No. 615.
Mr. Merrill to Mr. Bayard.

No. 173]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose copies of the correspondence between the British commissioner resident here and His Majesty’s minister of foreign affairs relative to the harbor of Pearl River, and referred to in my dispatch No. 169, of the 13th instant.

I have, etc.,

Geo. W. Merrill.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 173.]

Mr. Wodehouse to Mr. Austin.

Sir: With reference to my previous correspondence with your excellency’s department on the subject of the cession of “Pearl River Harbor” to the United States Government, I am now instructed to inform the Government of His Hawaiian Majesty that Her Majesty’s Government have received from Her Majesty’s minister at Washington a copy of a proclamation by the President of the United States announcing the ratification of the supplementary convention concluded with the Hawaiian Islands on the 6th of December, 1884.

By Article II of the convention, “the King of these islands grants to the Government of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of “Pearl River,” in the island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid.”

Under instructions from Her Majesty’s Government, I have already pointed out to the Government of His Hawaiian Majesty that the acquisition by a foreign power of a harbor or preferential concession in the Hawaiian Islands would infallibly lead to the loss of the independence of the islands, but this consideration has not prevented His Hawaiian Majesty’s Government from proceeding to the ratification of the supplementary convention with the United States; and although Her Majesty’s Government are informed that by an exchange of notes between the Hawaiian minister at Washington and Mr. Bayard, it is declared that the article in question (No. II) does not subtract from Hawaiian jurisdiction; that it gives no right of property in the [Page 862] harbor or cession of territory; that no exclusive right is conferred commercially, and that it terminates with the original treaty of 1875 whenever notice of such a termination is given; in fact, that it does not confer any exclusive right to “Pearl River Harbor” further than the right of the United States under it to establish a coaling station: yet in view of the actual text of the convention, and of the fact of the non-publication of these notes as forming part of the treaty, I am desired to remind His Majesty’s Government of the terms of the treaty between Great Britain and these islands of the 10th of July, 1851.

The second article of that treaty stipulates that the subjects of each of the two “contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports, and rivers in the territories of the other where trade with other nations is permitted,” and it is stated that “in like manner the ships of war of such contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty to enter into all harbors, rivers, and places within the territories of the other to which the ships of war of other nations are or may be permitted to come to anchor there and to remain and refit.”

The growing importance of the Hawaiian Islands as a coaling and provision station for ships navigating the Pacific make it highly desirable that the harbors of the group should at all times be open equally to the ships of all nations, and as Her Majesty’s Government can not consent to forego the rights and privileges which were expressly conceded to them by the above-mentioned treaty of 1851, they must still look to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands to maintain unimpaired the rights accorded to Great Britain by that treaty.

I have, etc.,

James H. Wodehouse.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 173.]

Mr. Austin to Mr. Wodehouse.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch dated February 9, 1888, wherein you refer to your previous correspondence with this department on the subject of the “cession of Pearl River Harbor to the United States Government,” and state that you are now instructed to inform the Government of His Hawaiian Majesty that Her Britannic Majesty’s Government have received from Her Majesty’s minister at Washington a copy of a proclamation by the President of the United States announcing the ratification of the supplementary convention concluded with the Hawaiian Islands on the 6th December, 1884. You also quote Article II of the said convention, and add that, under instructions from Her Majesty’s Government, you have already pointed out to the Government of His Hawaiian Majesty that the acquisition by a foreign power of a harbor, or a preferential concession, in the Hawaiian Islands, would infallibly lead to the loss of the independence of the islands, and allude to the notes interchanged between the Hawaiian minister at Washington and Mr. Bayard, declaring that the article in question does not subtract from Hawaiian jurisdiction, and gives no right of property in the harbor, or cession of territory; that no exclusive right is conferred commercially, and that it terminates with the original treaty of 1875 whenever notice of such termination is given, and state that, in view of the actual text of the convention and of the non-publication of these notes as forming part of the treaty, you are desired to remind His Majesty’s Government of the terms of the treaty between Great Britain and these islands, of the 10th day of July, 1851, quoting a portion of the second article of that treaty, and stating that Her Majesty’s Government can not consent to forego the rights and privileges which were expressly conceded to them by the said treaty of 1851, and must still look to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands to maintain unimpaired the rights accorded to Great Britain by that treaty.

In reply, I beg to say that the term “cession of Pearl River Harbor” used in your dispatch does not occur in the convention under consideration, and does not, in the opinion of His Majesty’s ministers, accurately describe the effect of that convention; for no cession of territory has been made, and in reality there is no such thing as Pearl River Harbor in the sense of its being a place available to ships of war or to any deep-water vessels.

