174 EMPLOYMENT OF THE PLEBISCITE [A7^ 



who had suggested that a plebiscite be taken in the Hawaiian 

 Islands on the question of annexation to the United States. 

 This is in part the reply as quoted from Moore's Digest of 

 International Law : 



In referring to the sentiments of the population of Hawaii, you 

 say: "It is understood that only a small fraction of their number 

 favor annexation." You omit to state how this understanding has 

 been ascertained, nor is it clear what is the purpose for which the 

 statement is introduced. 



It can not be that one so well informed in the history of inter- 

 national relations as Count Okuma could have wished to suggest 

 thereby the propriety of appealing from the action of the Govern- 

 ment to " the population." In international comity and practice the 

 will of a nation is ascertained through the established and recog- 

 nized government, and it is only through it that the nation can speak. 

 This is shown in the relations of the United States with Japan. The 

 first intercourse of this Government with the Empire was had with 

 an authority which held a divided, if not disputed, sovereignty. 

 Later, when all power and legislation was centered in the Emperor, 

 this Government recognized him as the sole exponent of the public 

 will. When parliamentary government was established the changed 

 relation was accepted by the United States. No inquiry was thought 

 proper to ascertain whether these various changes received the sanc- 

 tion of " the population." The present Government of the Hawaiian 

 Islands, recognized by Japan and other countries, has been in exist- 

 ence for a series of years, during which time public peace and social 

 order have been maintained, and the country has enjoyed an era of 

 unprecedented prosperity. The Government of the United States 

 sees no reason to question its complete sovereignty, or its right to 

 express the national will.® 



The same principle was asserted in the Memorandum of 

 the American Peace Commission of October 27, 1898, at the 

 conclusion of the Spanish-American war, where it is stated 

 that " much less do the Ainerican Commissioners maintain 

 that a nation can not cede or relinquish sovereignty over a 

 part of its territory without the consent of the inhabitants 

 thereof. . . ."' 



When during the Franco-Prussian war Thiers visited the 

 capitals of the great neutral Powers of Europe in order to 

 solicit their support for France and particularly against the 

 annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, Gladstone " could not under- 

 stand how the French protests turned more upon the in- 

 violability of French soil than on the attachment of the 



" Quoted from Moore's Digest, vol. i, p. 274. 

 ^ Quoted, ibid., vol. i, p. 368. 



