« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
"Yesterday we handed your excellency a dispatch concerning the
ministers of England, France, Germany, Russia, and myself to ask
Mr. Dun, United States minister at Tokyo, telegraphed to Mr. Gresham, Nov. 17, as follows: "Japanese minister for foreign affairs requests in the event of China desiring to approach Japan upon the subject of peace it shall be done through the legation of the United States at Peking." (For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 80.)
Nov. 19, Mr. Gresham sent to Mr. Denby the following telegram: “Our minister Tokyo is advised that any direct overtures for peace made by China to Japan through the American minister at Peking will be considered." (For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 80.)
Nov. 23, Mr. Denby cabled: "Yesterday China made through me direct overtures to Japan for peace; basis, independence Korea; war indemnity." (For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 81.)
May 21, 1900, the Boer delegates were received by the Secretary of State, Mr. Hay, at the Department of State. Mr. Hay subsequently gave out, through his secretary, the following statement:
Messrs. A. Fischer, C. H. Wessels, and A. D. W. Wolmarans, the delegates in this country of the South African Republics, called today, by appointment, at the State Department. They were cordially received, and remained with the Secretary of State for more than an hour. They laid before the Secretary at much length and with great energy and eloquence the merits of the controversy in South Africa, and the desire of the Boer Republics that the United States should intervene in the interest of peace, and use its influence to that end with the British Government.
The Secretary of State made the following reply:
The President, in his message to the Congress, last December, said:
This Government has maintained an attitude of neutrality in
the unfortunate contest between Great Britain and the Boer States of Africa. We have remained faithful to the precept of avoiding entangling alliances as to affairs not of our direct concern. Had circumstances suggested that the parties to the quarrel would have welcomed any kindly expression of the hope of the American people that war might be averted, good offices would have been gladly tendered."
“As the war went on, the President, while regretting the suffering and the sacrifices endured by both of the combatants, could do nothing but preserve a strict neutrality between them. This he has steadily and consistently done, but there never has been a moment when he would have neglected any favorable occasion to use his good offices in the interests of peace.
. * « On the 10th of last March we received from Mr. Hay, the United States consul at Pretoria, this telegram:
“““I am officially requested by the Government of the Republics to urge your intervention with a view to cessation of hostilities. Same request made to representatives of European powers."
“The President at once directed me to convey the substance of this telegram to the British Government, and, in communicating this request I was directed by him to express his earnest hope that a way to bring about peace might be found, and to say that he would be glad to aid in any friendly manner to promote so happy a result. The Transvaal Government was at the same time informed of the President's action in the matter. Our representative in London promptly communicated the President's instruction to Lord Salisbury. In answer he was requested to thank the President for the friendly interest shown by him, and Lord Salisbury added that ller Majesty's Government could not accept the intervention of any power. This communication also was immediately transmitted to our consul at Pretoria, to be communicated to the President of the South African Republic.
“• So far as we are informed, the United States was the only Government in the world of all those approached by the South African Republies which tendered its good oflices to either of the combatants in the interest of cessation of hostilities.
. “As allusion has been made to The Hague convention, and as action has been suggested based upon that instrument, it may be as well to quote a phrase from Article III., which states: “ Powers stranger to the dispute may have the right to offer good offices or mediation even during the course of hostilities," and Article V., which says: “ The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not
accepted." This would seem to render any further action of the United States unadvisable under existing circumstances.
"• The steps taken by the President in his earnest desire to see an end to the strife which caused so much suffering may already be said to have gone to the extreme limit permitted to him. Indeed, if in his discretion he had chosen not to present to England the South African request for good offices, he might have justified his action by referring to the following declaration, which was made in the very act of signing The Hague convention by the plenipotentiaries of the United States:
6" Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself with questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions."
“ • The President sympathizes heartily in the desire of all the people of the United States that the war which is now afflicting South Africa may, for the sake of both parties engaged, come to a speedy close; but, having done his full duty in preserving a strictly neutral position between them and in seizing the first opportunity that presented itself for tendering his good offices in the interests of peace, he feels that in the present circumstances no course is open to him except to persist in the policy of impartial neutrality. To deviate from this would be contrary to all our traditions and all our national interests, and would lead to consequences which neither the President nor the people of the United States could regard with favor.'”
The Neir York Times, May 22, 1900, special dispatch from Washington,
on the morning of May 22, the President's secretary being the only
other person present at the interview. Their reception both by the Secretary of State and by the President was
unofficial. They presented no credentials, the only evidence of their possessing diplomatic powers being an inscription on the card of each of them indicating that he had been sent out as a minister plenipotentiary of the Boer Republics.
On June 8, 1905, the following message was sent, mutatis mutandis, to the ministers of the United States at St. Petersburg and Tokyo:
“ The President feels that the time has come when in the interest of all mankind he must endeavor to see if it is not possible to bring to an end the terrible and lamentable conflict now being waged. With both Russia and Japan the United States has inherited ties of friendship and good will. It hopes for the prosperity and welfare of each, and it feels that the progress of the world is set back by the war between these two great nations.
“The President accordingly urges the Russian and Japanese Governments, not only for their own sakes, but in the interest of the whole civilized world, to open direct negotiations for peace with one another. The President suggests that these peace negotiations be conducted directly and exclusively between the belligerents; in other words, that there may be a meeting of Russian and Japanese plenipotentiaries or delegates without any intermediary, in order to see if it is not possible for these representatives of the two powers to agree to terms of peace. The President earnestly asks that the Russian (Japanese] Government do now agree to such meeting, and in asking the Japenese [Russian] Government likewise to agree.
“While the President does not feel that any intermediary should be called in in respect to the peace negotiations themselves, he is entirely willing to do what he properly can, if the two powers concerned feel that his services will be of aid in arranging the preliminaries as to the time and place of meeting. But if even these preliminaries can be arranged directly between the two powers, or in any other way, the President will be glad, as his sole purpose is to bring about a meeting which the whole civilized world will pray may result in peace.”
Mr. Loomis, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Meyer, amb. at St. Petersburg,
tel., June 8, 1905, MS. Inst. Russia, XIX. 27; Mr. Loomis, Assist.
Inst. Japan, V'. 232.
tentiaries by Russia and Japan to Portsmoutlı, N. II., where on Aug.
(4) THE HAGUE CONVENTION.
“ TITLE I.-ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE GENERAL PEACE.
"ARTICLE I. With a view to obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.
" TITLE II.-On Goop OFFICES AND MEDIATION.
“ARTICLE II. In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Fowers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good cflices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.
** ARTICLE III. Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers recommend that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.
“ Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities.
“The exercise of this right can never be regarded by one or the other of the parties in conflict as an unfriendly act.
" ARTICLE IV. The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance.
“ARTICLE V. The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.
"ARTICLE VI. Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the parties at variance, or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice and never having binding force.
“ARTICLE VII. The acceptance of mediation can not, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.
“If mediation occurs after the commencement of hostilities it causes no interruption to the military operations in progress, unless there be an agreement to the contrary.
"ARTICLE VIII. The Signatory Powers are agreed in recommending the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form :
“In case of a serious difference endangering the peace, the States at variance choose respectively a Power, to whom they intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations.
" For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless otherwise stipulated, can not exceed thirty days, the States in conflict cease from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the meditating Powers, who must use their best efforts to settle it.
“In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these Powers are charged with the joint task of taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.
H. Doc. 551-vol 743