Mr. Eustis to Mr.
Olney.
Embassy
of the United States,
Paris, June 4, 1896.
(Received June 15.)
No. 511.]
Sir: Referring to previous correspondence
concerning our treaty rights in Madagascar I send herewith a copy of a
note dated May 12, which I addressed to Mr. Hanotaux in compliance with
your instruction, and a copy of a note received in reply dated June
3.
To our categorical inquiry whether the authority of the French Republic
had completely superseded that of the Hovas and whether our treaties
with France were to be extended to Madagascar, Mr. Hanotaux replies that
the introduction in the Chamber of Deputies of the bill declaring that
island a French colony gives the positive assurance you desired. He
hopes, therefore, that the understanding with us is now complete on the
basis of his note to me of April 16 and of M. Patenôtre’s note to you of
April 18, and he adds that in taking the necessary steps for the
organization of the new order of things the French Republic will be
governed, with regard to American citizens, by the sympathies which
unite the two countries.
The bill above mentioned has been referred to a committee of eleven
members, all of whom, with the exception of one, are in its favor. It is
preceded by an explanatory statement of motives, a translation of which,
clipped from the Times, I inclose herewith, together with a translation
of Mr. Hanotaux’s note.
I have, etc.,
[Page 130]
[Inclosure 1 in No.
511.]
Mr. Eustis to
Mr. Hanotaux.
Embassy of the United States,
Paris, May
12, 1896.
Sir: On April 14, writing under
instructions from my Government, I addressed a note to Mr. Bourgeois
with regard to the rights and privileges conceded to the Government
of the United States by its treaty with Madagascar concluded May 13,
1881, inquiring particularly whether that treaty was to remain
operative and stating that, in the opinion of my Government the
precise status of the United States in the matter ought to be
definitely and clearly defined.
Under date of April 16 Mr. Berthelot replied that the maintenance of
the treaty of 1881 was inconsistent with the new order of things
created by the taking possession of Madagascar, but that the
Government of the Republic was disposed to extend to the great
African island the whole of the conventions applicable to the
Government or citizens of the United States in France and in French
possessions.
I sent a copy of this note to the Secretary of State at Washington,
who, in the meantime, had received a communication from Mr.
Patenôtre, repeating substantially the same thing.
In the opinion of my Government, it is desirable that the statement
made to me by Mr. Berthelot and to Mr. Olney by Mr. Patenôtre be so
confirmed as to leave no question touching the extinction of our
Madagascar treaty and its replacement by those the United States
have with France in virtue of complete absorption of Madagascar and
the substitution of a wholly French Government for that of the Hovas
with which my Government has heretofore maintained relations.
Recommending this important matter to the attention of your
excellency, I avail myself, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No.
511.—Translation.]
Mr. Hanotaux to
Mr. Eustis.
Mr. Ambassador: Under date of April 16
last, my predecessor made known to your excellency that in the
opinion of the Government of the Republic, the maintenance of the
treaty concluded May 13, 1881, between the United States and Queen
Ranavalo was incompatible with the new order of things created by
the conquest of Madagascar. M. Bourgeois added that, on the other
hand, the whole (l’ensemble) of the conventions whereby the
Government and people of the United States are benefited in France
and in the French possessions would be extended to the great African
Island.
In acknowledging the receipt of this communication on May 12 last,
you were good enough to express, in the name of your Government, the
wish that no doubt should remain as to the complete taking of
possession of Madagascar by France and as to the substitution in the
island of French sovereignty for that of the Hovas, with which the
Federal Government formerly negotiated.
The Government of the Republic has just introduced in the Chamber of
Deputies a bill declaring Madagascar and the neighboring islets to
be a French colony. This measure will convey to the Government of
[Page 131]
the Union the
categorical assurance to which is subjected its adhesion to our view
in regard to the treaty of 1881. We, therefore, take pleasure in
hoping that the understanding can be considered as complete between
the two Governments under the terms of the note addressed to you
April 16 and of the one which our representative at Washington
handed to Mr. Olney on the 18th of the same month. Besides the
Government of the Republic will be inspired by the sentiments of
sympathy which exist between France and the United States in
facilitating the incorporation of the new régime with regard to the
citizens of the Union, and in assuring the continuation of the
development of the relations which they have with our new
colony.
I beg your excellency to kindly bring this information to the
knowledge of your Government.
Please accept, etc.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 511.—From the
London Times.]
Bill for the annexation of Madagascar,
introduced in the French Chamber of Deputies May 30,
1896.
