Mr. Bayard asked whether he would exclude the Samoans from all voice in the decision of the titles of land?

Mr. von Alvensleben said he thought the proportion of two Samoans and three foreigners was not according to the plan of his Government. Besides the foreigners in Samoa were certainly not less interested in the land question than the Samoans, so that if one can not find disinterested foreigners there one will have to take them from abroad.

Mr. Bayard said: Suppose you eliminate, for the purpose of discussion, the Samoan element entirely, and you create three judges as a court of final resort; you first let the commission organize and take what testimony they please and make what finding they please. If the finding is satisfactory to the parties concerned it stands; if an appeal can be taken by either it comes before the court composed of the nominees of the three Governments. Would that relieve the question?

Mr. von Alvensleben said: No; that would come almost to the same thing. We say we are ready to have the judge placed by the Samoan Government at the head of this supreme land court, and to have called as his assistants the two representatives of the nationalities concerned. He thought, however, that the principal point of all was that an understanding should be reached in regard to the formation of the government, because all these discussions on the settling of land disputes seemed to him at present but preliminary.

Mr. Bayard inquired whether the land commission was not an essential part of that government.

Mr. von Alvensleben said that the salary of the judges had to be paid by the government, so that he thought the land commission could only begin its work after the government had been established. He had proposed that the judge should be appointed by the Samoan Government. As there was a judge to be appointed by the Samoan Government, he thought it one of the principal things that they should agree on the government, and he asked whether Mr. Bayard stood on his proposition that the powers of the government should be given to five men, or whether he was inclined to accept the German proposition, which is to place the executive power in the king and adviser?

Mr. Bayard said he did not leave the composition of the land court as a separate body to depend upon the composition of the executive branch of the government. If it did the executive power would control the judge. The king of Samoa had already been named. There was also a suggestion of creating a mandatary, having all the powers of the king's office, but not having the name. That has not been agreed to, but it has been suggested.

Mr. von Alveusleben said the mandatary or adviser would have to appoint the judge and the king would have to confirm him.

Mr. Bayard said it seemed to him that that reduced the matter to an absolutism. They embarked upon the conference with a declaration of the absolute equality of the three powers, and that they were acting in an advisory capacity towards the Samoan people, and that they desired to preserve the independence and autonomy of the islands and absolute equality of treatment in respect of commerce, navigation, jurisdiction, etc.; and it is further stated that it was intended that there was to be no inequality whatever in respect to the influence to be exerted by the three Governments upon this community; that, whether their interest was little or large, the basis of their approach to this question was the equality of the three treaty powers in dealing with the subject of Samoan government. At no time, to his knowledge, had he made a suggestion of the inequality of the three powers in dealing with the subject before them. They approached it with equal responsibility and equal right to deal with it. It was understood that they all had agreements in the form of treaties with this people and were disposed to stand by them. This is found in the united representation of the three powers that the existing treaties were to remain. When he submitted his plan for the establishment of peace he touched the matter in such a way as to recognize Samoan rights and interests, and also an equality in the action of the three Governments towards them. The first intimation he found that there was to be an unequal degree of influence exercised by any one of the three powers was in the remarks of Mr. von Alvensleben at the second conference (Protocol, p. 7), in which he says:

"There is only one course left for asserting foreign influence with the Samoan Government, which is so necessary for the general interest, and this is to place one foreign officer at the head of the administration, and to invest him with sufficient rights and powers to take the measures required for the maintenance of peace and order, as well as for the prosperous development of commerce and intercourse. As the authority of this official is to be noticeable in an unequivocal way to the foreigners as well as to the natives, it is commendable that the appointment should not be left to the Samoan Government, but be made by agreement between the treaty powers. At the same time it would appear that the power having to protect the largest interests in Samoa should be given the right to nominate the official whose duty it shall be to control the native government."

Mr. Bayard said the executive power should not be given to protect the largest interests in Samoa at all; it was to protect all the interests in Samoa. If a German agent, or governor, or mandatary was appointed he should be appointed just as much in the interest of the American people as the German.

Mr. von Alvensleben said that was understood by his Government.

Mr. Bayard said then it ought to appear as the principle the powers were acting on. It had been said that the power to protect the largest interests in Samoa should be given the right to nominate the official whose duty it shall be to control the native government." If this was to be a government for all, there was no reason why a right should be given to protect certain interests. The German minister had further said:

"It can not therefore be expected that she (Germany) should consent to remain more or less excluded from the efficient control of the country and have it pass to one of the two powers who have less interests."

