would be recognized where the ceremony had been performed in a foreign country and in compliance with all the requirements of the laws of the country relating to marriage; and what would be the political status of a Japanese woman, in the light of Japanese law, who had contracted such a marriage and who returned to live with her husband in Japan.

It will be seen by the inclosure in Count Okuma's note that a Japanese before marrying in a foreign country must first receive the sanction of the Japanese consular or diplomatic representative in that country- ! a provision of law with which it seems the wife of Joseph Ratcliffe failed to comply.

I have, etc.,

RICHARD B. HUBBARD.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 522.-Translation.]

Count Okuma to Mr. Hubbard.

DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

The 23d day, the 10th month, the 21st year of Meiji (Oct. 23, 1888).

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency's note No. 263 of the 16th instant, in which you express your desire to be informed as to the extent in which the marriage of a Japanese woman with the subject or citizen of another power, celebrated in a foreign country in accordance with the requirements of the laws of such country, would be recognized by the Imperial Government, in the event the Japanese wife should return with her husband to reside temporarily within the empire, and also as to the status of such woman in the light of Japanese law during her residence in Japan. The marriage of Japanese subjects with foreign subjects or citizens was first sanctioned in the 6th year of Meiji, and as decree No. 103, which was then promulgated, contains certain provisions bearing upon the subject of your inquiry, I beg to inclose herewith for your information an extract of the decree. I avail, etc.,

COUNT OKUMA SHIGENobu.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 512.-Translation.]

Extract of Decree No. 103, promulgated on the 14th day of the 3d month of the 6th year of Meiji.

A Japanese subject who may desire to enter into marriage relation with any subject or citizen of a foreign power sball first obtain the sanction of the Imperial Govern

ment.

A Japanese woman on her marriage with the subject or citizen of a foreign power shall lose her status as a Japanese subject, but if she should desire for special reasons to regain her Japanese nationality, she may apply for the permission of the Imperial Government.

A Japanese woman on her marriage with a subject or citizen of a foreign power shall lose the right to hold immovable property within the dominion of His Imperial Majesty even though she might have possessed such property before her marriage. She shall, however, be allowed to possess money and other movable property unless expressly prohibited by the laws of the Imperial Government.

A Japanese subject who may desire to enter into marriage in a foreign country with the subject or citizen of a foreign power shall apply for the necessary sanction to his Imperial Japanese Majesty's diplomatic or consular officer residing in or near the country in which the marriage is to be celebrated, and such diplomatic or consular officer shall report the matter to the Imperial Government.

No. 513.]

No. 739.

Mr. Hubbard to Mr. Bayard.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Tokio, October 25, 1888. (Received November 16.)

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a communication written by the Rev. Dr. C. S. Eby, a missionary of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Canadian mission), and of deservedly high standing in his own church as well as among Christians of all denominations in the Empire, on the subject of religious liberty in Japan.

The immediate cause of the letter inclosed, which was written to the Japan Mail, was a communication which had been published by a few native Christians, complaining that the Imperial Government had failed up to the present time to officially recognize the Christian religion.

The subject discussed by Dr. Eby and the facts recited by him will doubtless prove of interest to the Department of State, as well as to the American Christian public at large, especially in view of the fact that some months ago statements charging the Japanese Government with illiberality towards Christianity were published in certain American religious and news journals.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 513.]

CHRISTIANS IN JAPAN.

RICHARD B. HUBBARD.

TOKIO, October 9, 1888.

To the Editor of the Japan Mail: SIR: When the letter of complaint appeared, written by several well-known Japanese Christians, charging the Government with discriminating against Christians, or at least not properly protecting their rights, and asking you to champion their cause, I was--and I find that all to whom I have spoken were-filled with amazement. I have waited, thinking that perhaps some facts would be forthcoming to show some reason for the appeal, facts that had thus far escaped my knowledge. But as yet none have reached me. My experience as a Christian missionary for twelve years Leads me to admire the steady and steadily growing friendliness of the Government towards Christianity, coupled with a wonderful tact in gradually introducing into the country perfect religious liberty without arousing the active opposition of the old religions and of the masses who still cling to them, as certainly would have been done by a sudden and theatrical proclamation of the legality of the Christian faith. The Government, to my mind-and I believe the missionaries as a whole agree with me has pursued, and is pursuing, the wisest possible course. Practically Christianity is free, as free in Japan as in any land on the face of the earth; for formal privilege the church can afford to wait a little.

Al

I think most of the inconvenience to be found to-day arises either from purely local causes or from ignorance on the part of Christians of actual regulations to which they could appeal, or their want of applying to the proper authorities in case of hardship. For instance, in the matter of burying, some years ago a regulation was officially published giving relatives the right to bury with whatever service they chose. most the day after the regulation appeared I was in a country town when one of the members of the native church was to be buried. The official insisted on the old forms; the Buddhist priests claimed their time-honored rights; but the pastor pulled out of his pocket the paper in which the new regulations were published, and insisted on his newly-given right. The authorities and the priests had to give way to the published voice of the Central Government, and the funeral took place not only with Christian rites, but under the leadership of a foreigner. Ever since that time there has not been any difficulty whatever on that score within the bounds of our work.

