of the existing trea
ties ~ Hawaii IS reCiied as a condition
precedent. The treaty of annexation does
not abrogate these Instruments. II is tho
fact of Hawaifs ceasing to exist as an in
dependent power that eXtinguishes those
contracts.
LAS 10 the vested rights. if any be estab-
lished. in favor of Japan and of Japanese
subjects In Hawaii. the case is different.
and | repeat that there is nothing preju-
Treaties are terminable In n variety OF
ways. That of 1855 between Japan and
Hawaii, 10 which Your protest is supposed
10 relate, is renouncihe by either party on
six months notice, but its extension would
no more extinguish vested rights previous
~ acquired under its stipulations than the
repeal OF municipal law affects the prop
erty vested under Its provisions.
LAS TO the point that the maintenance
OF the status quo of Hawaii is essential 10
the good understanding OF the powers
which have interests In the Pacific Il is
sufficient 70 remark that as a fact.
through three-qusrtrrS of a century. IN
which the constitution and government OF
Hawaii and the commerce OF the islands
with the world have undergone notable
changes. the one essential feature of the
status quo has been the permanent and
paramount influence of the United states
upon the fortunes Of the group. and that
the union Of the island territory 10 tho
United States. often foreshadowed and n
times taking tangible shape. has been rec
ognized as a contingency drawing nearer
year by year with the passage or events.
-Four years ago. when similar project
of annexation followed the Hawaiian rev.
olution. the occasion for maintaining the
status quo was not even suggested by any
power having interests In the Pacific This
government cannot be expected 10 pro-
claim or admi, that any such occasion has
since arisen. just as II can neither intend
nor admit that the projected annexation
OF Hawaii 10 the United States, by which
the progressive policies and dependent as
sociationS OF some seventy years nave
eliminated. can injure any legitimate in
feresis of other powers In the Pacific. That
IL will tend 90 strengthen. develop and
perpeiuate such commonly beneficial In
tcrests Is. on The contrary, Ia be expected.
I'm thus reviewing the protest YOU pre-
sent. IL gives me pleasure 10 say that |
welcome its frank and friendly spirit So
far as YOU take occasion 10 deny what yoi
aptiy call the miscellaneous Sugge stton ar
report that Japan has designs against thc
integrity or sovereignty Of Hawaii | am
glad 20 assure you that such denial was
entirely unnecessary. inasmuCh as this
government has not doubted and cannot
for an instant doubt. the sincerity and
fricndiness of Japan I'm all that concerns
h,r relations ~ the United States and the
Hawaiian islands"