That was a clear proposition of inequality on its very face. If Germany could not be expected to consent to remain more or less excluded, how could she expect another power to remain so? There was upon the very proposition of exclusion the mark of inequality which is in contradiction to the idea with which the conference began. In Sir Lionel West's memorandum, on page 7 of the protocol of the first conference, he said:

"Assuming that tripartite control is impracticable, the solution of the difficulty would seem to be an alternate control for a limited period of either one of the three powers. In the event of coming to this agreement, the question naturally arises as to which power shall be chosen the mandatary of the other two in the first instance, and Her Majesty's Government consider that preponderating commercial interests should be taken into consideration in deciding it.”

In the paper which he read at the third conference Sir Lionel West said:

"It is admitted by the three powers that foreign intervention can alone insure the stability of the native government, which it is sought to establish in Samoa, and that the tripartite control which has heretofore been exercised has proved abortive. The mandatary scheme does not involve the recognition of any preponderating interests which, as the Secretary of State has justly remarked, ought not to be taken into account as dealing with the matters before the conference. The German Government, as well as Her Majesty's Government, moreover, do not assert preponderance of interests as an argument in favor of the scheme. Indeed, they have asserted that there shall be absolute equality of treatment in respect to commerce, navigation, and jurisdiction should it be adopted, but Her Majesty's Government are willing, seeing the great interest Germany has in Samoa, to accord to the German representative the first term of five years as mandatary of the other two powers. Her Majesty's Government do not see that any exclusive control is involved in this arrangement, as under any circumstances the mandatary power can only be exercised with the consent of the other two powers, and it seems, therefore, a matter of small importance which power should be the first to exercise it."

Mr. Bayard said these two statements seem to him to conflict.

Sir Lionel West said he thought they were in perfect accord.

Mr. Bayard then asked whether he could read, as expressive of Sir Lionel's views, that

The mandatary scheme does not involve the recognition of any preponderating interests, which ought not to be taken into account in dealing with matters before the conference.

Sir Lioual West said: Certainly.

Mr. Bayard asked Mr. von Alvensleben whether he agreed to that.

Mr. von Alvensleben said he thought that the preponderating interests had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of finding who was to be intrusted with the mandate.

Mr. Bayard asked whether, in the statement "that it can not be expected that Germany should consent to remain more or less excluded from the official control of the country and have it pass to one of the two countries who have less interests," Mr. von Alvensleben would be willing to strike out Germany and insert the United States or Great Britain.

Mr. von Alvensleben said as soon as the United States or Great Britain had the largest interest.

Mr. Bayard said that was not the question. How could Germany expect either Great Britain or the United States to agree to a scheme which would more or less "exclude" them from the efficient control of the country? That placed the matter in a position in which he was unwilling to see it placed.

Sir Lionel West said that he did not understand that the German plan involved exclusive control.

Mr. von Alvensleben said it did not, as all guaranties had been stated which were thought necessary to surround the mandate.

Mr. Bayard said he had adverted to the matter to save time, and he thought that if they could have settled the question of the land commission they would have made a great headway. He looked upon that as being the corner-stone of the whole arrangement, to find some harmonious rule for the regulation of land ownership in the group, and of making consistent decisions in an established court. The German minister, however, had in this relation brought up the question, what was to be the Samoan Government, which was to appoint the land court, and this had led him to notice what seemed to him to be the conflicting statements of the British minister; but as he had explained them preponderating interests ought not to be taken into account in dealing with matters before the conference.

Sir Lional West said: Certainly not; then we would be unequal.

Mr. Bayard said the proposition in the German plan was to make the preponderating interests the beginning, end, and middle of the whole scheme of government. Sir. Lionel West said he did not see it.

Mr. Bayard said he thought he could show it, and would endeavor to do it at the next meeting, in writing. Under the acknowledgment of the equality of the three powers suggestions had been made which would necessarily create an inequality which would grow; and the land scheme had been brought within the same principle.

Sir Lionel West said his Government had made no specific proposition as to the constitution of the land court.

T. F. BAYARD.
ALVENSLEBEN.

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Confidential.]

PROTOCOL OF SIXTH SAMOAN CONFERENCE.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, July 26, 1887.

Mr. von Alvensleben read the following paper: "I fail to perceive how Mr. Bayard could draw the inference he did at our last meeting from the statement which closed the memorandum I read at the second conference. This sentence was merely intended to illustrate the mandatory scheme as proposed by the Imperial Government, and can not fairly be taken alone, as it then may lead to misapprehensions such as I find Mr. Bayard to be under. The meaning of that sentence is that Germany having the largest interest in Samoa she claims to be intrusted by the two other powers to exercise there as well as for her own interests as for those of Great Britian and the United States, the efficient control. If this would seem to create any appearance of inequality of rights, this would, however, be merely an appearance, as naturally the establishment of the whole government can only be made in this conference by the co-operation of the three treaty powers on a thoroughly equal footing, and therefore the mandatory scheme can only be carried out with their consent. I hardly need repeat, as the three special commissioners agreed in their reports, no native government would offer any guaranties of stability unless it is assisted and controlled by one common organ of the three powers. This is the argument on which the mandatory scheme has been based, and not on the mere fact of the preponderating interests of either one power.

