cessful in London in securing, on the 28th of November, 1843, a convention between France and Great Britain, engaging them "reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state, and never to take possession, either directly or under title of protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed." (Appendix.)

This convention did not, however, guarantee the autonomy of the islands as against any third power, nor did it contain any expression of opinion on that point similar in spirit to Mr. Webster's declaration of the preceding December. Its intention seems to have been simply reciprocally to bind those two powers to do one thing-that is, "to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state"-and to refrain from doing another thing-that is, "never to take possession," under any pretext, "of any part of the territory of which they are composed." In consequence of the recommendation contained in the message of President Tyler, of December 30, 1842, Congress made an appropriation for the compensation of a diplomatic officer from this Government to the Sandwich Islands, and on March 3, 1843, Mr. George Brown, of Massachusetts, was appointed commissioner. Mr. Brown arrived at Honolulu in October following, and, on the 30th of that month, presented his credentials, with an address to the King, in which he asked in behalf of the citizens of the United States favorable and impartial treatment, at the same time assuring the monarch that this Government had no wish to secure for itself or its citizens any exclusive privileges. The King, answering, said upon this point:

You may assure your Government that I shall always consider the citizens of the United States as entitled to equal privileges with those of the most favored nation. (Appendix.)

Unfortunately, soon after Mr. Brown's arrival-by the latter part of the following August--a cause of serious difference arose between him and the King's Government in the case of, John Wiley, an American citizen, who had been arrested charged with the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, and to whom trial by jury had been denied by the local governor.

The treaty with France, above alluded to as secured by Capt. Laplace at the mouth of his guns, contained a stipulation (Article v1) that

No Frenchman accused of any crime whatever shall be judged otherwise than by a jury composed of foreign residents, proposed by the consul of France and accepted by the Government of the Sandwich Islands.

On the 12th of February, 1844, a convention with Great Britain had been entered into by the King's Government which contained (Article III) the same provision in identical phrase, mutatis mutandis. This treaty had been secured very much after the fashion observed by Laplace. Within less than one year before its signature the islands had been seized by Great Britain and had been adequately advised of the power of England. The King's embassy was still absent, and the newly arrived British consul-general had communicated the fact that he was without discretion to alter terms. The treaty was itself, in still other respects, objectionable to the American commissioner by reason of apparent discrimination in favor of England and against the United States, and it had already been the subject of an earnest protest on his part. And now, there being no treaty with the United States, the King's promise made in his speech to that commissioner, as he understood it, had been ignored by advice of the attorney-general-an American citizen—a lawyer of New York, of the name of John Ricord, who had been invited to

accept the office and had gone to Hawaii and there become naturalized for the purpose. The dispute over the treaty and the Wiley case together created a situation of affairs that resulted in a request from the King for the recall of Mr. Brown (whose conduct was, however, approved by this Governtment) and the appointment of Mr. Ten Eyck. (Appendix.)

But in the meantine, on the 6th of July, 1844, the King's commissioners, having returned to this country from Europe, received a communication from Mr. Calhoun confirming the "full recognition on the part of the United States of the independence of the Hawaiian Government." They left for Honolulu in November.

On March 26, 1846, two general conventions were entered into-one by France, the other by Great Britain-identical in terms and equally to be substituted for all preëxisting agreements made by those Governments with the King. These conventions modified the jury clauses and Article VI of the Laplace treaty, governing the importation of intoxicating liquors. Juries were to be composed of native or foreign residents proposed by the consul (English or French) and accepted by the Hawaiian Government, and duties were allowed within the prohibitory limit upon ardent spirits. These conventions do not, however, seem to have recognized the complete independence of the King. (Appendix.) On the 19th of the following October a treaty with Denmark was concluded at Honolulu, containing the favored-nation clause; and this compact appears to be the first of its kind conveying unrestricted and ample acknowledgment of Hawaiian independence. (Appendix.)

Mr. Ten Eyck's instructions had included a charge to negotiate a treaty upon the basis of that existing between the Government of the islands and Great Britain at the time of his appointment. The unacceptability of the jury clause in that instrument and the desire of the Hawaiian King to secure its modification rendered it unwise to insist upon a similar article in any new convention. The authority of Mr. Ten Eyck had not been limited to the negotiation of an identical agreement, and he seems therefore to have persisted unwisely in urging the inclusion of the objectionable provision. This error was pointed out to him by Mr. Buchanan in an instruction of June 18, 1847, but seemingly without result. Much correspondence occurred between the King's minister and the American commissioner, and several projects of treaties were ineffectually submitted by the latter. Pending these negotiations the disadvantageous position of the United States, in the absence of a treaty, was emphasized by each new agreement successfully negotiated by other governments. Meanwhile the commissioner became indiscreetly (with American claimants) involved in serious differences of opinion with the Government of Hawaii, respecting the rights of American residents, and his attitude became finally one of hostility. There was the repetition of the old story, told so many times in such quarters of the globe, personal and commercial difficulties involving consuls and diplomatic agents alike, conflicting interests among foreigners of two or three nationalities, rival factions, complicated quarrels, and, so far as practicable, general disregard of native rights by each and all. Mr. Ten Eyck was roundly rated by Mr. Buchanan in an interesting dispatch of considerable length and some tartness, dated August 28, 1848, from which there will be occasion to make several extracts. Mr. Ten Eyck resigned in September, 1848, and Mr. Charles Eames was appointed January 12, 1849. (Appendix.)

