In a despatch of March 7, 1898, Mr. Allen made a report on the new settlements at Mokpo and Chinnampo. He stated that the entire area of land reserved for the general foreign settlement at the latter place was about 975,000 meters, but of this only 460,000 meters were dry land, the remainder consisting of mud flats which were covered with water at high tide. Of the dry land Russia had reserved, under the regulations, 280,000 meters for a consulate, a hospital, a coaling station, and other governmental purposes not arranged for in the regulations; and she had staked off an even larger tract at Mokpo. It seems, however, that the Russian minister, at the request of Japan, reduced his demand for land at the settlements, but that at Chinnampo the Russian government bought an additional tract, outside of but adjoining the settlement, somewhat greater in area than the settlement itself, while it was understood that the same government had purchased or was about to purchase an island in the harbor of Mokpo. (For. Rel. 1898, 489.) The Japanese in Corea, besides enjoying equal rights with other aliens in the general foreign settlements, have their own exclusive settlements, which usually occupy the best sites for business, and in which other foreigners are not allowed to hold land. (For. Rel. 1900, 769.) As to the notice given by the foreign representatives at Seoul that they would consider the whole city of Peng Yang open to foreign trade and residence, pursuant to the imperial decree opening the place to trade, unless a satisfactory site was allowed for the foreign settlement there, see For. Rel. 1899, 488-491. tion. August 26, 1894, a treaty was ratified between Japan and Corea. By Article I. the object of the treaty was declared Japanese interven- to be "to expel the Chinese forces from the Corean kingdom, and to strongly establish the independence of Corea, as well as to fulfill the privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by both countries." For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 93. This treaty was not understood to affect the external relations of Corea October 9, 1895, the chargé d'affaires ad interim of the United States at Seoul reported that the King's father, with the assistance of some Japanese, had forcibly entered the royal palace; that the Queen and three ladies were murdered by Japanese in civilian dress; that the King's father was making many changes in the administration, and that the royal palace was in charge of Japanese troops. He subsequently reported that the King's life was in imminent peril; that the King was "compelled to act abhorrently," and that there was evidence implicating the Japanese minister in what had been done; that a detachment of marines had been landed at the American legation and a similar force at the Russian legation, and that the English consul had sent for a man-of-war. A few days later Mr. Sill, the American minister at Seoul, confirmed what had been reported, and stated that the representatives of England, Russia, and France and himself were urging the Japanese to protect the King and restore the previous status by necessary temporary force. He afterwards stated that Japan would do this if it were approved by the foreign governments; that Russia had telegraphed approval, and that an answer was expected from the other powers. He expressed the hope that the United States would signify its approval, and requested a telegraphic answer. November 11, 1895, Mr. Olney cabled: "Intervention in political concerns of Corea is not among your functions, and is forbidden by diplomatic instruction 64." Again, on November 20th, Mr. Olney cabled: "Confine yourself strictly [to] protection of American citizens and interests. You have no concern in internal affairs. Your actions to be taken independently of other representatives unless otherwise instructed." For. Rel. 1895, II. 971-973. See, further, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, Nos. 274 See, also, the following references to Corea : Rules for the council of state, For. Rel. 1898, 473. Convention between Japan and Russia, April 25, 1898, concerning Corea, Concession of whaling privileges to a Russian subject, For. Rel. 1899, Treaty between China and Corea, Sept. 11, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 491–496. Protection of the interests of American citizens in the Seoul electric railway against Japanese interference, by agreement between the American and Japanese ministers, For. Rel. 1900, 771. The Emperor of Japan, in his declaration of war, February 10, 1904, declared that the integrity of Corea was a matter of constant concern to his empire, not only because of Japan's traditional relations with that country, but because the separate existence of Corea was essential to the safety of his realm, and that the absorption of Manchuria by Russia would render it impossible to maintain the integrity of Corea and preserve the peace in the Far East. February 26, 1904, the Japanese minister at Washington communicated to the Department of State a copy of a protocol concluded by his government with that of Corea on the 23d of the same month. By this protocol the Corean government agreed to place full confidence in that of Japan and adopt its advice with regard to improvement and administration, while Japan agreed to insure the safety and repose of the imperial house of Corea and to "definitely guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of the Corean Empire.” By a later agreement, concluded on the 19th of August, the Corean government undertook to employ a Japanese subject recommended by Japan as financial adviser and to employ a foreigner recommended by Japan as diplomatic adviser, to the foreign office. For the former function the Japanese government designated Mr. Megata, a Japanese, educated in America and a graduate of Harvard University, and for the latter function Mr. D. W. Stevens, an American. For. Rel. 1904, 414, 437-440. March 28, 1904, Count Cassini, Russian ambassador at Washington, left with Mr. Hay a memorandum, in which it was stated that, as Japan had “openly violated the neutrality of Corea and usurped the power in that country," the Russian government was obliged to consider it as being within the area of hostilities. (For. Rel. 1904, 727.) By the treaty of peace between Japan and Russia, signed at Portsmouth, Aug. 23/Sept. 5, 1905, Russia (Art. II.), “acknowledging that Japan possesses in Corea paramount political, military, and economic interests, engages neither to obstruct nor interfere with measures for the guidance, protection, and control which the Imperial Government of Japan may find it necessary to take in Corea.” Russian subjects are placed on the same footing as citizens of the most favored nation. It is also agreed that the contracting parties "will abstain on the Russian-Corean frontier from taking any military measures which may menace the security of Russian or Corean territory." Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 275. A similar acknowledgment may be seen in the treaty of alliance between Great Britain and Japan of August 12, 1905, which (Art. III.) reads: “ Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economie interests in Corea, Great Britain recognizes the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and protection in Corea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations." For the instruction of Lord Lansdowne to the British ambassador at St. XIII. DENMARK. $ 817. The relations of Denmark to the United States prior to the treaty of 1826 are discussed in 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, chap. xii. "Quasi relations were opened with Denmark during the war of the Revolution by Dr. Franklin, who, on the 22d of December, 1779, in a letter to M. Bernstorff, minister for foreign affairs at Copenhagen, remonstrated against the seizure of American prizes within the territorial jurisdiction of the King of Denmark. This question lingered into the middle of the present century. "On the 27th of February, 1783, the Danish minister for foreign affairs wrote a letter to Mr. de Walterstorf, one of his countrymen, in which he said: 'As I know you are on the point of making a tour to France, I cannot omit recommending to you to endeavor, during your stay at Paris, to gain as much as possible the confidence and esteem of Mr. Franklin. . You have witnessed the satisfaction with which we have learned the glorious issue of this war for the United States of America, and how fully we are persuaded that it will be for the general interests of the two states to form, as soon as possible, reciprocal connections of friendship and commerce. Nothing certainly would be more agreeable to us than to learn by your letters that you find the same dispositions in Mr. Franklin.' "De Walterstorf went to Paris and made the acquaintance of Franklin, and assured him that the King had a strong desire to have a treaty of friendship and commerce with the United States. Franklin informed Robert Livingston of the advances, and suggested that Congress should send the necessary powers for entering into the negotiations, but nothing came of it. Franklin would not go on without a special power, and no special power came. "It was not until 1826 that a commercial convention was concluded at Washington with Denmark. This was transmitted to Congress with President Adams's message at the beginning of the second session of the 19th Congress." Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776–1887), 1285. See, as to the Danish spoliations and indemnity, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4549 et seq. For attempts to acquire the Danish West Indies, see supra, § 123. XIV. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. § 818. President John Adams, by a proclamation of June 26, 1799, remitted and discontinued as to Santo Domingo the restraints and prohibitions on trade between the United States and France under the 64 act of February 9, 1799. The proclamation announced that “ arrangements" had been made at Santo Domingo for the safety of the commerce of the United States and for the admission of American vessels into certain ports of the island, so that after August 1, 1799, such vessels might enter Cape François and Port Republicain, formerly called Port au Prince, and after entering those ports depart for any port in the island between Monte Christi on the north and Petit Goave on the west, "provided it be done with the consent of the government of St. Domingo, and pursuant to certificates or passports expressing such consent, signed by the consul-general of the United States, or consul residing at the port of departure." Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 240. In a note to the case of the United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, decided at the December term, 1801, it is stated that in April, 1800, Toussaint was "on terms of amity, commerce, and friendship with the United States duly entered and ratified by treaty." Mr. Justice Cushing, in the circuit court, said that there were some friendly arrangements respecting commerce" between Toussaint and the United States, and he spoke of the regulations between General Toussaint and the American consul." (1 Cranch, 105.) For negotiations for the annexation of Santo Domingo to the United States and the lease of Samana Bay as a naval station, see supra, § 121. In 1896 Mr. Olney, as Secretary of State, recommended that the missions to Hayti and Santo Domingo be put on a plenipotentiary footing. He declared that the existing scheme, by which the minister-resident and consul-general at Port au Prince was accredited to Santo Domingo as chargé d'affaires, was "not only inconsistent with our national interests in those states," but also stood in the way of carrying out the design of the act of March 1, 1893, which authorized the President to give to the representative of the United States in a foreign country the same designation as that of the representative sent by such country to the United States. Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, December 7, 1896, As to the recognition of the independence of the Dominican Republic, see As to proposals for the annexation of Santo Domingo and Samana Bay, As to the assassination of President Heureaux, in July, 1899, see For. As to a treaty between Hayti and the Dominican Republic of 1874, against October 26, 1894, the Dominican chargé d'affaires at Washington stated that this government acquiesced in the rescission of the com |