[Untitled]
Copenhagen, May 22, 1902.
Sir: I have the honor to confirm my cablegrams of the 16th and 17th instant and to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 17th and 19th, in reply, as follows: [Printed ante]
Tuesday, last week the Minister of Foreign Affairs told me that in case the Rigsdag was prorogued without having given its consent to the ratification of the treaty, the King would be very reluctant to authorize a prolongation of the six months’ period stipulated in the treaty.
He was of opinion that if the United States Government declared its readiness to extend the limit for ratification, His Majesty would not feel at liberty to withhold his sanction. As soon as the fate of the conference committee’s report had been settled, I accordingly cabled you as above. On the following day, the 17th, the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me that he had seen the King; and that owing to His Majesty’s attitude he wished my Government to make the request for the extension of the period for ratifying the treaty. He admitted that the customary procedure would require that such proposal come from the Danish Government; but hoped that under the circumstances no question of formality would be raised and that the course suggested would be acceptable. I was shown a cablegram from the Danish Minister at Washington, in which he reported that you had expressed a desire on the 15th instant to have the period in question extended. I supposed that this would be sufficient for Mr. Deuntzer’s purpose; but he did not consider it an official request; and I therefore immediately cabled you as per my second message above.
[Page 532]Your reply was communicated to the Foreign Office in a note, dated the 20th instant, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has verbally expressed his satisfaction with your instruction to me; and has assured me that Mr. Brun will be authorized to sign the necessary protocol. The matter will be brought up in a Council of State to be held to-morrow. To further elucidate the present status of the question of ratification, I continue my report of the proceedings in the Rigsdag and add such other information as I consider pertinent.
As indicated in my No. 255, of May 6th, the Landsthing on the following day restored the resolution sent up from the Folkething to the form originally given it by the upper house. The minority leader thereupon moved that, in view of the conflict between the two houses, the matter be referred to a conference committee to be composed of thirty members: fifteen from each house. This motion prevailed, and was subsequently concurred in by the Folkething. On the 9th instant the conferees were elected. The committee held meetings May 10, 12, 13, and 15. Some of the members of the Right showed a disposition to agree to a compromise; but Dr. Matzen, a stubborn opponent of the treaty, made the differences appear irreconcilable, and with his party colleagues, including Schested and Goss of the former Ministry, succeeded in preventing an agreement. Two reports were consequently made: a majority recommending the adoption of the resolution previously passed by the Folkething, and a minority recommending the adoption of that previously passed by the Landsthing. See my Nos. 253 and 255, dated the 25th ultimo and the 6th instant, respectively. The three representatives of the independent group in the Landsthing voted with the Left, or Ministerial party. The Right, or Opposition, had eight members on the committee—all from the upper house; their insignificant following not entitling them to any representation from the Folkething.
I enclose a copy, together with a translation, of the committee’s report, which was submitted to the Rigsdag on the 16th instant, with the result that the resolution proposed by the majority passed the Folkething by a vote of 98 to 2 (not 97 as above), 5 not voting, and 8 being absent; whereas the one proposed by the minority passed the Landsthing by a vote of 33 to 30, 1 not voting and 1 being absent.
The absentee, who was sick, would have voted with the minority, making the margin two instead of three. It was with the greatest difficulty that the Right held its votes together in the upper house. One member of that party refused to vote. A motion to reject the treaty would have been defeated as it had previously been in secret session. As soon as the test vote referred to above had revealed to the Opposition leaders the fact that a number of their party adherents favored ratification, they resorted to indirections for the purpose of presenting a united front. They proposed to defer action on the treaty until the advice of the electors to the colonial councils in the islands had been asked. By means of frequent caucuses, in which strict party discipline was enforced, they thus succeeded in delaying matters and, finally, in bringing about a disagreement between the two houses of the Rigsdag.
[Page 533]Much party feeling was injected into the debate, which at times was quite acrimonious. It was pointed out by the Ministerial side that there had formerly appeared to be a general sentiment in favor of selling the islands; that a despatch from Mr. Carr to the Secretary of State showed that Mr. Estrup, the present leader of the Opposition, had favored such sale in 1894, when he was President of the Council and Minister of Finance; that the Horring and Schested Ministries, both of the Right, had conducted negotiations looking to a transfer; that the finance committee of the Landsthing had advised the conclusion of a treaty of cession in two communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, one dated January 24, 1901, the other, January 22, 1902—two days before the treaty was signed at Washington; that members who now opposed a plebiscite (because the friends of the treaty declared themselves willing to accept it) had shortly before the conclusion of the convention signed a petition to the King, Ministry, and Rigsdag, praying that
no decision with respect to the alienation of our West India colonies be taken except on the basis of a free vote by the inhabitants of the islands, in accordance with the principles of a popular franchise, and that the necessary arrangements for the taking of such vote be made as soon as the circumstances will permit.
