Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Foreign Affairs Committee the treaty had no champion and in Sumner, the chairman of the Committee, it had a strong opponent. Nor was there any considerable public sentiment in its favor. The treaty was laid on the table until, in 1870, the Committee reported unanimously against it and it was allowed to lapse. A second treaty, drawn up in 1901, failed of ratification by the Landsthing. This treaty contained no mention of a vote, nor did the final treaty, ratified in 1917, by which the islands, now including St. Croix, were finally ceded to the United States in consideration of a payment of twenty-five million dollars. Before the ratification of this last treaty, in response to a popular demand, a plebiscite was held in Denmark on the subject of the cession, but, contrary to the current impression, no official vote was held in the islands. There were several mass meetings held and informal votes taken which, though naturally inconclusive, appear to indicate an overwhelming sentiment for the cession, but the only formal expression of opinion came from the island legislatures, which had voted overwhelmingly for the cession and had sent delegates to Copenhagen to press the matter.

THE PERIOD OF 1871-1914

ST. BARTHOLOMEW, WEST INDIES, 1877

The island of St. Bartholomew, in the West Indies, after having been under French sovereignty for over a century and a half, had been given to Sweden in 1784 in return for the economic advantages about to accrue to France from the establishment at Gothenburg of a warehouse for French merchandise. The island, which measured twenty-five kilometers in circumference and had a population of about 2400 inhabitants, proved to be of little use and considerable burden to Sweden, who had no other possessions in the neighborhood. Accordingly, the Swedish Cabinet, in 1877, offered to cede the island back to France, to which Power, with colonial possessions already in the immediate vicinity, it would be of considerable value. On August 10, 1877, the treaty was signed by the two Governments.2 By Article I, the cession was made conditional on the consent of the population of St. Bartholomew. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, on presenting the reasons for the treaty to the Chamber, on November 12, attributed the initiation of this condition to the Swedish Government. It was, he said, however, a demand "too much in

1 The new Danish constitution had doubled the electorate by enfranchising women and domestic servants, and reducing the age requirement for electors. Owing to this there arose a sentiment that the old Parliament was not competent to pass on the question. 2 Documents, post, p. 977.

conformity with our sentiment and with the rules of our public law for us to make any objections." Such, indeed, may have been its parentage, and yet the thought suggests itself that the vote of 1878 in St. Bartholomew, like the vote of 1868, in the Danish Islands, probably signifies the desire of a Power, recently bereft of its territory by Prussian aggression, to point out the weakness of the victor's title by insisting upon the validity of the principle of selfdetermination in international law.

It had been agreed that while the terms of the protocol which was to settle the several details of the transfer were being discussed the vote should be taken. This was done under universal manhood suffrage of the Swedish citizens of the island.1 Although they had been under Swedish sovereignty for a century, there had been practically no colonization and the people had retained their French customs and language. The result of the plebiscite, which gave three hundred and fifty votes for union and only one against, occasioned no surprise.2 The protocol, which was not concluded until after the plebiscite, contained a generous provision allowing those wishing to retain their Swedish citizenship to do so without leaving the island, unless they should become a menace to public order.

On January 22, 1878, the resolution approving the treaty was adopted by the French Chamber of Deputies. Deputy Lacascade in seconding it referred to the original autocratic cession to Sweden with the comment," today, thank God, public European law is greatly changed in this respect; the retrocession .. has not been submitted to you until after a solemn and free vote, a real plebiscite of the inhabitants." Another deputy, from his place, added, "We shall vote for it the more willingly as it recognizes the right of plebiscite in its full extent," 3 and with a vote of 425 to 8, the Chamber adopted the resolution.

THE TACNA-ARICA QUESTION, 1883

The Tacna-Arica question dates from the War of the Pacific, which began in 1879, between Chile on the one part, and Bolivia and Peru on the other, and was terminated by the Treaty of Ancon, in 1883.

During the war Chile had occupied not only all the Bolivian littoral, but also the three southern Peruvian littoral provinces of Tarapacà, rich in nitrates

1 Victor M. Maurtua, The Question of the Pacific, translated by F. A. Pezet, p. 242, quotes extracts from correspondence between the Swedish and French Governments, showing that the latter had raised the question whether foreign residents might vote and that the Swedish Government had answered unequivocally in the negative.

2 The table given in Documents, post, p. 983, note, gives the number of males over 15 years of age as 617.

3 Translation from Annales du Sénat et de la Chambre des Députés, Session ordinaire de 1878, vol. 1, p. 151.

de 1878, vol. 1, p. 151.

and guano, and the source of most of the revenue of Peru, and Tacna and Arica, which contained the important port of Arica. By the Treaty of Ancon, Peru ceded Tarapacà outright to Chile. She did not, however, cede the provinces of Tacna and Arica, but agreed that they should remain in the possession of Chile, and subject to Chilian laws and authority for ten years; at the expiration of this term a plebiscite was to decide whether or not the provinces should "remain finally under the dominion and sovereignty of Chile, or continue to form a part of Peruvian territory." The details of the plebiscite as well as of the payment of the ten million dollars which the winner was to make over to the loser, were to be established by a special protocol.1

As the subsequent controversy turns on the significance and interpretation of this article, it is interesting to trace its origin. Whoever had been the aggressor in the war,- and it is a point still in dispute,- it soon became evident that Chile would be the victor. In order to prevent an unnecessary prolongation of hostilities, President Hayes offered the mediation of the United States which was accepted in October, 1880, and the negotiations were held on board the U. S. S. Lackawanna. The mediation was unsuccessful. Chile, already in occupation of Tarapacà, Tacna, and Arica, insisted on absolute cession of the first province, and occupation of the others until peace should be signed, as security for indemnity, and Peru absolutely refused these conditions or any cession of territory whatever. When hostilities were resumed, Chile occupied Peru, arrested Calderon, the President, for alleged efforts to revive Peruvian resistance, and exiled him to Chile. President Arthur thereupon renewed the efforts of the United States to bring about an agreement. The Blaine-Trescot Mission was instructed to exert its efforts to induce Peru to concede a suitable monetary indemnity and to persuade Chile to be content with this and to relinquish her claim to any cession of territory. This effort at mediation being also unsuccessful, in June, 1883, a third attempt was made to end hostilities and the United States Ministers at Lima and at Santiago were instructed by Secretary Frelinghuysen 2 to save to Peru as much of her three provinces under occupation as was possible in the treaty of peace.3

Mr. Logan, United States Minister to Chile, proceeded accordingly to open negotiations with Señor Aldunate, Chilean Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and with the captive Peruvian President, Calderon. Logan submitted various formal propositions, some of his own devising, to both parties. Of these propositions, which included arbitration, limited occupation, sale, and division of the two provinces, one, which was of Chilean origin and which was put into 1 Treaty of Ancon, Article 3, Documents, post, p. 992.

2 Secretary of State under President Arthur.

3 Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Logan, June 26, 1882, Documents, post, p. 985.

« ZurückWeiter »