There are certainly some disabilities under which the Christian Church as a corporation rests, but none that affect the practical working of any and every evangel

istic agency; and, so far as I can see, the trend of the Government is towards a complete removal ofevery remnant of discrimination. It is clearly the duty of Christians to do their utmost to fit the people for this larger liberty rather than agitate for premature proclamations. My chief regret in this matter is that the letter of complaint should have gone to the West without a strong statement on the other side, for I fear it will give another pretext to the persecution-hunters, still too common there; for "here is the plain unvarnished truth," they will say, "and over the signatures of well-known Japanese, who appeal to the foreigner for help." Shall we have a new tirade from the New York Nation!

SIR: I have received your No. 511, of the 16th ultimo. You therein inquire, with reference to the application of Joseph or John Ratcliffe to have his wife registered at the consulate-general at Kanagawa, whether protection shall be granted in Japan to Japanese wives of seamen, not American citizens, serving on American vessels. The case as presented in your dispatch has had the Department's consideration.

The first question that arises is whether a British subject who has served seven years on an American national vessel, but who is not shown to have taken any steps toward naturalization, is to be regarded as an American seaman, and as such entitled to protection by the United States consular and diplomatic officers in the East. Section No. 170 of the consular regulations for 1888 goes far to settle this question. It provides that the term " American seamen" shall be held to include(1) Seamen, being citizens of the United States, regularly shipped in an American vessel, whether in a port of the United States or in a foreign port;

(2) Foreigners regularly shipped in an American vessel in a port of the United States;

(3) Seamen, being foreigners by birth, regularly shipped in an American vessel, whether in a port of the United States or a foreign port, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States and have served three years thereafter on an American merchant vessel.

It would seem from this that a foreigner, to come under this section, must have been regularly shipped in a port of the United States (as to which in the present case there is no evidence before the Department), or have declared his intention of citizenship; and even in such cases the citizenship so imputed is defined as "within the meaning of the laws relating to the discharge, relief, wages, and extra wages of seamen.”

It is true that in the case of John Ross (with which your legation is familiar), a British subject, serving on an American vessel, who while on such vessel, in the harbor of Yokohama, committed a crime, was held by the Department to be subject to consular jurisdiction at Yokohama; but between consular jurisdiction over an offense committed by a person while serving on an American ship and consular jurisdiction over such a person as a permanent landsman the distinction is great. The first relates to the flag and its incidents; the second relates to a person on shore as permanently detached from the flag. The United States can sustain jurisdiction in the first case on the ground that the flag imparts nationality. They can not sustain jurisdiction in the second case,

because, except in cases in Mohammedan countries of protected foreigners, which exception is rigidly marked, the only way, outside of the flag, of obtaining national protection is by naturalization. In the pres ent case it is not alleged that Ratcliffe has even attempted to obtain naturalization.

It is not necessary to discuss the question whether Ratcliffe's marriage at Hong-Kong in 1887 is, on the principles determined by the Department in this relation, to be regarded as valid in international law. Assuming its validity, the Department is clearly of opinion that the woman claiming on this marriage to be his wife is not entitled, as such, to the protection now claimed, even supposing he is entitled to such protec tion. Ratcliffe's only claim to protection would be his distinctive character as a seaman; and his wife can not be held to take this character for the purpose of protection any more than she could take it for the purpose of navigation.

I am, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

SIR: I transmit herewith, for preservation on the files of your legation, copy of a communication addressed directly to me, under date of February 14 last, by the Hon. E. J. Barclay, secretary of state of Liberia, claiming the intervention of the Government of the United States pursuant to article 8 of their treaty of 1862 with Liberia, to punish the indigenous African tribes which lately attacked certain American missionaries at or near Half Cavalla. A copy of my reply to Mr. Barclay, of even date herewith, is also transmitted for your files.

The original of my letter to Mr. Barclay, sealed and duly addressed, is herewith inclosed, and you will deliver the same to Mr. Barclay without comment, simply explaining that it has been received with your mail from the Department of State.

As it is probable that Mr. Barclay will take an early occasion to speak to you on the subject, it will be proper for you to familiarize yourself with the whole matter, both by perusal of the correspondence here. with sent you and by careful study of the papers on file in your legation relative to the pending claims of France in the Half Cavalla region. You will not fail to be impressed by the circumstance, which appears both in Mr. Barclay's letter and my reply, that, notwithstanding the notorious insubordination, or perhaps, to speak more precisely, denial of Liberian jurisdiction and authority on the part of the Half Cavalla tribe and the admitted inability of the Government of the Republic to constrain these aborigines to subjection or control, the Liberian Government took upon itself to give express permission to Bishop Taylor and his coadjutors to the end that they might ascend the Cavalla River, in order to open up mission stations in the interior. This circumstance is significant, even apart from the uncertainty which seems to cloud the Liberian claim to territorial jurisdiction in the interior region back of the coast between Cape Palmas and the San Pedro River. Even if (as Mr. Barclay appears to have assumed) the Government of Liberia were the judge of the emergency requiring the intervention of the Government of the United States to protect its own citi zens under article 8 of the treaty of 1862, an assumption which my reply shows to be erroneous, it could hardly be deemed within the legitimate bounds of Liberian discretion to provoke the issue by sending our citizens, or encouraging them to go, into regions inhabited by aborigines over whom no effective control is or has been exercised.

On general grounds of policy it is preferable that the consideration and discussion of the points involved should be conducted from Wash