« PreviousContinue »
COTTON STATES AND INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION.
passes, making a total attendance of iana were most complete, and North 27,529,400. The exposition was a financial success.*
The Cotton States and International Exposition was held at Atlanta, Ga., from September 15 to December 31, 1895, its primary purpose being the commercial and industrial advancement of the South. Only two States were represented on the ground by buildings - Georgia Georgia and Alabama. Most of the State appropriations were surprisingly small and inadequate. The exhibits from Georgia and LouisAndrews, Last Quarter-Century, vol. ii. Many of the buildings were afterward destroyed by fire.
Carolina made a fine display of minerals. Creditable displays were sent from Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Russia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Chili and other countries in Central and South America. The chief exhibits were in the government buildings, the mineral and forestry building, the manufactures and liberal arts building, machinery hall, the agricultural building, and the negro building.*
* Andrews, The United States in Our Own Time, p. 751 et seq. (Charles Scribner's Sons).
Italians lynched at New Orleans - Italy demands reparation Secretary Blaine practically refuses Relations severed - Indemnity paid and relations resumed - Chilean dispute - War threatened-Chili pays indemnity - Behring Sea controversy with Great Britain - Early history of case - Seizures of British vessels Modus vivendi established - Both nations send commissioners to examine fisheries - Treaty of arbitration signed - The arbitrators Decision of the courtRestrictions against sealing-Great Britain refuses to change regulations - Retaliation by United States - Joint commission meets, but nothing definitely decided Chinese immigration question The various laws and their provisions - The Venezuelan boundary dispute - Its early. history President Cleveland applies the Monroe Doctrine-His famous message to Congress Commission appointed to examine merits of dispute - Great Britain and Venezuela decide to arbitrate The arbitration tribunal and its award - The Tin Horn War.
For the past few years the foreign relations of the country had been cordial and no difficulties had arisen of so serious a nature that they could not be easily and satisfactorily settled.
But in 1891 occurred an event which threatened to disrupt our previous
pleasant relations with Italy. In New Orleans a secret oath-bound society, known as the Mafia, had been used by one of two rival stevedoring firms, who were disputing over some shipping contracts, as a means of securing the work. In the struggle several
murders were committed and the chief of police, David C. Hennessey, had been especially active in the search for persons suspected of being guilty of the crimes. The evidence gathered by him pointed to a certain gang of Italians of ill repute and he started to "clean them up." Before his object Before his object was attained he was murdered on the night of October 16, 1890.
Eleven Italians supposed to have been in the plot were arrested, but only nine were held for trial. At the trial the jury acquitted six of the nine and disagreed as to the other three. But before the prisoners could be released, the jail was surrounded by a vigilance committee, of which many prominent citizens were members, and on March 14, 1891, the prisoners were seized and lynched. As this was regarded as a flagrant violation of the treaty in existence between the two countries, by the terms of which the United States guaranteed to protect Italian subjects in this country, the Italian government demanded that the persons guilty of the lynching be summarily dealt with and that an indemnity be paid to the families or relatives of the victims.
Secretary of State Blaine replied that the United States would not guarantee to punish the guilty persons, since every one accused of a crime in this country could by law demand "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime was committed." Therefore, if the jury should acquit the alleged criminals the Federal gov
ernment had no legal right to act further in the matter. With regard to indemnity the Italian government was assured that the United States was willing to pay an indemnity to such Italian subjects as came under the treaty and had been wronged, but if, after investigation, the Italians who were lynched were found not to be Italian subjects or that they were guilty, then under such circumstances. the United States would not pay.
This reply was not satisfactory to the Italian government, and on March 31 the Italian minister, Baron Fava, was recalled by King Humbert. On May 5 the grand jury made its report on the lynching and failed to find indictments, so that the first demand made by Italy could under no circumstances be complied with. Finally, however, the matter was compromised by the payment of $25,000 to the families of the victims and diplomatic relations were resumed.*
An incident similar to this now occurred in Chili. President Balmaceda of Chili had been overthrown and the revolutionists had established a provisional government. Some sailors from the United States cruiser Baltimore who had been landed in Valparaiso October 18, 1891, to guard American citizens and their property, were assaulted by a mob on the charge that they had fought and beaten some Chileans in a drunken brawl. Several casualties resulted. The accusation
DISPUTE WITH CHILI; BEHRING SEA DISPUTE.
was denied by the sailors and the United States demanded reparation and indemnity. This the Chilean government refused, claiming that the Americans had incited the riot, but the government offered to punish the guilty and subsequently did punish two. But this did not satisfy the United States and preparations for war were rushed. On January 12, 1892, an ultimatum was sent to Chili demanding an apology and indemnity, and rather than risk a war the Chilean government apologized and paid an indemnity of $75,000.*
From the time Alaska had been purchased by the United States there had been constant and continual wrangling between our country and Great Britain over the extent of marine jurisdiction possessed by the United States in Alaska, under the cession from Russia. The Behring Sea and its coasts were first visited by Vitus Behring, a Danish navigator, for Peter the Great of Russia, and on July 8, 1799, Czar Paul I. granted to the Russian-American Company "various important rights on the Russian coasts in America, including that of fishing." On September 4, 1821, Czar Alexander endeavored to extend Russia's rights "beginning from Behring's Strait to the fifty-first degree of north latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well
* See President Harrison's messages of December 9, 1891, and January 25 and 28, 1892, Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., pp. 183-185, 215-226, 227; Theodore S. Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy, pp. 180-188; Hamilton's Blaine, pp. 675-677; Stanwood's Blaine, pp. 318-320; Ridpath's Blaine, pp. 435-439. VOL. X-5
States the privilege of frequenting for Russia also granted the United ten years "without any hindrance whatever the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks upon the coast * * * for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country." The southern limits of Russian territory were defined by this treaty as 54° 40′ north latitude. But when the ten year period expired Russia refused to renew the grant, though all the other provisions of the treaty remained in force. The American vessels, however, still continued to navigate the Behring Sea without interference from Russia, who never again "" actually asserted the right of mare clausum over that body of water."
* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 4-5; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 292295; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 472-476; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 98-99; Callahan, American Relations in the Pacific, p. 33 et seq. For text see Snow, pp. 132-134.
Schuyler. American Diplomacy, pp. 295–305.
Such was the situation in 1867, and after the transfer of the Russian possessions in America to the United States, the rights of the latter in Behring Sea were not questioned until fur-seals became scarce in other regions and foreign fur-traders began to send their ships to the breeding grounds on the Pribilof Islands. These breeding grounds were under American protection, and according to the generally accepted code of international law, foreign vessels could not kill seals there nor within three miles of the shore. But these foreign vessels hovered just outside the threemile limit and intercepted large herds of the seals on their way to the shores of the breeding grounds. The value of the fishery was thus imperiled, and as the taxes levied upon the sealing company brought large revenues into the treasury of the United States, our government could not afford to allow foreigners to destroy an industry that was most profitable.* During 1886 several British vessels were seized and condemned by the Alaskan courts to be sold for poaching or taking seals in the conterminous waters over which the United States claimed jurisdiction, but in January, 1887, Secretary Bayard ordered the Alaskan authorities to release these vessels, as he did not wish to bring the Behring Sea dispute into the Canadian fishery dispute which was at that time being brought forward by the United States for adjustment.†
* Henderson. American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 9-13.
For the argument of both sides see Snow,
In order to make provisions for the better protection of the seals Secretary Bayard on August 19, 1887, directed the United States ministers in England, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Norway and Sweden to ask these governments to send representatives to a conference in the United States. All the powers appealed to, except Sweden, acted favorably on the suggestion and the negotiations for international agreement seemed at last to promise a successful issue, but in June, 1888, the Marquis of Salisbury withdrew from the proceedings and the negotiations were unfortunately abandoned.
In March, 1889, the Harrison administration came into power and after several more seizures of British vessels by the American government, Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British minister at Washington, on June 14, 1890, presented a note of protest.* Secretary of State Blaine then engaged in a long controversy with Salisbury in an attempt to settle the dispute. The correspondence finally resulted in the establishment of a modus vivendi on June 15, 1891, by the terms of which each country agreed to prohibit sealing in the disputed area until May, 1892, and agreed to allow offenders to
DECISION OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION.
be tried by the courts of the country to which they owed allegiance. Both nations sent vessels to the Behring Sea to enforce the agreement.*
It was also agreed that with a view to submitting the case to arbitration, Great Britain might send representatives to the seal islands to examine and secure data regarding the fisheries. The United States also sent representatives. Sir George BadenPowell, M. P., and Professor George M. Dawson were sent by Great Britain and Dr. C. Hart Merriam and Professor Mendenhall by the United States.
The diplomatic agents of the two countries then entered upon negotiations in the hope of securing a mutually advantageous treaty and after some disputes over minor terms a treaty was signed at Washington on February 29, 1892. Both countries agreed to submit the dispute to a tribunal of seven arbitrators, two to be appointed by the President of the United States, two by Her Britannic Majesty and one each by the President of the French Republic, the King of Italy and the King of Sweden and Norway. This tribunal was to meet at Paris within a stipulated time. The settlement, therefore, went over into another administration and President Cleveland had been inaugurated before the arbitrators met. On May 9,
* Hamilton's Blaine, pp. 659-672; Snow, pp. 497-498; Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., p. 146.
Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 18-31; Snow, pp. 103-105; McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1892, pp. 148-151.
1892, President Harrison issued a proclamation renewing the modus vivendi until the dispute was settled.
The arbitrators met at Paris, France, March 23, 1893. Associate Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court, and Senator John T. Morgan, represented the United States; Baron de Courcel, of the French Senate, represented France; Lord Hannen, and Sir John S. D. Thompson, of Canada, represented England; Marquis Emilio ViscontiVenosti, represented Italy; and Judge Gregers W. W. Gram represented Sweden and Norway. Baron de Courcel, the French representative, was chosen president of the court. ward J. Phelps, James C. Carter, Frederic R. Coudert and Henry W. Blodgett were counsel for the United States; and Great Britain was represented by Sir Charles Russell, Sir Richard Webster and Mr. Christopher Robinson.
The court rendered its decision August 15, 1893, and on the legal points and points of international law it was wholly in favor of Great Britain. The court denied that the United States possessed exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea, and decided that the United States could not lay claim to an exclusive right of property in the seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands. It was also decided that as Behring Sea was a part of the high seas it could not be held as a preserve and that as the seals were feræ naturæ they might be caught by anyone."
* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions,