CO885-(13-15) — Page 454

CO882 & CO885 Colonial Office Confidential Prints 理藩院機密印刊 All

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

mwimmin 11111 C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

4. Redward. The arrest of this man appears to have been arbitrary and unnecessary, and we think that 2001. might be fairly claimed.

5. Reynolds. In this case also we think 1001. may be fairly claimed. There is nothing to show that he took any part in promoting the insurrectionary movement, and his correspondence with the ex-Queen afforded no sufficient ground for bis arrest.

6. Rawlins. In this case there was no justification whatever for the imprisonment, and we think that 1001. ought to be paid to him as compensation.

7. Kenyon. The arrest of this man took place after the rising had been put down, and apparently because he was connected with a newspaper advocating opinions opposed to those of the Government. The case is an aggravated one, and 2001. should

be claimed.

8. Levey. In this case also we fail to see that any ground is shown for the arrest and imprisonment and compelling the man to leave the country. The amount of compensation would fairly be 2007.

9. Bailey. There appears to be no shadow of excuse for the arrest of this man on the 12th February. We think that 1001. might fairly be claimed in this case.

In replying to the despatch of Mr. Hatch, we think that the following are the general lines which ought to be observed :-

It should be pointed out that Her Majesty's Government do not dispute the proposi- tion that, on the occasion of an insurrection, any Government is entitled to proclaim martial law, and to use any amount of force necessary for its suppression.

It should further be pointed out that Her Majesty's Government do not deny the right of a Government to require removal from the country of any alien whose presence may reasonably be expected to produce disorder, or be inconsistent with the maintenance of good government.

It should be pointed out that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the proposi- tion that the acquisition of a Hawaiian domicile forfeits the right to the intervention of Her Majesty's Government on behalf of British subjects in cases in which they may appear to have been treated in an arbitrary and oppressive manner.

It should be further pointed out that Her Majesty's Government do not dispute the proposition that an alien resident in any country may properly be prosecuted and punished in due course of law for seditious language, or for conduct or demeanour calculated to endanger the peace of the community, and properly punishable by the law in force.

It should be pointed out that the objection that the claimants had not exhausted their remedy before Hawaiian Courts is one which appears quite unsustainable in view of the Act of Indemnity passed by the Hawaiian Legislature.

If any of Her Majesty's subjects in Hawaii had been guilty of any participation in seditious or treasonable acts, no objection would have been made to their prosecution and punishment in due course of law, or under martial law, if the enforcement of martial law was reasonably necessary for the safety of the community.

It should be pointed out that the agreement to leave the country cannot be con- strued as an admission of guilt, being signed under the pressure of imprisonment, and under the apprehension of proceedings under martial law at a time when, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, it could not be supposed to be necessary for the safety of the community.

We think it should be pointed out that the claimants were subjected to imprisonment under martial law under such circumstances as show that it was not put in force for the repression of insurrection, and rather indicate that it was being used as a means of punishing, by imprisonment and exile, persons who had expressed views unfavourable to the existing Government of Hawaii.

It is probably not desirable to go into much detail or argument with regard to the circumstances of each particular case, but the amount claimed may in each case be indicated with the general grounds upon which such claim is based.

It should be pointed out that compelling aliens, the subjects of a friendly State, to leave the country at great inconvenience to themselves, and at the cost of ruin in business, is, in the absence of circumstances which call for such measures as an act of self-protection, a step of an unfriendly character, which justifies the Government of such aliens in expecting that adequate compensation will be made to them.

The Right Hon.

The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.,

&c. &c. &c.

We have, &o.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

5259.

No. 104.

(CANADA.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, March 9, 1896.

MY LORD,

We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter of the 6th March addressed to the Attorney-General with reference to the alterations which the United States desire to make in the Convention of the 8th February 1896, signed by Sir Julian Pauncefote and Mr. Richard Olney, the particulars of which alterations were communicated in a telegram of Sir Julian Pauncefoto, No. 19, of the 5th March, and are embodied in a copy of the Convention as altered in accordance with that telegram enclosed in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, contained in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter, we have the honour to

Report-

That we will deal with the proposed alterations in the order in which they occur. Preamble. As regards the recital which brings in the claims in respect of the "Wanderer," "Winifred," "Henrietta," and "Oscar and Hattie," it is so obviously important that all claims arising out of seizures prior to the Award should be dealt with at the same time, that every effort should be made to retain words including these claims in the reference.

It is to be noted that the words in Article I. dealing with the same claims are not referred to in Sir Julian's telegram, but no doubt the Senate intended to strike them

out.

We have no information as to whether any special grounds exist which the United States can urge against the inclusion of the claims in respect of these four ships; apart from any valid reason, we think the terms of the Convention should be adhered to.

Article II.-The alteration in Article II. may lead to great delay and expense if the Commission is compelled to sit at San Francisco as well as at Victoria. In our opinion, the discretion given by Article 11. as it stood was far better, and would meet the justice of the case, but there is no matter of principle involved in the proposed alteration.

Article III. The proposed alteration in the second paragraph of this Article cannot possibly be accepted. It would open the door to endless delay and question: the intro- duction of the words "legal or equitable" is obviously intended to suggest a line of argument which would be both unfair and objectionable. Beyond this there is a grave question of principle involved.

Findings of fact were contemplated by Article VIII. of the Treaty. It was the right of either party to ask for them.

The findings originally asked for by Great Britain will be found in the Protocol of Art. I. Prol the 31st May; No. 1, as presented, contained no words corresponding to those now see proceelinux.

under discussion.

Vol. I. p. 6. Vol. f.. p. 39.

30 (p. 11).

Vol. xiii. p. 97 British pating.

On the 8th June (see Protocol) the United States presented their proposed findings. Vol. I. pp. 57 No. 1 contained the words in question, "in whole or in part the actual property of American subjects."

These words were suggested by the Agent and Counsel of the United States them- selves.

Upon these proposals considerable negotiation ensued, which resulted in the agreed finding (see Protocol of the 20th June) presented by the British Agent by agreement with the United States Agent.

CO885-(13-15) — Page 454

Comments

Private Research Note