So far as the statements made in debate would mislead public opinion to believe in our unequal treatment of Germany, it is to be regretted that the real facts have not a circulation as wide as that given to the debate. Nothing has been conceded to Switzerland which under like conditions would not have been given to Germany. You will know the best methods for the correction of official and public opinion on this point.

No. 800.]

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, March 24, 1899.

SIR: During my interview with Minister von Bülow, referred to in my dispatch next preceding, having ended the discussion of the Samoan matter, I gave him, as instructed by you, the main points in your No. 778 of February 28, 1899, first expressing to him the pleasure with which the Department had received advices of the friendly tone of his recent speeches in Parliament.

I brought up first the concession, by the United States to Switzerland under our treaty of 1850, of the benefits accorded to France by the reciprocal convention of May, 1898, and I compared the most-favorednation clauses in our treaties with Switzerland and Prussia, showing him the radical differences between their stipulations and reading to him portions of your note No. 201 of November 21, 1898, to the Swiss envoy in Washington in confirmation of these statements, and as proof that the concession was made only when it had become evident that the treaty with Switzerland, and the understanding of it as recorded on both sides, plainly demanded such concession.

I also promised to send him an aide memoire on the subject. He gave close attention to the matter, and then spoke of the desirability of sundry small commercial concessions from the United States to Germany which, though amounting in the aggregate to but a moderate sum, would, he thought, have a most excellent effect both on the Imperial Parliament and on American opinion in general.

I asked him to send me a memorandum regarding these concessions, which he promised to do, and when it shall have arrived I will communicate it to the Department.

I am, etc.,

No. 804.]

SIR:

ANDREW D. WHITE.

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, March 27, 1899.

Reduced to a few words it appears that Germany's grievances against the United States arise practically from the prevailing difference of interpretation of the meaning of the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty with Prussia of 1828. Count Posadowsky referred to

this treaty and the commercial treaties with the Hanse Towns of about the same date (mentioning casually that almost all German exportations to America went by way of these "Towns") as being recognized by Germany as fully in force. He said that practically the question was this: Either Germany should enjoy all the commercial benefits accorded by the United States to any third country, whether under reciprocity treaties or not, and unrestricted most-favored-nation treatment should prevail, or it must be considered that restricted ("beschrankte") most-favored-nation treatment should prevail, and that Germany had made a mistake in according to us without concession the benefits of the seven Caprivian treaties of commerce, which were based upon reciprocal concessions. He considered that the most-favorednation clause had been violated by us when we first put a differential duty upon sugar exported from bounty-paying countries, that it had been further violated when this duty was made compensatory, and still further when we declined to accord to Germany gratuitously the benefits of the recent commercial convention with France, which we have accorded to Switzerland. The value of this last to us he estimated as only about $200,000, while it touched Germany in a particularly sensitive place, as she felt that her "right" had not been recognized.

Count Posadowsky was much interested in learning that American products imported into Cuba and Porto Rico and Cuban and Porto Rican products imported into the United States were treated in the same way as imports from any other country, and agreed with Mr. Porter in the hope that better times in America would increase the importation of German products. The practical question, however, he said, was whether Germany should continue in her understanding of the meaning of most-favored-nation treatment, or should adopt that of the United States and decline for the future to accord us the advantages of the Caprivian commercial treaties.

SIR: Your dispatch No. 800, dated March 24, 1899, informs the Department of your conversation with Minister von Bülow in respect to our construction of the most-favored-nation clauses of our treaty with Switzerland.

Under the discovery of the actual understanding of the parties to that treaty at the time of its ratification, the attention of this Government was for the first time in the half century of the treaty's existence directed to its variance from our well-understood national policy; and the Swiss Government was advised that if not modified by a new agreement in harmony with that policy, we should feel obliged to terminate the treaty.

The conventional notification to arrest the operation of this treaty has been given to Switzerland since the date of my No. 778, to which

your present dispatch is a reply. You may incidentally mention the fact of this denunciation to Baron von Bülow.

I am, etc.,

Mr. Hay to Mr. White.

JOHN HAY.

No. 834.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 8, 1899.

SIR: Your dispatch No. 804, dated March 27, 1899, communicates the views of Count Pasadowsky, minister of the interior, respecting the interpretation of the most-favored-nation clauses of our treaty. It may be convenient to you to recall a previous occasion when the subject was discussed on the part of Germany.

The question appears to have arisen between Germany and Hawaii in 1878, as a result of the reciprocity convention of 1875 between the United States and Hawaii. The Hawaiian special envoy to Berlin, Mr. Carter, discussed it at that time, and reported to his Government that "an article was framed by which it was agreed that the special advantages granted to the Government of the United States in consideration of equivalent advantages should not in any case be invoked in favor of Germany." (See Foreign Relations of United States, 1878, p. 403; also pp. 382 and 405.)

While we do not deny the right of Germany to adopt the same construction which controls the action of this Government, it should be remembered that whatever construction is adopted it must be applied uniformly to all governments whose interests are protected by the like treaty clauses. Otherwise Article XXVI of the convention would be violated. If the compensatory privileges should be extended to any third nation, which has given no special compensation for them, it is evident that as to that nation the grant would be gratuitous, and, by the express provision of Article XXVI, "Shall immediately become common to the other party, freely."