"Mr. Bayard said he would not at the moment make any comment on that statement, because upon hearing it read he did not recognize any substantial change in the result. The plan submitted by the German minister remained unaltered in its principle, and necessarily in its results, by the paper which he had just read."

Mr. Bayard then read, in accordance with the purpose expressed by him at the last conference, the following paper:

"In the plan for the establishment of peace and civilization in Samoa, under the co-operative support of the Governments of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain,' submitted by me on behalf of the United States (Protocol 1st Conference, p. 2), I expressed my conception of the purpose of the present conference in the following language:

(1) The independence and autonomy of the kingdom composed of these islands are to be preserved free from the control or preponderating influence of any foreign government, and it was in pursuance of this understanding that commissioners were recently sent by the three powers, respectively, to investigate and report upon the conditions of the islands, and that the respective consuls of the three powers at the islands were changed.' Immediately after this declaration, and as a necessary inference therefrom, I stated the following proposition:

"(2) It is the desire of the United States, and equally of Germany and Great Britain, to assist the natives of Samoa to form and administer their government.'

"In respect to the principal object of the conference-the maintenance of the independence and autonomy of the Samoan Islands and the co-operative support of a native government-I am pleased to notice that my understanding is confirmed by the respective declarations of the German and British ministers. The memorandum read by the former at the first meeting of the conference began as follows:

"The unsettled condition of affairs on the Samoan Islands having gradually become more and more injurious to the foreign residents and to the commercial interests of the three treaty powers, the latter had to take into serious consideration the means by which the lasting peace and order could be restored there. With this view and the understanding that the independence of Samoa under a native government was to be maintained, and that no monopolies should be created there by any foreign power, the three treaty powers have agreed to the proposition of the Government of the United States of America to hold a conference of plenipotentiaries. It was further agreed that, in order to get complete and reliable information on which the conference would have to base its deliberations, special commissioners should be sent and instructed by the respective Governments to report on the condition of those islands.'

"The memorandum read by the British minister at the same meeting was as follows: "It is understood that the three powers have no desire to found colonies in Samoa or to obtain commercial monopolies. Their sole wish is to establish the right and equality of commerce and navigation for their respective subjects and citizens. Assuming, then, that the three powers have no desire to destroy the independence of Samoa, but only seek to establish the right and equality of their commerce and navigation, a declaration to this effect might be made by them as a preliminary step. It was, however, deemed expedient to ascertain the exact state of affairs in the islands by sending special commissioners who should report thereon.'

"It may therefore be regarded as fully recognized and established that the object of the United States in proposing the present conference, and of all three powers in sending commissioners to the Samoan Islands to report on the condition of affairs, was to maintain the autonomy and independence of the islands under a native government.

"Such being the declared object of the conference, I have listened with regret to plans and suggestions that appeared to me to depend upon the recognition of an inequality of interest of the three powers in the political, moral, and commercial welfare of the islands, and to look unequivocally to the virtual suppression of their native government. And in this relation I shall refer first to the plan suggested by the German minister, and approved by the British minister, for the appointment of an adviser to the king. In the memorandum read by the German minister at the first meeting of the conference the functions of the proposed foreign adviser are described as follows:

"This adviser, who is to act as the mandatary of the three treaty powers, will have to discharge, under the nominal responsibility of the king, the government affairs. He will have to control all necessary measures with regard to the maintenance of public order in general, and especially to the security of any kind of property of foreign residents. This adviser, whose position would be virtually that of a prime minister, to be nominated by the treaty power having for the time being the preponderating interests in Samoa. The nomination needs the approval of the two other powers. The first appointment to be made for the term of five years in the first instance, and at the expiration of that period a fresh appointment to be made on the same terms and conditions. In the event of the appointment becoming vacant during the said term of five years through the death, resignation, or removal of the adviser, another person shall be similarly appointed to hold the office for the remainder of the said term.'