The only thing which has been granted to the Government of the United States is the right to make a harbor at its own expense at a place called Pearl River Harbor, and, having so made it, the exclusive privilege of using it during the continuance of the treaty.

[Page 863]

It can hardly he said that the treaty of 1851, referred to in your dispatch, whereby the right is granted to Her Majesty’s ships of war to “enter all harbors, rivers, and places,” would extend to the right to use harbors created by a third party at its own expense, under an agreement with His Majesty’s Government, whereby such third party has paid a valuable consideration for the privilege of so creating such harbor. His Majesty’s Government is of opinion that the convention with the United Suites Government does not involve any cession of territory to the United States or any release of sovereignty or jurisdiction by this Government, and that therefore the said convention does not in any manner affect the independence of this Kingdom; and, furthermore, that the privileges granted by that instrument to the United States Government in return for the reciprocal privileges granted by it to this Kingdom are compensatory and expire with the termination of the treaty, and that this construction of the convention is also that adopted by the United States Government.

In regard to the non-publication of the notes exchanged between the Hawaiian minister at Washington and Mr. Bayard, I beg to point out to you that they were published with the amended treaty in the proclamation of ratification by His Majesty.

His Majesty’s Government regards the question of preferential concessions in reciprocal treaties as one which has been thoroughly settled in favor of the right to grant such concessions in return for grants of similar value; indeed Article III of the treaty of 1851, to which treaty you make reference, distinctly recognizes that right.

In the convention under consideration the renewal for a definite period of privileges which have been of such great value to this country is certainly ample compensation for the very slight privilege of allowing the United States Government to create and enter a harbor and establish a coaling station at Pearl River Harbor (where, in reality, no practical harbor exists), during, and only during, the existence of the treaty.

If the Government of the United States should see fit to expend the large amount of money which would be required to be expended before it would be possible that any war ship could enter Pearl River, the compensation by the United States Government for the privileges granted by His Majesty’s Government would be greatly increased, and should the United States Government desire to secure the use of any of the territory or lands adjoining the waters of Pearl River, it would be obliged to acquire them by lease or purchase from the private individuals who are their sole proprietors.

The growing importance of the Hawaiian Islands as a coaling station and provision depot for ships navigating the Pacific, as mentioned in your dispatch, is largely the result of the beneficial influence of the treaty of reciprocity between the Governments of the United States and Hawaiian Kingdom, through the compensatory admission into the United States free of duties of certain of our products.

I venture to express the hope that Her Majesty’s Government, in consideration of the foregoing statement, will appreciate that it is not the wish His Majesty’s Government that His Majesty’s Government shall consent to forego any of the rights and privileges accorded to it by the treaty of 1851, and that it is the intention of His Majesty’s Government to maintain unimpaired the rights accorded to Great Britain by that treaty.

I have the honor, etc.,

Jona. Austin.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 173.]

Mr. Wodehouse to Mr. Austin.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of the 16th instant, in reply to mine of the 9th, and shall transmit a copy of it to Her Majesty’s Government, merely pointing out to your excellency that the only notes which were published by His Majesty’s Government, with the “amended treaty,” were two explanatory notes of Mr. Bayard to Mr. Carter, of the 22d and 23d of September, respectively.

I have, etc.,

James H. Wodehouse.
[Page 864]
[Inclosure 4 in No. 173.]

Mr. Austin to Mr. Wodehouse.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, in which you point out to me that the only notes which were published by His Majesty’s Government with the amended treaty were the explanatory notes of Mr. Bayard to Mr. Carter of the 22d and 23d of September, respectively.

These are the notes which I wished to bring to your notice as containing the avowed views of the Secretary of State of the United States as to the interpretation to be put, in his view, upon the words and phrases of the supplementary convention, and are those to which I referred as having been published with the amended treaty in the proclamation of ratification by His Majesty the King.

Both these notes, and that one from Mr. Carter to Mr. Bayard, which was the occasion of Mr. Bayard’s of September 23, were embodied in a statement presented by the late minister of foreign affairs to the legislature of the Kingdom, then in extraordinary session, on the 8th day of December, 1887, and were then published in the local papers with the other proceedings of the legislature.

I inclose, however, herewith a copy of Mr. Carter’s note to Mr. Bayard of September 23, in case you may not have noticed its publication.

In view of the importance of this present correspondence I have deemed it advisable to furnish copies of the whole to His Majesty’s envoy in Washington, and purpose to forward the same to the minister resident of the United States in this capital.

I have, etc.,

Jona. Austin.