of the archipelago of Jolo when carried on with any part of the Philippine Islands and under the American flag shall be free, unlimited, and undutiable. The United States will give full protection to the Sultan in case any foreign nation should attempt to impose upon him. The United States will not sell the island of Jolo or any other island of the Jolo archipelago to any foreign nation without the consent of the Sultan. Salaries for the Sultan and his associates in the administration of the islands have been agreed upon to the amount of $760 monthly. "Article X. provides that any slave in the archipelago of Jolo shall have the right to purchase freedom by paying to the master the usual market value. The agreement by General Bates was made subject to confirmation by the President and to future modifications by the consent of the parties in interest. I have confirmed said agreement, sub- . ject to the action of the Congress, and with the reservation, which I have directed shall be communicated to the Sultan of Jolo, that this agreement is not to be deemed in any way to authorize or give the consent of the United States to the existence of slavery in the Sulu archipelago. I communicate these facts to the Congress for its information and action." President McKinley, third annual message, Dec. 5, 1899. An act "temporarily to provide for the administration of the affairs of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes," was approved by the President July 1, 1902. See, also, the act of March 8, 1902, "temporarily to provide revenue" for the For communications between the Executive Departments of the Government As to the status of Chinese persons in the islands, see S. Doc. 397, 56 Cong. By a treaty concluded Feb. 12, 1899, and ratified by the Cortes and Reichstag in the following June, Germany acquired from Spain, for 25,000,000 pesetas, or $4,825,000, the Caroline Islands, and all that remained of the Marianas or Ladrones. (Ann. Reg. 1899, [334], 31; the International Year Book, 1899, 166; Polit. Science Quarterly, XIV, 754.) In a note of July 31, 1900, the German embassy at Washington took the ground, in connection with restrictions of trade imposed by the military authorities of the islands of the Sulu Archipelago, that under the protocols of 1877 and 1885 between Germany, Great Britain and Spain the sovereignty of Spain over the archipelago was subjected to a certain limitation which had not been removed by the transfer of the sovereignty by Spain to the United States. The United States, however, asserts over the archipelago a sovereignty that is complete and exclusive. Mr. Magoon, law officer, division of insular affairs, War Department, Oct. 8, 1900, Magoon's Reps. 316. July 7, 1899, the Belgian legation at Washington asked that the American military authorities in the Philippines be instructed to permit a Belgian firm having an establishment at Manila to charter one or more neutral vessels "to carry on the coasting trade on the coasts of the islands during the continuance of hostilities." The United States replied that it was not deemed advisable by the War Department to grant permission at that time "to foreign vessels to engage in the coasting trade in the Philippine Islands." a By the act of March 8, 1902, it was enacted that till July 1, 1904, "the provisions of law restricting to vessels of the United States the transportation of passengers and merchandise directly or indirectly from one port of the United States to another port of the United States shall not be applicable to foreign vessels engaging in trade between the Philippine Archipelago and the United States, or between ports in the Philippine Archipelago." October 23, 1902, President Roosevelt issued an order declaring that the Executive order of July 3, 1899, prescribing the conditions on which customs officers in the Philippines might issue certificates entitling vessels to the protection and flag of the United States on the high seas and in all ports should not be deemed to preclude the Philippine Commission from enacting laws "extending the right or privilege of interisland or coastwise trade in the Philippine Archipelago to foreign vessels during the period while the laws regulating the coastwise trade of the United States are inapplicable thereto under the provisions of the act of Congress. . . approved March 8, 1902." . "Having referred to this subject, he [the Sultan of Turkey] said immediately following my audience with him . . . he telegraphed to Mecca, it being the time of the annual pilgrimage, his wishes that the Moslems in the Philippines should not war with the Americans, nor side with the insurgents, but should be friendly with our army, and that, as I assured him (the Sultan), the Americans would not interfere with their religion and would be as tolerant toward them as he was toward the Christians in his Empire. He added there was at Mecca at the time he sent that message quite a number of pilgrims from the Pacific Islands, and especially their most prominent general and several other officers, and shortly thereafter they returned to their homes. That he was glad that there had been no conflict between our army and the Moslems, and that he certainly hoped their religion would in no manner be interfered with. "I replied, of this he could certainly feel satisfied, that religious liberty was the chief corner stone of our political institutions. He added he hoped his friendly spirit toward my country would be understood." Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Sept. 23, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 768, 770. a Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count de Lichtervelde, Belgian min., July 31, 1898, For. Rel. 1899, 102. Article I. of the treaty of peace with Spain contained the following provision: "And as the island [Cuba] is, upon its Occupation of Cuba. evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property." Referring to the occupation of Cuba by the United States, the British ambassador, in February, 1899, expressed the hope that he might receive an assurance that the rights of certain cable companies under concessions granted by Spain would be "duly assumed and carried out by the United States Government" during its occupation of the territory." The Department of State replied that the Attorney-General held that the existing American control of Cuba was "essentially and merely that exercisable by a temporary military occupation," and that the United States, "not having established a protectorate over Cuba,” was "not called upon to discuss the question of the transitory obligations which devolve upon a protecting state."b The British Government, referring, in answer to this statement, to the provision in the treaty (Art. XVI.), by which the United States agreed, on the termination of its occupancy of Cuba, to "advise