recently reported to me by the consul, I have demanded the refunding of the money and a final abandonment of like procedure in the future. I have maintained that the established course of the United States allows no distinction of nationalities of men in service under the American flag; that so long as they are in duly enlisted service on American vessels the presumption must be maintained that they are so far American citizens. To this, on advice of the Hawaiian attorney-general, the customs officials have yielded. But suppose the attorney-general should decide, as I have good reasons to believe he will, to advise the customs officials to demand that the United States consul must require the American vessel to give a bond of $50 or $100, on discharge of a Chinese sailor arriving here on said vessel from an American or foreign port, to the effect that said Chinaman shall work only on rice or sugar plantations in this country after discharge from the vessel, or return him to whence he was taken. Against giving any such bond my advice is emphatic. Under the Hawaiian civil code, adopted years since, the consul can discharge American sailors here any time within sixty days after arrival here. But recently restrictive laws have been passed by the legisla ture regarding the admission of Chinese. So long as the Chinaman is in legal service on board the American vessel I have no doubt he must be considered as an American sailor, as I have maintained during my service here and in other countries. I have always made it a rule to insist on the rights of the American vessel and flag to the full limit permitted by maritime legal authorities and the facts, and to demand nothing beyond, though always giving my own country the benefit of doubt. As to the right of the consul to discharge the Chinese-American sailor here I am not free from strong doubt, especially in view of the restrictive policy of the United States in respect of Chinese. Can I demand of the Hawaiian officials what the United States officials at San Francisco or Tacoma can not in like cases permit? If the United States vessel brings the Chinaman here as an American sailor, must not the American vessel take him away as an American sailor? Will the Department of State give its decision on this point? I am, etc., JOHN L. STEVENS. No. 38.] Mr. Blaine to Mr. Stevens. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 25, 1892. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 44, of the 25th ultimo relative to the subject of Chinese sailors enlisted on American merchantmen. You state that the customs authorities of Hawaii have exacted of the captains of American vessels a fee or fine of $25 for each Chinese coming there as a seaman in the service of the ship, claiming that it was for watching him while there; but that on your request the authorities have decided to refund the money so exacted, and to discontinue the imposition of such a fee in the future. You suggest a fear, however, that in case the captain of an American vessel should desire to discharge a Chinese sailor in Hawaii the authorities may require the captain to give a bond that the discharged sailor shall only work on rice or sugar plantations, or that the vessel will return him to the country whence he came; and you ask my instructions in the premises. In the late case of Tu re Ross (140 U. S., 472) decided by the Supreme Court May 25, 1891, Mr. Justice Field, having under consideration the status of an alien enlisted on an American ship, said: By such enlistment he becomes an American seaman-one of an American crew on board of an American vessel-and as such entitled to the protection and benefit of all the laws passed by Congress on behalf of American seamen and subject to all their obligations and liabilities. He could then insist upon treatment as an American seaman and invoke for his protection all the power of the United States which could be called into exercise for the protection of seamen who were native born. He owes for that time to the country to which the ship on which he is serv ing belongs, a temporary allegiance. So long as a Chinese remains an American seaman he is entitled to the same protecting care of the authorities of the United States as other American sailors. Our law recognizes the changed status of a Chinese while a sailor, and it has been held that a Chinese seaman coming into the ports of this country is not inhibited by the Chinese exclusion acts from temporarily landing on shore without any attempt to remain. (Tu re Moncan, 14 Fed. Rep., 44; Tu re Ah Kee, 22 Fed. Rep., 519.) But if such a person should not depart with his vessel or with some other vessel in the ordinary pursuit of his vocation upon the high seas, his presence in the country would become unlawful. And so, without respect to his status, so long as he remains a sailor a vessel could not be permitted to discharge a Chinese in one of our ports and leave him in this country in violation of our laws prohibiting the importation of Chinese laborers. On the 25th of November last the British minister complained to this Government that the authorities of the port of Baltimore had warned the captain of the British ship Oxford, lately arrived at that port manned by a Chinese crew, that any member of the crew who landed would under existing law be liable to arrest. The matter was called to the attention of the Treasury Department, which, on the 2d day of December, replied that it would "instruct the collector of the port that as the Chinamen are seamen their temporary landing for the purposes of the vessel, without any attempt to remain in the United States, may be permitted, but that care is to be taken that they depart from the United States in the ship." The present law of this country excludes Chinese laborers, and its execution requires reasonable regulations. We can not deny the same right to any other government. The proper distinction is whether such regulations are a reasonable incident of such laws. The imposition of a line or fee under the circumstances and for the purposes indicated in your dispatch does not seem to have been such a regulation, and I therefore learn with pleasure that it is proposed to discontinue it. This Government, however, can not object to a regulation prohibiting or regulating the discharge of Chinese sailors in Hawaii which is general in its application and is warranted by the laws of that kingdom. