[§ 63. "For your information I inclose a copy of an instruction recently sent to our legation at Madrid in regard to the mode of procedure by which the crimes alleged to have been committed by an American citizen on the Island of Guap, or Yap, might be reached and punished. This instruction (No. 381, of August 3, 1885, to Mr. Foster) abundantly shows that we not only have not the slightest purpose of asserting claim to the Caroline Islands in virtue of the large American interests established there, but that we seek to respect whatever sovereign jurisdiction may be established as existing there, without even indicating an opinion as to questions of legitimate controversy by either Spain or Germany." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, Sept. 7, 1885. MSS. Inst., Germ. The instruction to Mr. Foster, above referred to, had to do with the punishment of an alleged American trader for crimes against natives in his employ on the Island of Guap. After alluding to the difficulties in the way of reaching him, it was suggested that if, as was reported, orders had been issued at Madrid to establish the jurisdiction of Spain over the Caroline Islands, of which Guap was one, the Spanish authorities, if it be determined they have jurisdiction, could cause him to be arrested and brought to the nearest court competent to try the case. "Your communication of the 17th instant, referring to this Department a letter addressed to you by Mr. A. Crawford, of San Francisco, in relation to the alleged action of Germany in claiming the sovereignty of the islands of the Samoan, Gilbert, and Marshall groups, has been received. In reply, I have the honor to inform you that we have no treaty relations with the Gilbert and Marshall Islands, or any knowledge of the intention of Germany with respect thereto, except the reports which reach us, with more or less authenticity, that Great Britain and Germany have agreed upon lines of division in the Pacific Ocean, by which determinate areas will be open to the exclusive settlement and control of the respective Governments. The case is different in Samoa, with which country we have established treaty relations. The German Government has repeatedly disclaimed any intention to interfere with these treaty relations in any way. The recently reported occurrences in Samoa are not as yet fully understood, and further knowledge is awaited before forming a definite judgment. As to the outlying unattached groups of islands, dependent upon no recognized sovereignty, and settled sporadically by representatives of many nationalities whose tenure depends on prior occupancy of inhabited territory or on a good understanding with the natives of the inhabited islands, we conceive that the rights of American settlers therein should rest on the same footing as others. We claim no exclusive jurisdiction in their behalf, and are not called upon to admit on the part of any other nationality rights which might operate to oust our citizens from rights which they may be found to share equally with others. In cases of actual annexation of such islands by any foreign power, we should expect that our citizens peace ably established there would be treated on a basis of equality with the citizens or subjects of such power. These views have been communicated to our ministers at London and Berlin for their guidance. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morrow, Feb. 26, 1886. MSS. Dom. Let. "My recent instructions to you show the deep concern which this Government feels in the reported operations of Germany in the Samoan Islands, with which we have treaty relations. We have no treaty relations with the Marshall or Gilbert groups. They are understood to belong to the large category of hitherto unclaimed islands which have been under no asserted administration, and where the traders of various nationalities have obtained lodgment through good relations with the natives. Of the Gilbert Islands we have no precise information. Mr. von Alvensleben recently stated in conversation that the German claim to the Caroline Islands having been decided adversely, Germany would, instead, take possession of the Marshall group. It is understood, but informally so, that an arrangement exists between Great Britain and Germany whereby the two powers will confine their respective insular annexations in the Pacific Ocean within defined areas or zones, and that under this arrangement the Marshall Islands fall within the zone where Germany can operate without coming into collision with Great Britain. "It is not easy to see how either Great Britain or Germany can assert the right to control and to divide between them insular possessions which have hitherto been free to the trade of all flags, and which owe the civilizing rudiments of social organization they possess to the settlement of pioneers of other nationalities than British or German. If colonial acquisition were an announced policy of the United States, it is clear that this country would have an equal right with Great Britain or Germany to assert a claim of possession in respect of islands settled by American citizens, either alone or on a footing of equality with British and German settlers. "There are islands in the Pacific Ocean known to be wholly in the undisturbed possession of American citizens as peaceable settlers, and there are many others where American citizens have established themselves in common with other foreigners. We, of course, claim no exclusive jurisdictional right by reason of such occupancy, and are not called upon to admit it in the case of like occupancy by others. "What we think we have a right to expect, and what we are confident will be cheerfully extended as a recognized right, is that interests found to have been created in favor of peaceful American settlers in those distant regions shall not be disturbed by the assertion of exclusive claims of territorial jurisdiction on the part of any power which has never put forth any show of administration therein; that their trade and intercourse shall not in any way be hampered or taxed otherwise than as are the trade and intercourse of the citizens or subjects of the power asserting such exclusive jurisdiction, and, in short, that the equality of their tenancy jointly with others, or the validity of their tenancy where they may be the sole occupants, shall be admitted according to the established principles of equity and justice." