The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-04
SHERMAN TO JAPANESE
REPLY TO THE PROTEST AGAINST
THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII.
The MiI<adO's Government Under a
MisapprehensiOn-Sc of the
Proposed Treaty.

WASHINGTON, July BIN answer to the
protest of Japan against the proposed an
nexation of Hawaii by the United States,
Secretary Sherman has replied at length.
After quoting the grounds on which Japan
made it's protest. the secretary of state
says:
This recital is of itself proof that your
government has Inexperienced the state
ments and assurances contained in my note
and in its relation to the treaty question
involved; strongly suggests confusion be
tween the formal stipulations 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 exist
ing treaties of a state cease upon it's in
corporation into another state Is we'll de-
fined by Halleck who says: But the OBJ
legations of treaties, even where some Of
expire in case either of the contracting
parties loses its existence as an independ-
ent state, or in case it's internal constitu-
ton is so changed as to render the treaty
inapplcable to the new condition Of
things.
Continuing, the secretary says: "The
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 with another with attend
ant extinction of their former treaties with
other states.
1T needs no stipulation in a formal an
neXatiOn treaty to work this result for it
attends de facto annexation however ac-
complished The forcible incorporate of
Hanover into the Prussian kingdom instant
lY destroyed previous HanOVerian treaties.
The admission of Texas to statehood in
our Union, by joint resolution, eXtinguiSheS
the treaties of the independent republic of
Texas. The recent French law, declaring
Madagascar to be a colony of France
,andp0 the former treaties Of that kingdom
1t is the fact, not the manner, of absorp-
ton that determines treaties. 1t does not
even follow that the existing treaties of the
absorbing state extend TO the acquired ter
ritory. The treaties of the German empire
are held not to apply to the ceded French
provinces of AlsaCe and Lorraine.
What the Hawaiian treaty of anneXa-
ton proposes is the extension Of the trea-
ties of the United States to the incorpOr
eXtinguished Hawaiian treaties, in order
that the guarantees of treaty rights to all
may be unquestlonable and continuous. To
this end the termination OF the existing
treaties Of Hawaii is recited a condition
pre- cedent. The treaty of annexation does
not abrogates those Instruments: 1t is the
fact of Hawaiis ceasing to exist as an
independent contractant that eXtinguishes
those contracts. As to the vested rights,
if any be established in favor of Japan or
japanese subjects in Hawaii, the case is
different. and l repeat that there is moth
ing in the proposed treaty pretudicial to
the rights of Japan.
Treaties are terminable in a variety of
ways that of 1886 between Japan and Ha-
wall to which your protest is supposed to
relate, is terrninable by either party on six
months notice, but it's extension would not
more eXtinguish vested rights previously
acquired under its stipulation than the re-
peal of municipal law affects rights of
property vested under its provisions.
AS to the point that the maintenance
of the status quo of Hawaii is essential
to the good understanding Of the powers
which will have interest in the Pacific
1t is sufficient to remark that, as a fact,
through three-quarers of a century, in
which the constitution and government
of HaVan, and the commerce of the
islands with the world, have undergone
of the status quo has been the predomi-
nant and paramount influence of the
United States upon the fortunes of the
territory to the United States often fore
Swallowed, and a times taking tangible
shape, has been recognized as a contin-
gency drawing nearer year by year with
the passage of events.
-Four years ago when a similar project
of annexation followed the Hawaiian revo-
luton the occasion for maintaining the
status quo was not even suggested by any
power having interests In the Pacific. The
or ADMIT that any such occasion has since
arisen-tust as ii can neither intend nor
admit that the. projected more perfect
union of Hawaii to the United States by
which the progressive policies and indie
pendent associations of some seventy years
have their destined elimination can in
ture any legitimate interests of other pow
ers in the Pacific. That it will tend to
strengthen. develop and perpetuate all such
commonly beneficial interests is. on the
contrary TO be expected.
In thus reviewing the protest you pre-
sented. 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 the mischievous suggestion or
report that Japan has designs against the
integrity or sovereignty of Hawaii. | am
glad 10 assure YOU that such deDial was
entirely unnecessary. inasmuch as this
hos not
for an instant doubt the sincerity and
friendliness of Japan in all That concerns
her relations TO the United States and to
the Hawaiian islands,"