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LEGATION OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, AT WASHINGTON. Mr. Carter to Mr. Blaine. EVERETT HOUSE, New York City, November 1, 1891. SIR: It is in the deepest sorrow that I am obliged to notify you of the death of my father, his excellency, H. A. P. Carter, Her Hawaiian Majesty's late envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, whose good fortune it has been to enjoy peculiarly pleasant and cordial relations with you, both officially and privately. His condition has been critical since his arrival from Europe on September 24, and he died this morning at 1:30 o'clock. Funeral services will be held here within the week and with due dispatch we shall transport his remains through San Francisco to Honolulu. May I also bring to your notice the appointment of the ex-minister of finance by her majesty, and with the approval of my father, the Hon. J. Mott Smith as special envoy and chargé d'affaires pro tem., who will soon arrive in Washington to take charge of the legation and its archives. It was my father's hope that this appointment would meet your ap proval, and that Hawaii might continue to enjoy the particularly friendly and happy relations now existing with the United States of America. I have, etc., GEO. R. CARTER. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Carter. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received with deep regret your communication of the 1st instant, informing me of the death of your father, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary accredited by Her Hawaiian Majesty to the Government of the United States. Upon acquainting the President with this melancholy event, he directs me to express to you and through you to the family of the deceased his sincere sorrow for the loss of one who, as the representative of a friendly nation had long and acceptably fulfilled the duties of his high office and done so much to consolidate the friendship of the two countries, and who, in his personal relations with the officers of this Government had so deservedly won the esteem and confidence of all with whom he was brought into association. For my part, I beg to add my own condolences and to express the feeling of personal loss that comes to me with the death of one with whom my intercourse has ever been especially intimate and whom I have been glad to call a friend. An instruction of regret and condolence will be sent in due course to the United States minister at Honolulu for communication to his excellency the minister for foreign affairs of Her Majesty the Queen. Mr. Sevellon A. Brown, the chief clerk of the Department, has been detailed as the representative therefrom, to attend the funeral of the late envoy at New York. I note your announcement of the designation of Mr. J. Mott Smith as special envoy and chargé d'affaires pro tem. of Her Hawaiian Majesty, and that he may be expected soon to reach Washington. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. HAWAIIAN LEGATION, Washington, D. C., December 5, 1891. (Received December 8.) SIR: I am instructed to convey to you the recognition and high appreciation of Her Majesty the Queen, and of her Government, of the official courtesies tendered on the occasion of the obsequies of Hon. H. A. P. Carter, Her Majesty's late minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary. Permit me, Mr. Secretary, to add my personal appreciation also of the official respect shown to the memory of my late distinguished friend. I have, etc., J. MOTT SMITH. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Smith. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 5th instant, in which you convey an expression of Her Majesty and the Government of Hawaii of their appreciation of the official courtesies tendered by this Government on the occasion of the obsequies of the late lamented Mr. Carter, so long and so ably representing Hawaii, as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Washington, and also signifying your personal appreciation of these courtesies. The courtesy of Her Majesty and of Her Majesty's Government, and your own thoughtfulness, as evinced in your esteemed note, are very gratifying. Accept, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. HAITI. Mr. Durham to Mr. Blaine. No. 36.] Port au Prince, Haiti, January 7, 1892. (Received January 26, 1892.) SIR: I regret to have to inform you that the political situation here is uncertain. Two refugees have already asked the asylum of my residence at Turgeau. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, I am etc., JOHN S. DURHAM. No. 29.1 Mr. Blaine to Mr. Durham. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: In your dispatch No. 36, of the 7th instant, with reference to the uncertainties of the political situation in Haiti at the time of writing, you say that two refugees have already asked the asylum of your residence at Turgeau. It is trusted that no occasion may arise to revive the question of asylum in Haiti, which has heretofore so often been the occasion of correspondence. The practice has several times been very positively discountenanced by the instructions of this Department, and certainly no support can be found for its exercise in advance of apprehended necessity therefor. It is not inferred from your report that you have actually sheltered the refugees of whom you speak, and under the circumstances, you should scrupulously abstain from any action which might bear the appearance of inviting asylum, or improvidently granting shelter. As was said in an instruction of October 31, 1888, to Mr. Goutier, then consul at Cape Haitien: We do not regard extraterritorial asylum, either in a legation or in a consulate, as a right to be claimed under international law. We do not sanction or invite the exercise of asylum in those countries where it actually exists as a usage; but in such cases we recognize and admit its existence, and should circumstances bring about the uninvited resort of a political refugee for shelter to a consulate or legation of the United States, we should expect equal toleration and privilege in this regard with that allowed by such local usage to any other consulate or legation. (F. R. 1888, 938.) Your attention is especially directed to that part of the Printed Personal Instructions, section 48, which enjoins upon the representatives of this Government the avoidance of all pretexts for the exercise of asylum. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. |