3
209
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
דורן וז!
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
After considerable difficulty, the party was safely landed. A hard climb up a rugged cliff 260 feet high was successfully accomplished, when his Excellency, Captain King, hoisted the Hawaiian flag, read the Proclamation, and took possession of the Island in the name of the Hawaiian Government.
"The Island is a large lava rock, and was formerly inhabited, as there are square walls about 3 feet high, 4 feet wide, and from 30 to 40 feet long; on the top of which are large It was first thought that some flat stones standing on end, and about 2 feet apart. shipwrecked crew had made a landing here. After search, however, pothing could be found to indicate that such was the case. Captain Freeman found several old images and idols in a good state of preservation, except for the injuries received by exposure to the weather. A number of these idols were brought back by us as curios. One great curiosity that we found looked like a piece of stone, but, on close inspection, it was thought to be petrified flesh. It was found on a stone altar, and must have been an offering to one of the ancient gods. Birds and fish abounded.
*
After a stay of about four hours on the island, we left at 5.30 p.m. for home, steering east by south, arriving at Honolulu on Tuesday evening."
The following was the Proclamation read by Captain King:-
"I, James A. King, Minister of the Interior of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, in pursuance of a commission granted to me by his Excellency Sandford B. Dole, President of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, do hereby, in the name of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, take possession of this island, known as Necker Island, as a part of Hawaiian territory, the same lying within the Hawaiian Archipelago in latitude 23° 35′ 18′′ north, and longitude. 164° 30′ west, and having been claimed by the Hawaiian Government as Hawaiian territory since the year 1845, when an expedition under Captain William Paty was sent to survey said island.
"J. A. KING." "Done at Necker Island this 27th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1894.
Hawaii claims possession of the whole group of isles which stretch to the north-west and constitute geographically a part of this group. In 1857 Captain Paty was sent by Kamehameha IV., in the schooner " Manuokawai," on a voyage to the north-west islands. He visited Nihoa, Necker, Gardner, Laysan, and Lisiansky Islands, and also the Pearl and Hermes Reef, but did not go to Midway or Ocean Island. Midway Island was occupied by the United States about 1868, and an attempt made to establish a coaling station for Ocean Island was taken the China steamers, but it was subsequently abandoned. possession of in 1886 by James H. Boyd, who went down there in the " Waialeale," which had been chartered by the English and Hawaiian Governments to rescue the crew of the shipwrecked vessel "Dunnottor Castle."
Nihoa, Necker, and Gardner Islands, and the islet in the French Frigate shoal, are higher than the others, being the relics of former volcanic mountains. The others are low atolla.
12580.
No. 2.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 20, 1894.
Sir ALBERT ROLLIT asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what means, if any, and under what conditions, as to notice and otherwise, could the commercial trenties with Belgium and the German Empire, which are said to prevent differential fiscal treatment of the Colonies, be denounced.
And was such the effect of the treaties ?,
Sir E. GREY.Both these treaties, can be terminated by either party on giving 12 months' notice. It is not possible to give a general answer to the question how far they prevent differential fiscal treatment of the Colonies, but the actual terms of the articles in those treaties referred to, viz., Article 15 of the treaty with Belgium of July 23, 1862, and Article 7 of the treaty with the Zollverein of May 30, 1865, will be found in a paper recently laid before Parliament, Commercial No. 17, 1893 (G. 7,220), pages 3 and 20.
13082.
(Confidential.)
SIR,
No. 3.
FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received July 27, 1894.)
Foreign Office, July 25, 1894. WITH reference to your letter of the 24th May,* I am directed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the accompanying copy of a letter from the Law Officers of the Crown, reporting their opinion as to the meaning of the words " British origin " in Article XV. of the Anglo-Belgian Commercial Treaty of July 23, 1862.
I am, &c.
Enclosure in No. 3.
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
E. GREY.
Royal Courts of Justice, July 20, 1894. MY LORD,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir H. Percy Anderson's letter of the 2nd ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the accompanying list, relative to a doubt which had arisen as to the meaning to be attached to Article XV. of the Treaty of Commerce of 23rd July 1862, between Great Britain and Belgium.
That the full text of that article was as follows in (1) the English version, and (2) the French counterpart respectively:-
C
(1.)
Articles the produce or manufacture of Belgium shall not be subject, in British Colonies, to other or higher duties than those which are, or may be, imposed upon similar articles of British origin."
(2.)
"Les produits d'origine ou de manufacture Belge ne seront pas grevés dans les Colonies Britanniques d'autres ou de plus forts droits que ceux qui frappent ou frapperont les produits similaires originaires de la Grande Bretagne."
That it would be seen that the English text uses the words “similar articles of British origin" where the French text employs the expression " produits similaires originaires de la Grande Bretagne."
That Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies had under consideration, as we should perceive from the Colonial Office letter of 16th April last, the question of facilitating trade relations between the British Colonies, by arrangements which might, apparently, involve preferential terms in regard to customs duties, and that it, therefore, became matter for practical consideration whether the words of the English text were to be taken to indicate articles produced in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions, or articles produced in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or lastly, articles produced in Great Britain proper, i.e., England, Wales, and Scotland, to the exclusion of all other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions.
That if each text were clearly unambiguous in itself, and if both texts were clearly contradictory as between themselves, it was conceived that the question which of the two texts should be held to prevail could only be settled by amicable arrangement. between the high contracting parties, whereby they might declare their present and original intention to be, and to have been, whatever they might now mutually agree that it should be.
That if, however, the English text were admittedly ambiguous, the following further questions appear to arise:
What was the meaning of the French text? Could the French text be consulted to explain the English text; and must, the French text, if held to be unambiguous, be taken as decisive of the ambiguity of the English text?
That the subject was so fully discussed in the papers referred to us that it did not seem to be necessary to trouble us with any further, or more detailed, observations.
•No 15 th Miskellaledus Nċ. 97. ̄ ̄ ̄
A 2
A man kan je NUOTREBADU NOT TO I