It is now eight months since the French troops entered Antananarivo,
and the diplomatic and political system of the great island has not
yet been defined. It is needless to insist on the inconveniences of
such a delay, as well in reference to the internal pacification of
our new possession as to the international problems raised by the
conquest. From the beginning two systems have confronted each other,
the one consisting in putting Madagascar under the protectorate of
France, and the other in making the island a French colony. The
Chamber knows that the cabinet presided over by Mr. Ribot decided
upon a protectorate with all its consequences. This was the system
established both by the treaty intrusted to General Duchesne, and by
the unilateral document telegraphed on September 18, which was to be
signed exclusively by the Queen. The cabinet of which we are the
successors did not feel that this was the system to be adopted. The
treaty signed by General Duchesne was not ratified, and the Queen
had to sign a fresh document, which struck out the formula
“protectorate with its consequences.” In the new document the Queen
took cognizance of the declaration of prise de possession of the
island of Madagascar by the French Government. A de facto situation
was thus established, “not, properly speaking, implying cession or
adjunction of territory.” It merely effected a “dismemberment of
sovereignty” which left the Queen a portion of her authority; that
concerning the internal administration of the island.
Such were the declarations made to the Chamber. The prise de
possession of the island had, moreover, already been notified to the
powers by the dispatch of February 11, 1896. That notification was
the occasion on the part of the chief cabinets interested of an
exchange of views, leading, in certain cases, to requests for
enlightenment as to the bearing of a prise de possession de fait, as
well from a diplomatic as from a juridical and legislative point of
view. Those powers having relations with Madagascar, owing to
previous treaties, do not deny that the disappearance of native
sovereignty and the full and complete substitution of France for the
Hova Government would result in causing ipso facto the old treaties
to disappear. But they do not seem disposed to draw the same
conclusions from a mere declaration of taking possession. If,
however, owing to the sacrifices that France has made to establish
her authority in Madagascar, we wish to insure our countrymen and
our products a privileged situation in the great island, it is
necessary for this question of the previously existing treaties to
be settled as soon as possible.
It is in these conditions that the present cabinet has had to resume
the study of the question. Could it retrace the past and endeavor to
restore the protectorate system destroyed, so to speak, even before
it existed by the unilateral document signed by the Queen on January
18? As Mr. Charmes said in a sitting of March 19, 1896, “The Queen
having signed a second treaty, could she be made to sign a third?”
Matters have advanced, declarations have been made and notified.
Irremediable decisions have been taken. In presence of definite and
accomplished facts, considering the great sacrifices made by France
for the conquest of the island, taking into account the necessity of
putting an end to the uncertainty and to a state of trouble which,
if it continues, will menace all the interests in the country, the
Government asks you to declare by a bill that the island of
Madagascar and the dependent islets are henceforth a French colony.
In the present state of things this solution has
[Page 132]
seemed to us the clearest, simplest,
and most logical—the only one fitted to dispel the obscurities still
enveloping the future of Madagascar.
This enactment, moreover, implies to our minds no change in the
method to be applied in the Government and internal administration
of the island. Forewarned against the inconveniences and dangers of
every sort which would result from a too direct intervention in the
affairs of the country, and from an excess of officialdom the
Government intends in no wise to deal a blow at the individual
status of the inhabitants of the island, the laws, customs, or local
institutions. Two cases in point will permit you, moreover, both to
determine and to define in this connection the significance of the
decision solicited from you. According to the common-law system in
colonial matters French laws will henceforth be extended to the
island of Madagascar, but whether modified or not they will be
applied only by degrees as they are made the object of special
promulgation. It is likewise in conformity with the precedents
applied by a certain number of colonial powers and by France herself
that in internal administration the authority of the native rulers
should be utilized. Queen Ranavalo will, therefore, preserve along
with her title the advantages and honors which they confer upon her,
but they are maintained in the conditions of the unilateral document
signed by her under the sovereignty of France. So also with the
native chiefs, with whose cooperation we feel that we ought to
administer the populations not placed under Hova domination.
Such is in its main lines the system which we beg you to adopt, to
put an end promptly to the uncertainties which have lasted too long
as to the nature and principle of our establishment in the great
African island. As soon as the questions of diplomatic order have
been settled in virtue of the law which we solicit from you, we
shall ask you promptly to settle the economic system of Madagascar,
and we shall be ready to make known to you, if need be, in a special
debate the view of the Government as to the general organization of
our new colony in the Indian Ocean. The Government consequently
submits with confidence for your approval the following bill: “The
island of Madagascar with the dependent islands is declared a French
colony.”