On the 8th of January, 1848, a treaty with Hamburg was concluded by the King's minister for foreign affairs, and later in the month an

agreement touching consular notices under the Danish and Hamburg treaties was reached. But it was not until October 22, 1849, that a treaty with this Government was finally signed at San Francisco by Mr. Eames and Mr. Judd. (Appendix.)

Mr. Eames, en route to Honolulu, had met Mr. Judd, the King's commissioner, en route to Washington, at San Francisco, and there together they had agreed upon an instrument of a general character. The treaty, in the English and Hawaiian languages, reached the Department of State on the 8th of December. But, in the meantime, the Hawaiian Government had appointed Mr. James Jackson Jarves, then in this country, a special commissioner to negotiate a treaty, and he met Mr. Clayton, appointed on behalf of the United States, at Washington in the same month. They agreed upon terms and signed a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation, and for extradition of criminals, December 20, 1849. Ratifications were exchanged at Honolulu the 24th of August, following, and the treaty was proclaimed-the first perfected treaty between the two powers-November 9, 1850.

This convention did not differ materially from the treaties negotiated by this Government with other nations for similar purposes. The treaty is still in force except so far as modified by later conventions. (Appendix.)

In 1849 disputes between the French consul and the native authorities respecting the convention of 1846 brought about another seizure of the islands by the armed forces of France, which became the occasion of the dispatch of very explicit instructions from the American Secretary of State. After a preliminary diplomatic skirmish between the French naval commander, Admiral de Tromelin, and the King's minister for foreign affairs, Mr. Wyllie, the admiral formulated his demands in an ultimatum, and upon its nonacceptance the naval force under his command, on the 25th of August, 1849, took military possession of the fort, the Government offices, and of the custom-house, and seized the King's royal yacht and several other vessels belonging to private persons. Official news of this proceeding reached the United States December 10, 1849, from Mr. Ten Eyck. (Appendix.)

The French continued in possession of the fort and public buildings until the 4th or 5th of September, dismantled the fort, and destroyed considerable public property, but did not haul down the Hawaiian flag. Upon the exercise of this restraint they depended for the argument that they had not acted in contravention of the agreement with England of 1843. (Appendix.)

Mr. Judd was appointed by the King as commissioner to England, France, and the United States, it appears, with pretty full powers to make some adjustment of this last difficulty. It was rumored that he was not limited even from cession of the kingdom either to England or the United States. His negotiations with the French minister for foreign affairs having proved fruitless he reached the United States on his way home in the spring of 1850, and in conjunction with Mr. Jarves solicited the good offices of this Government in the settlement of the dispute with France. They were promptly accorded by the President, through the Secretary of State, in a note of June 3, 1850, and instructious in conformity therewith were sent to Mr. Rives at Paris. Negotiations dragged and chances of settlement seemed to recede until on the 11th of March, 1851, Mr. Severance, the commissioner of the United States at Honolulu, reported the fact that a deed of cession of the kingdom to the United States had been drawn, submitted to him, sealed, and delivered to him on the afternoon of the same day by two of the

King's ministers. This instrument was the consequence of the King's apprehension excited by the hostile attitude of France. It bore the following inscription in the Hawaiian language:

The King requests the commissioner of the United States, in case the flag of the United States is raised above the Hawaiian, that he will open the inclosed and act accordingly.

The terms of this deed provided that the kingdom should be held by the United States until a satisfactory adjustment of the dispute with France, and, failing that end within a reasonable period, should be permanently transferred to them. (Appendix.)

Answering Mr. Severance's series of dispatches on this subject, Mr. Webster, on the 14th of July, 1851, said:

The Navy Department will receive instructions to place and to keep the naval armament of the United States in the Pacific Ocean in such a state of strength and preparation as shall be requisite for the preservation of the honor and dignity of the United States and the safety of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands.

In a confidential dispatch of the same date Mr. Severance was directed to return to the Hawaiian Government the deed of cession placed in his hands. (Appendix.)