This point should not be overlooked in any serious discussion of the subject on the part of your embassy. It is evident that Germany can not apply one construction in her relations with this Government and another in her relations with an European government.

I am, etc.,

Mr. White to Mr. Hay.

JOHN HAY.

No. 834.]

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, April 26, 1899.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the information contained in your instruction No. 830, of April 7, that the conventional notification had been given by the United States to arrest the operation of its treaty of 1850 with Switzerland, was brought to the attention of the imperial foreign office immediately upon its receipt.

I am, etc.,

ANDREW D. WHITE.

PROTECTION OF GERMANS IN PHILIPPINES.

The German Ambassador to Mr. Hay.

GERMAN EMBASSY, February 28, 1899.

MEMORANDUM.

Owing to recent menaces of German interests in China it appears probable that the last German warship, now in the Philippines, will be recalled from there. In this case the German Government has expressed the hope that the protection of life and property of German citizens, and of such people enjoying German protection in the Philippines, will be undertaken by the United States forces.

Mr. Hay to Mr. von Holleben.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 28, 1899.

MY DEAR AMBASSADOR: I take pleasure in acquainting you that the President, to whom I referred the memorandum you left with me this morning, has instructed General Otis and Admiral Dewey to assume the protection of German citizens and those hitherto enjoying German protection in the Philippines.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

CONSULAR IMMUNITIES.

No. 787.]

Mr. Hay to Mr. White.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 6, 1899.

SIR: Inclosed herewith please find a dispatch, with inclosure from Consul-General Guenther dated February 20, 1899, in relation to a summons issued to him as a witness to testify in a certain case against Ludwig Bettag for alleged violation of his military duty.

There is no exemption from summons stipulated in the consular convention of 1871 between the United States and Germany; and such privilege can not be claimed unless it can be shown that the consulgeneral is entitled to such immunity in virtue of the most-favorednation clause, which provides that our consuls in Germany "shall enjoy all privileges, exemptions, and immunities which have been granted, or may in future be granted, to the agents of the same rank of the most favored nation." You will determine whether such immunity exists.

But by express stipulation of said Article III, Mr. Guenther, not being a citizen of Germany, enjoys "personal immunity from arrest or imprisonment, except in the case of crime." The menace of the fine, arrest, and imprisonment, not for any crime, against the consul-general, appears to be gratuitous, and wanting in the respect due from

one friendly government toward the consular officer of another; and, if carried into execution, would appear to be a flagrant violation of the express treaty engagement.

Article V provides that "the offices and dwellings of cons ls missi, who are not citizens of the country of their residence, shall be at all times inviolable. The local authority shall not, except in the case of the pursuit for crime, under any pretext invade them."

While Mr. Guenther's office and dwelling are inviolable, he is threatened with arrest and imprisonment outside, or by virtual imprisonment inside, his office and dwelling, if he fails to obey the process, either by arresting him outside of his dwelling and office or inside thereof; or, if it is not sought to arrest him outside, to virtually imprison him within by making it impossible for him to go out without being subject to arrest and imprisonment.

It appears, moreover, that the summons is addressed to him as consulgeneral of the United States, and he is, as such officer, required, in answer to question one, attached to the process, to give evidence, "from papers to be shown," whether "Bettag is an American citizen. The papers referred to are evidently those belonging to the consular archives. This would seem to be violative of Article V, which provides that "the consular archives shall be at all times inviolable, and under no pretense whatever shall the local authorities be allowed to examine the papers forming part of them." While the papers are protected from seizure or examination, the thing prohibited is sought to be accomplished by compelling the consul to show them or to disclose their contents.

In connection with this instruction you are referred also to instruction No. 140, July 31, 1894 (inclosed herewith), to Consul-General Mason, as to the immunity of consuls from giving information obtained in the capacity of consul of the United States.

You will bring the matter to the attention of the German Government and make known the views of this Government touching the conduct observed toward Consul-General Guenther.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

No. 6.]

[Inclosure 1 in No. 787.]

Mr. Guenther to Department of State.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Frankfort on the Main, February 20, 1899. I have the honor, in conformity with paragraph 77 of the Consular Regulations, to report that the following correspondence in the German language has passed between this consulate-general and the royal court of Frankfort on the Main, which is hereby translated to English:

"In the process against Ludwig Bettag, of Dudenhofen, for violation of his military duty, you are summoned, for examination as a witness by order of the royal court in its place of business, court-house, room 24, before the royal court assessor, Mr. Wick, Tuesday, February 21, 1899, at 10 a. m. Witnesses who do not appear without sufficient excuse are to be sentenced, according to paragraph 50 of the penal code, to pay the costs occasioned by such nonappearance, also to a fine not to exceed 300 marks; and if this is not paid, to imprisonment not to exceed six weeks—producing them by arrest is also admissible.

"In case that you have left the domicile stated in this summons, or if you should change it before the day of trial, you are required to give such notice without delay. "Frankfort on the Main, February 16, 1899.

"BARMERS, "Clerk of the Royal Court 6.