Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-07-03
PROTEST REGARDING ANNEXATION
Maintenance of the Status Quo in
Hawaii.
A NOVEL PROPOSITION

swered In the negative a direct inquiry az
10 whether such negotiations were in pro-
sress. There would be apparently SO little
reason In slch a course, however that IL
Is not believed that the minister contem-
plates retiring from this country. So far
as the State Department and the foreign
relations committee of the Senate know
tfere Is no friction between the representa-
tiVes of this country and the Japanese gov
ernment, or Its minister at Washington,
ara at the Japanese legation II has been
repeatedly stated that there was no irrita-
ton on the part of Japan toward the Unit
ed States
1t is well understood that th. formal pro-
test against the annexation of Hawaii
made by the japanese minister on behalf
OF MS government cannot affect anything.
and IL Is not to be supposed that there was
any anticipation that il would.
1t is not to he supposed that Japan will
attempt to enforce tie protest. The reply
of Secretary Sherman to this protest "a
fully IN accord with the ideas of tho mat
ter entertained by the members of the for
eign relations committee and of Others in
Congress who are informed as TO interna-
tional NATTER.
1t is generally held as a matter not sub-
Ject to dispute that treaties between tso
countries fail when one party TO the treaty
ceases TO be an independent nation, and
mat only the rights that have grown up
under the treaty must be recognized. Ii is
not thought that Japan can seriously con-
lend for anything different
A New Proposftion.
The proposition that the maintenance OF
the status quo of Hawaii is essential to
the good understanding of the powers
which have interests in the Pacific is an
entirely new proposition, and one that is
not believe will be pressed
Mr.. Sherman's reply to this has the con-
| currence of the International authorities IN
Congress. and the sentiment in both houses
would probably sustain it without a single
voice to the contrary.
1t is generally agreed that The suRRes-
| uon that there might be Interference by
the powers to preserve the status quo in
Hawan would practically soldity the SEN
| ument OF Congress In favor of speedy an
-nexation-e The only Opposition there In
based on expediency and a suggestion of
| foreign Interference with Hawaii is SUM-
| cient to settle the question OF expediency
| in favor Of annexation.
Secretary sherman's Reply.
Secretary Sherman's reply was as fol-
| lows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, June 25 1897
Sir: have the honor to acknowledge tho
receipt OF your note Of the 10Th instant,
whereby you acqusint me with the views
entertained by your government in regard
to the proposed annexation of the Hawaiian
Islands to the United States, and under In
structio1s from your government you
make formal protest against annexation
en- tte grounds:
First-That the maintenance of the status
quo of Hawaii Is essential to the good
understanding of the powers which have in
terests in the Pacific
Second-That the annexation of Hawaii
would tend to endanger certain rights OF
Japanese subjects in Hawaii under the
treaties. constitution and laws of that
country; and,
Third-That such annexation might lead
to the postponement by Hawaii of the set
tlement Of claims and liabilities already ex-
listing in favor of Japan under treaty stipu-
lations.
This recital of the grounds of protest is
Of itself proof that your government has
Inexperienced the statements and as
surances contained in my note of the 18th
instant, and, in its relation to the treaty
question involved. strongly suggests confu-
sion between the formal stipula tions OF
treaties and the vested rights which the
subjects of one country may acquire in an
other 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 Halleck who says:
But the obligations of treaties. even
where some of their stipula tlons are in
terms perpetual, expire in case either OF
the contracting parties loses its existence
as an independent state, or in case its in
ternal constitution is so changed as TO
condition of tbings."-(Halleck's Int. Law.
Ch. Is, Sec 35)
Precedents Cited.
So also Wheaton, in the 215th section OF
his Elements in International Law. Both
of the stated conditions necessarily attend
the annexation of one state. or of its terri
tory, to another. Vattel went further, hold
ing in effect that even a partial loss Of
sovereignty, as in the case of alliance,
causes the ancient treaties to fall IL incom-
patible with such alliance. This, however.
is a refinement not necessary TO examine
here. The question concerns the abso-
lutte 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 world. is full OF
examples. from remote periods to our own
days, where independent states have ceased
to be such through constrained or volun-
tary absorption by another, with attendant
extinction of their former treaties with
other states. 1t needs no stipulation in q
formal annexation treaty to work this re-
suit, for It attends de facto annexation,
however accomplished. The forcible in
corporation of Hanover into the PrussIan
kingdom IL stantly destroyed previous Han
cverian treaties. The admission Of Texas
to statehood in our Union by joint resolu-
tion extinguished the treaties of the inde-
pendent republic OF Texas. The recent
French law declaring Madagascar to be q
colony of France ended the former treaties
of that kir gdom. II ia the fact. not the
manner. of absorption that determines
treaties. 1t does not even follow that tho
existing treaties of the absorbing state ex- /
tend to the acquired territory. The treaties
cf the German empire are held not to apply
to the ceded French provinces OF Alsace and
Lorraine.
What the Hawaiian treaty of annexation
proposes is the extension Of the treaties OF
the Uni,ed States to the Incorporated terri
tory to replace the necessarily extinguished
Hawaiian treaties, in order that the guar
antees Of treaty rights to all may be un-
Questionable and continuous. To this end.
the termination Of the existing treaties OF
Hawaii is recited a condition precedent.
The treaty OF annexation does not abrogate
those instruments; II is the fact of Hawah's
ceasing to exist an independent con-
tractant that extinguishes these contracts.
Treaties varfously Terminated.
As to the vested rights, IL any be es-
tablished, In favor OF japan or Of Japa-
neee subjects in Hawaii. the case is diff
forenf and I reneaf What 4 aaid In INV