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pendleton, Feb. 27, 1886. MSS. Inst., Germ. "Nowhere were justice and the rights of the native inhabitants more cynically regarded than in Samoa by the great German trading firms. The people of that group belong to the finest of the Polynesian races. They are all nominally Christians, and have never deserved the title of 'savage' except in its acceptation of 'not civilized.' Unhappily tribal animosities and the machinations of interested and unscrupulous white men led to a series of wars. The combatants were anxious to procure fire-arms, and the traders declined to sell them except for land. The result was that between 1869 and 1872 not less than 100,000 acres passed into German ownership at a virtual cost of a few pence per acre. For much, not even this consideration was given. The ignorant natives were deluded into signing documents which they could not, in the least, understand, and which were held to give the white occupiers a secure title. At present the German land claims in Samoa comprise 232,000 acres. British subjects claim not less than 357,000. There is, however, this important difference between the positions of the German and the British claimants; the former have so far made their claims effective that they occupy and cultivate just as much of the soil as they can work, whilst the latter's exist only on paper and are not insisted on by our Government. * The preservation of the native races, whose diminution is hastened by the labor trade, is of vital importance to the white settlers in Oceania. England has attempted to protect the islanders, but not very successfully. Certain alterations in the law have been recommended, but it is doubtful if these, should they be made, will effect much. We concur with Baron Hübner in thinking that the only remedy is to be looked for in some international agreement, 'the terms of which should apply to all mankind living or moving in the archipelagoes or regions of the Western Pacific.' The precedent of Apia in Samoa is encouraging. That town and the immediate neighborhood are governed by a municipal board under the joint supervision of the consuls of Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. It still forms part of the dominions of the King of Samoa, but the administration is in the hands of the municipality and the consuls.'" Edinburgh Rev., (July, 1886,) 87, 92. As to title to Christmas Island, situated in the Pacific Ocean, see Mr. Evarts, As to American Missions in the Caroline Islands, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, same. As to seizure by British Government of Tigre Island in the Gulf of Fonseca, Central America, see message of President Fillmore, of July 22, 1850, with accompanying papers, House Ex. Doc. No. 75, 31st Cong., 1st sess. (8) COREA. § 64. The independence of Corea of China is to be regarded by the United States as now established. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, Aug. 4, 1882. MSS. Inst., "The existence of international relations between the two countries (the United States and Corea), as equal contracting parties, is to be viewed simply as an accepted fact." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, June 9, 1883. Ibid. "The United States, as you are aware, were the first western power to conclude a treaty with Corea. By reason of this fact, and perhaps to give greater emphasis to the friendship so happily initiated, the Corean Government sought the introduction into the treaty of the provision on which this application rests. It was admitted by us as evidence of our impartial desire to see the independence and peace of Corea well established. The second clause of Article I of the treaty of May 22, 1882, between the United States and Corea, reads thus: "If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.' "Except that the provision is made reciprocal, it follows the phraseology of Article I of our treaty of 1858 with China. "This Government could not, of course, construe the engagement thus entered into as empowering or requiring us to decide and maintain that the acts in respect to which good offices are desired are, in fact, unjust and oppressive. Such a construction would naturally render nugatory any attempt to derive good results from the engagement." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, Aug. 19, 1885. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. See a series of interesting dispatches from Mr. Foulk, chargé d'affaires ad interim, at Corea, in For. Rel., 1885. (9) FALKLAND ISLANDS. § 65. The Government of the United States will protect citizens of the United States having fishing rights on the Falkland Islands from the interference of parties claiming under Buenos Ayres. Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baylies, Jan. 26, 1832. MSS. Inst., Am. Vessels of the United States visiting the Falkland Islands have in them "customary privileges," which ought not to be abridged by arbitrary decrees of the British Government. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, Sept. 27, 1854. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. Islands, in 1854, of the ship Hudson and schooner Washington, are given The correspondence with Buenos Ayres with respect to the Falkland Islands will be found in the Br. and For. St. Pap. for 1832–3, vol. 20, 312. "The Argentine Government has revived the long dormant question of the Falkland Islands, by claiming from the United States indemnity for their loss, attributed to the action of the commander of the sloop-of-war Lexington in breaking up a piratical colony on those islands in 1831, and their subsequent occupation by Great Britain. In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington, and the derelict condition of the islands before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonists, this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless." President Cleveland, First Annual Message, 1885. "The right of the Argentine Government to jurisdiction over it (the territory of the Falkland Islands), being contested by another power (Great Britain), and upon grounds of claim long antecedent to the acts of Captain Duncan which General Alvear details, it is conceived that the United States ought not, until the controversy upon the subject between those two Governments shall be settled, to give a final answer to General Alvear's note, involving, as that answer must, under existing circumstances, a departure from that which has hitherto been considered as the cardinal policy of this Government." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to General Alvear, Dec. 4, 1841; quoted by Mr. "This Government is not a party to the controversy between the Argentine Republic and Great Britain; and it is for this reason that it has delayed, with the tacit consent of the former, a final answer to its demands. For it is conceived that the question of the liability of the United States to the Argentine Republic for the acts of Captain Duncan, in 1831, is so closely related to the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, that the decision of the former question would inevitably be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the merits of the latter. Such an expression it is the desire of this Government to avoid, so far as an adequate reference to the points of argument presented in the notes recently addressed to this Department on the behalf of your Government will permit. * "As the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been |