See in this connection my No. 238, of December 27, 1901. Surprise was also expressed that members who had helped to form committees and had contributed of their private means for a prosale campaign now were numbered among the gentlemen that placed obstacles in the way of ratification; and that four former members who had held portfolios in the Horring and Schested Ministries—Mr. Schested, Minister of Foreign Affairs, included—now supplied the enemies of the treaty with the necessary votes to prevent ratification.
The letters from the Finance Committee referred to above may be of interest to you. Translations of the same follow:
Finance Committee of the Landsthing,
Copenhagen, January 24, 1901.
Having duly considered the communications from their excellencies the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance with respect to a proposal from the United States Government for the cession of the Danish West Indies to the United States of America, a majority of the Landsthing’s Finance Committee (all excepting Carstensen) does not advise against (11 members, on the contrary recommending) such session, if:
- 1.
- By treaty stipulation the islands and their inhabitants secure such measure of civil liberty and fee trade with the United States as is necessary for a better economic development, contributing to the welfare of the people, than can be expected under Denmark, even if our country were prepared to make greater sacrifices, especially pecuniary, than we have reason to expect.
- 2.
- And the Danish Treasury, in consequence of the conditions of such cession, is completely, or at any rate approximately, indemnified for its claims against the colonial treasuries and the burdens resulting from the cession. Carstensen advises against the proposed session.
C. Moltke
To His Excellency
The President of the Council.
The Committee of the Landsthing,
Copenhagen, January 22, 1902.
In compliance with your excellency’s request, you are hereby advised that the majority of the Finance Committee (8) members adheres to its communication of January 24, 1901, to the former President of the Council, in accordance with which one member of the majority (Carstensen) is unconditionally opposed to [Page 534] the sale of the West India Islands, while the remaining seven insist on the conditions set forth in the letter referred to above, especially that, by treaty stipulation the islands and their inhabitants secure such measure of civil liberty and free trade with the United States as is necessary for a better economic development than can be expected under Denmark.
The aforesaid members of the majority beg to add that in case such stipulation can not be secured, they will, nevertheless, under the circumstances, agree to a cession of the islands, if the inhabitants are given an opportunity to vote in a satisfactory manner on the question whether they wish to remain under Denmark or prefer that the islands be ceded to the United States, and if the vote shows the latter preference.
The minority (7 members) approves the draft of convention for the cession of the islands submitted by your excellency.
C. Moltke
His excellency,
President of the Council, and Minister of
Foreign Affairs Deuntzer.
Of the eight composing the majority of the Finance Committee, only Mr. Carstensen has shown consistency; the others have not respected the written pledge given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Koch, the spokesman of the majority in the Landsthing, was among the members who had signed the petition referred to above, “confidently and earnestly” praying the King, the Ministry and the Rigsdag that the question of ceding the Danish West Indies to the United States be submitted to a plebiscite in the islands. In the course of the debate on the treaty, he said: On April 22d—
I have established, by reference to our legislation, that the West Indies have a coordinate position with the rest of the monarchy; and that the inhabitants are just as good citizens of Denmark as the honorable member (Madsen-Mygdal) and I * * *.
On May 7th:
We stand on legal ground, the ground indicated by our legislation, when we say that the only persons we can ask (for advice as to cession) are the electors to the colonial councils. Others have had nothing to say regarding the affairs of the islands, as long as these have been in our possession * * *.
On May 16th:
A satisfactory election can not, in our opinion, be secured through a plebiscite * * *. The contents of petitions are, of course, wholly indifferent to the Rigsdag, which needs pay no regard thereto. We do not permit ourselves to be guided thereby * * *. When, as signer of the petition referred to, I have previously expressed myself in favor of a plebiscite, I have, in common with many others, not considered the subject in all its bearings.
In view of the inconsistency and shifting of ground explained above, the Ministry thought it useless to continue the session any longer; and accordingly the Rigsdag was prorogued on the day following the vote reported in my cablegram to you. An election to the Lands-thing takes place in September, when one half (27) of the elective members are to be chosen. The Right has 35 out of the 66 members of the Landsthing as at present constituted.
The Ministry feels quite confident of reducing this number sufficiently by the coming elections to secure control of the Upper House in the next Rigsdag, which will convene in October.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that even if such result is not obtained, he at present intends to lay the treaty before the Rigsdag again at its next session.
I have [etc.]