"The three leading features of this plan are: (1) That the 'responsibility' of the king in the affairs of the government is to be merely nominal; (2) that the adviser is to control all necessary measures' to an undefined extent; (3) that he is to be appointed by the power having the 'preponderating interests' in Samoa, and that at the expiration of five years a fresh appointment is to be made 'on the same terms and conditions.' It is true, it is stated, that the nomination is to receive the approval of the two other powers.' But this merely affects the nominee, and not the power that makes the appointment; for 'preponderance of interests' is merely a question of fact. And the preponderance of material interests of any one power in the islands being acknowledged, that power would, if the plan submitted by the German minister be accepted, have the right to appoint and re-appoint as long as such preponderance continued, whether another power objected or no. Thus, while the actual appointment by the power having preponderating material interests would have to be approved by the other two powers, its right to make the appointment could not be questioned as long as the preponderance lasted.

"That this proposition (however consonant it was supposed to be with the declared

object of the conference) might suggest a doubt seems not to have been unappreciated, for immediately after the statement of the plan the German minister said:

"In order to avoid every misapprehension of the situation by the placing of the representative of one of the treaty powers in the most prominent position of the Samoan administration, it will be expedient to formally acknowledge anew the principle already contained in the existing treaties with Samoa-of absolute equality of treatment in respect of commerce, navigation, jurisdiction, and all other matters whatsoever to be secured to the three powers and to their subjects and citizens.'

"How far the proposition of the German minister in respect to the adviser is supported by the British minister I am unable precisely to ascertain. In the memorandum read by the latter at the first meeting of the conference I find the following: "All three commissioners seem to recognize also the difficulty of tripartite control, such as more or less has been hitherto exercised; while at the same time they deprecate the establishment of the exclusive control of either one of the three powers. Assuming that the establishment of a native government, to be carried on by the king, who may be elected, assisted by a native council, is necessary to preserve the antonomy and independence of the islands, and which can only be established under foreign control, and assuming that tripartite control is impracticable, the solution of the difficulty would seem to be an alternate control for a limited period of either one of the three powers. In the event of coming to this agreement, the question naturally arises as to which power should be chosen the mandatary of the other two in the first instance, and Her Majesty's Government consider that preponderating commercial interests should be taken into consideration in deciding it.

"Since Mr. Thurston, Mr. Travers, and Mr. Bates all seem to concur that this preponderance is possessed by Germany to a greater or less extent, Her Majesty's Government are therefore prepared to consent to the mandatary power being exercised by the German representative for first term of five years, absolute equality of treatment in respect of commerce, navigation, and jurisdiction, and all other matters whatsoever to be secured to the three powers and to their subjects and citizens.' "Thus, while the British minister concurred in the proposition for a single adviser, he said that, in the event of an agreement on that point, the question would arise as to which power should be chosen as the mandatary of the other two in the first instance;' that Her Majesty's Government considered that preponderating commercial interests should be taken into consideration in deciding it;' and that as Germany had the preponderating interests, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to consent to the mandatary power 'being exercised by the German representative for the first term of five years.'

"In a paper read by him at the third session of the conference the British minister said (Protocol, p. 6) that the mandatary scheme did not involve the recognition of any preponderating interests which, as the Secretary of State has justly remarked, ought not to be taken into account in dealing with the matters before the conference;' that Her Majesty's Government did not see that any 'exclusive control' was involved in the arrangement, as the mandatary power 'could only be exercised with the consent of the other two powers,' and it seemed, therefore, a matter of small importance which should be the first to exercise it.'

"When I observed that the British minister spoke of the Government that was to be the first to take the mandatary office, and inquired whether he meant that there was to be an alternation, and that the power taking the office 'first' was after five years to be succeeded by another, he replied that it would be alternative, 'with the consent of the other two;' and when I further inquired what was the object of saying 'first,' and why not say 'perpetual,' he replied that it must be alternative 'if it came once to each.'

"At the fourth session of the conference the British minister, in explanation of the phrase 'alternate control for a limited time,' previously employed by him, said that it did not imply that the representative of each power should be elected in rotation, but merely that the mandatary scheme bore an alternate character; for should German preponderance cease at the end of the first five years, the next power possessing it in succession would, according to the German plan, exercise the mandatary power. It is distinctly understood that under the German plan preponderating interests for the time being should be taken into consideration in deciding the question as to which power should designate the representative under the approval of the other two powers.'

"This statement, I observe, while it adverts to a preponderance of interests, goes no further than to say that 'preponderating interests for the time being should be taken into consideration' in deciding the question as to which power should 'designate the representative under the approval of the other two powers;' and, as the British minister stated, at our last meeting, that his prior declaration that 'the mandatary scheme does not involve the recognition of any preponderating interests which ought not to be taken into account in dealing with the matters before the conference,' could be read as expressive of his views, I am unable to find an express adherence on