any government established in the island to assume the same obligations" as had been assumed by itself, said: "Such an occupation is not in the slightest degree analogous to a mere military occupation. It may or may not be temporary, but, so long as it lasts, it carries with it the duty of respecting such local obligations as the concessions of the telegraph company. It need not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be contended that the United States assumed absolute responsibility for the permanent observance of these concessions in Cuba, but they are bound to respect them during the occupation, and to advise any succeeding Government to do the like. This obligation appears to Her Majesty's Government to result from the character of the occupation itself, and from the terms of the treaty."e The Attorney-General, commenting upon this note, called attention to the fact that the opinion from which it dissented was given before the ratification of the treaty of peace, and that he had expressly referred to the United States being "still theoretically at war with Spain." a Sir J. Pauncefote, Brit. amb., to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Feb. 14, 1899, 130 MS. Notes from Brit. Leg. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, Brit. amb., Mar. 27, 1899, MS. Notes to Brit. Leg. XXIV. 482. Sir J. Pauncefote, Brit. amb., to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, May 25, 1899, 131 MS. Notes from Brit. Leg. 66 "I agree," added the Attorney-General, "that our occupation of Cuba is now other than analogous to a military occupation of a foreign country in time of war. Since the exchange of ratifications of the peace treaty it has been an occupation of a foreign country in time of peace, and in no way affected, internationally speaking, by the circumstance that the Army has been used as the agency. (Calvo, sec. 3144.) "I concede, the treaty having been duly ratified, that Great Britain has a right to appeal, on behalf of her subjects, to the rules prevailing in time of peace. But she has not necessarily the right to ignore the new facts which have followed the cessation of the sovereignty of Spain. Nor do I understand that the chargé questions our duty and right as asserted in the joint resolutions of April 20, 1898, now partly executed, which contemplates an occupancy of Cuba until 'the pacification thereof,' and then the turning over of the island to the control and government of its people. In performance of this duty, we are accordingly occupying Cuba and preparing to turn over the control. This can not be done till the people have organized a government to receive it. "These are facts which are to be reckoned with in ascertaining our obligations with regard to such debts as that government may take over from the former government of Cuba, as being the government of the same nation or people." a "The facts above detailed make it clear that within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900, Cuba is foreign territory. It cannot be regarded, in any constitutional, legal, or international sense, a part of the territory of the United States. "While by the act of April 25, 1898, declaring war between this country and Spain, the President was directed and empowered to use our entire land and naval forces, as well as the militia of the several States, to such extent as was necessary to carry such act into effect, that authorization was not for the purpose of making Cuba an integral part of the United States, but only for the purpose of compelling the relinquishment by Spain of its authority and government in that island and the withdrawal of its forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. The legislative and executive branches of the Government, by the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, expressly disclaimed any purpose to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over Cuba 'except for the pacification thereof,' and asserted the determination of the United States, that object being accomplished, to leave the government and control of Cuba to its own people. All that has been done in relation to Cuba has had that end in view and, so far as the court is informed by the public history of the relations of this country with that island, nothing has been done inconsistent with the declared object of the war with Spain. a Griggs, At.-Gen., Dec. 6, 1899, 22 Op. 654, 655-656. "Cuba is none the less foreign territory, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because it is under a military governor appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of that island to establish a government of their own, under which, as a free and independent people, they may control their own affairs without interference by other nations. The occupancy of the island by troops of the United States was the necessary result of the war. That result could not have been avoided by the United States consistently with the principles of international law or with its obligations to the people of Cuba. "It is true that as between Spain and the United States-indeed, as between the United States and all foreign nations-Cuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain and after the Treaty of Paris, was to be treated as if it were conquered territory. But as between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust for the inhabitants of Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been established by their voluntary action." Neely v. Henkel (1900), 180 U. S. 109, 119-120. The President is authorized to do whatever he finds necessary or expedient other conditions By the proviso relating to the American evacuation of Cuba, inserted in the act of March 2, 1901, and commonly known as Isle of Pines, and the Platt amendment, it is declared that "the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundary of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." The provisions of this amendment were accepted by the constitutional convention of Cuba. of evacuation. Early relations. a 11. TUTUILA AND OTHER SAMOAN ISLANDS. $ 110. As early as 1853, if not earlier, the United States was represented by a commercial agent at Apia, in the Samoan, then commonly called the Navigators, Islands, and in several subsequent appropriation acts provision was made for a consul there." @31 Stat. 895, 897-898. In the Congressional Directory of June 20, 1854, 48, may be found the name of Aaron Van Camp as commercial agent at Apia. Information as to claims for spoliations by "wrongful acts of the commercial agent of the United States exercising authority" at Apia, in 1855, may be found in II. Report 212, 35 Cong. 2 sess.; H. Report 569, 36 Cong. 1 sess.; S. Report 148, 36 Cong. 1 sess. See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dobbin, Sec. of Navy, Jan. 13, 1857, 46 MS. Dom. Let. 244. |