The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1897-07-17
SECRETARY SHERMAN
REPLIES TO JAPAN
He Quotes History TO Demonstrate
the Weakness of Japan's
Contention,
HAWAIIAN TREATISE IS EXTINCT
Just as Soon as the Territory Bc-
cine Merged in the United
St~ntes--Treaty Docs Not Alb
rogatc Vested Rights.


New York, July 5.-.A Iribunc's
" Washington special gives thts full text
of Secretary Sllernan's answer to the
Japaicse protest against the anneNa-
ton of Hawaii by the United States.
After quoting the grounds IN which
Japan made is protest the secretary
OF state says:
This recital is of itself proof that
your government misappiehends the
statements and assurances contained
in my note and its relation to the trea,
ty question invoked, and strongly sug.
eests confusion between the formal
stipulations of treaties and vested
rights which subjects of one country
may acquire in another under treaty
or by law of the land. The principle OF
public law whereby existing treaties
of state cease upon It's incorporation
into another state is we'll defined b.
Halleck.
Continuing the secretary says: "The
question concerning tie absolute I'M
ion al two states, whereby II ceases
TO exist and become 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 inde-
pendent states have ceased to be such
through constrained or voluntary abb
sorption by another, with attendant
extinction of their former treaties
with other states. 1t needs no stipu-
lation in the informal annexation urea
tv to work this result, for it attends
dc facto the annexation, however ac-
complislled. The forcible incorpora-
.4- L.. w. ,.., -N
Kingdom instantly destroyed the pre-
vious uanoeerian treaties. The adj
mission of Texas to statehood in our
union by joint resolution distinguished
the treaties of the independent repub-
lie of Texas. \ recent French law de-
claring Madagascar to be n colony of
France ended the former treaties OF
thai kingdom. What the Ha-
waiian treaty of ~anneSationi
is the extension
of treaties of the United States to the
Incorporated territory, to replace the
necessarily eNtinguished Hawaiian
treaties in order hat guarantees of
treaty rights To all may be ungpes-
tionable and continuous. To this end
the termination of existing treaties of
Hawaii is recitcd Ms Il condition pre-
cedept. The treaty OF annexation does
not abrogate those Instruments. 1t is
a statement of the fact of llawaii's
ceasing to exist as an independent
republic and that extinguishes those
contracts.
As to vested rights, if any be estab-
lished in favor of Japan or Japanese
subjects in Hawaii. the case is differ
ent. and ! repeat that there is Moth
ing in the proposed treaty ~prejudicial
e., ,l1 ,,;,rl,4a Of HJ,,N,,, -E J,,..,tia, ,,.,
terminablc in a variety of ways. That
of 1856 between Japan aud Hawaii, to
which your protest is supposed to re-
late, is dcnouueable by either party
on six months notice, but it's extern
sion would no more eNtinguish vested
rights previously acquired under it's
stipulations han the repeal Of n mu-
nicipal law affects the rights of prop
cry vested under it's provisions.
AS to the point that the mainte-
nance of the status quo of Hawaii is
essential to Il good understanding of
the powers which have interests in the
Pacific isle, it is sufficient to remnrl
that, as a fact through t~bree-quartersg
of a century, in which the constitutions
and the government of Hawaii and tho
commerce of the islands with the
world have undergone notable
changes. 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
has been often foreshadowed, and at
times had taken shape and has been
recognized as a necessary contingency
drawing nearer year by year with the
.,.S, no az WANTS 1Nl,,,
when a similar project of annexation.
was followed in Hawaii by revolution.
the occasion for maintaining the status
quo was not even suggested by any
power having interests in the Pacific.
This government cannot be expected
to proclaim or admit that any such oc-
casion has since arisen just as it can
neither intend nor admit that the
projected move TO annex Hawaii to
the United States, by which the pro-
gressive policies and dependent ASSOC
citation of some seventy years have
their destined elimination. can iniure
any Legitimate interests OF other pow
ers in the Pacific. That it will tend to
strengthen and develope and perpetu-
ate all such commonly beneficial In
terests is. on the contrary, to be ex-
flotted.
In thus reviewing the protest it
gives me pleasure TO say that | well
come its frank and friendly spirit. So
fur as You take occasion to DENY what
You aptly call the mischievous sug-
gestion or report that Japan has de.
signs against the integrity or sover-
eighty of Hawaii, | gladly assure you
that such denial is entirely unIleces-
saly in as much as this government
has not doubted aud cannot for an in.
slant doubt the sincerity and friend-
illness of Japan in all that concerns
her relations to the United States and
the Hawaiian islands,