The subject of annexation was not, however, abandoned in the correspondence by reason of Mr. Webster's dispatch. Mr. Marcy, writing to Mr. Gregg, then United States commissioner there, on the 4th of April, 1854, discussed the question fully, and authorized the negotiation of a treaty for the purpose, the terms of which he indicated.” On the 11th November following, a draft of a treaty acceptable to the King was received with Mr. Gregg's dispatch No. 52 of September 15, 1854. (Appendix.)

Stipulations were drawn in this treaty for annuities aggregating three times the sum offered for that purpose by Mr. Marcy, and for the admission of the Kingdom as a State of the Union. These provisions were objected to by this Government, but before any conclusion was reached the King, Kamehameha III, died, and was succeeded in February, 1855, by a prince who held views unfavorable to the project, and so the treaty failed. (Appendix.)

In 1855, on the 20th of July, a treaty of reciprocity was concluded at Washington by Mr. Marcy and Judge Lee, the King's commissioner; but, although the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs appears to have been favorable to it, ratification failed, it is said, by reason of the pressure of more important and absorbing questions. (Appendix.)

Correspondence for several years following this incident is chiefly concerned with claims, complaints, and matters of routine. In 1863 the rank of the diploma ic officer of this Government was raised to that of minister resident, and James McBride, of Oregon, was appointed to that office. The conduct of the civil war so far diverted attention from Hawaiian affairs that consideration of the subject of a desired treaty of reciprocity was obliged, by Mr. Seward's engagements, to be deferred to a more tranquil period, and until the results of English and Southern influence there, exerted during the civil war in the United States against this Government, should be overcome. There are occasional references to annexation. (Appendix.)

In December, 1866, Queen Emma, queen dowager of Hawaii, visited the United States on her way from England to Honolulu.

On the 1st of February, 1867, Mr. McCook, our minister at Honolulu, was instructed that it was the desire to revive the subject of the reciprocity treaty of 1855, but upon terms more liberal to the United

States. Accordingly, on the 21st of May following, Mr. McCook, on behalf of the United States, and Mr. Harris, on the part of the Hawaiian Government, concluded a treaty of reciprocity at San Francisco, which received the approval of the President, but failed of ratification by the Senate. (Appendix.)

In a private note of June 7, 1867, Mr. McCook adverted to the subject of annexation, and asked leave of absence to visit the United States the following November, when the reciprocity treaty might be expected to become the subject of consideration in the Senate. This leave was granted by Mr. Seward, who thus instructed Mr. McCook:

You are at liberty to sound the proper authority on the large subject mentioned in your note, and ascertain probable conditions. You may confidentially receive overtures and communicate the same to me.

I will act upon your suggestion in that relation in regard to a party now here. Mr. Seward's "large subject" was annexation, and Mr. Seward's "party now here" was the Hawaiian minister to this country, Mr. C. C. Harris. (Appendix.)

It is probable that a conference was held on the subject by Mr. Seward and Mr. Harris, but notes of it do not appear. On the 12th of September, however, Mr. Seward, writing confidentially to Mr. McCook, said:

Circumstances have transpired here which induce a belief that. a, strong interest, based upon a desire for annexation of the Sandwich Islands, will be active in oppos. ing a ratification of the reciprocity treaty. It will be argued that the reciprocity will tend to hinder and defeat an early annexation, to which the people of the Sandwich Islands are supposed to be now strongly inclined.

He advised the minister to remain at Honolulu and abandon his earlier plan to visit Washington, and he added—

That if the policy of annexation should conflict with the policy of reciprocity, annexation is in every case to be preferred. (Appendix.)

During the spring and summer of 1867 some apprehension was created in the mind of the King by the presence in Hawaiian waters of the U. S. S. Lackawanna, Capt. Reynolds. This was based upon the fact that the commanding officer had been formerly a resident in Hawaii and was interfering, or had the purpose to interfere, in political affairs. It is not impossible that the King's minister for foreign affairs, de Varigny, was really responsible for the royal apprehensions. The presence of the ship delayed ratification of reciprocity, and it was not until after her departure that the King convened the legislature to consider the subject.

His Majesty stated to me [writes Mr. McCook] that he would like to discuss its [the treaty's] provisions with me, but did not deem it consistent with his dignity, etc., to enter into any such discussion while the Lackawan a remained here; I will do His Majesty the justice to say that I do not believe this idea was an original one, but was suggested to, and forced upon him by his ministers, they hoping that the Lackawanna could not, or would not leave, and that this might prove an insuperable obstacle to the ratification of the treaty. (Appendix.)

The treaty was ratified July 30, 1867. Our own Senate had received the treaty early the same month; it was reported in February, 1868, but was not finally acted upon until June 1st, 1870, when it was rejected. (Appendix.)

Very soon after his ratification of the reciprocity treaty the King sent a commissioner to Japan to negotiate a commercial treaty. This project the American minister at Honolulu earnestly antagonized, upon the ground that such a treaty would deflect trade from the United States and encourage English competition. (Appendix.)