The agents of the society manifested a laudable desire to conform to the wishes of the Government throughout the transaction. They assured me that after a careful calculation they would be required to expend the sum of $150 on each individual in complying with the agreement, and they would have nothing left to remunerate them for their care, trouble, and responsibility. At all events, I could make no better arrangement, and there was no other alternative. During the period when the Government itself, through its own agents, undertook the task of providing for captured negroes in Africa the cost per head was very much greater.

There having been no outstanding appropriation applicable to this purpose, I could not advance any money on the agreement. I therefore recommend that an appropriation may be made of the amount necessary to carry it into effect.

Other captures of a similar character may, and probably will, be made by our naval forces, and I earnestly recommend that Congress may amend the second section of the act of March 3, 1819, so as to free its construction from the ambiguity which has so long existed and render the duty of the President plain in executing its provisions.

The interest of the United States in the Republic of Liberia as evidenced by successive state papers.

[Extracts.]

(Despatch of June 16, 1869, of Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Seys. American Minister to Liberia, from MSS. Records of State Department. Cited Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. V. p. 766.)

Your despatch No. 68 is received. In it you inform the Department that a dispute had grown up between Great Britain and the Republic of Liberia relative to the boundary of the republic, and that the government of Liberia had requested the interposition of the United States, and if necessary its protection.

You will inform the minister of foreign affairs, in reply to his request, that the President regards the progress of the Republic of Liberia, which has been so much identified with the United States, with deep solicitude, and would see with deep regret any collision between it and any foreign power. And if the good offices of the United States can do anything towards the just settlement of the existing controversy, you are at liberty to tender them. But to go beyond that, and to offer protection, would be a violation of all the traditions and policies of the United States since. they first entered the family of nations.

Should you think it necessary to tender the good offices of this government, you will before doing so report to this Department what is the precise point at issue upon which our mediation is desired, in order that further instructions may be given before you communicate officially with the government of Liberia.

(From a despatch of July 17, 1879, of Mr. Hunter, Acting Secretary of State, to Mr. E. F. Noyes, American Minister at Paris. Foreign Relations 1879, p. 341.)

I transmit herewith for your information, and with a view to the ascertainment of the facts therein reported, a copy of a despatch recently received from the United States minister resident and consul-general at Monrovia, informing the Department that the French consul-general at that place had offered to the Liberian government the protection of that of France. A recent despatch from Commodore R. W. Shufeldt, who, with the Ticonderoga has lately visited the west coast of Africa on a special mission, gives the report in substantially the same dress.

When it is considered that this government founded and fostered the nucleus of native representative government on the African shores, and that Liberia, so created, affords a field of emigration and enterprise for the lately emancipated Africans of this country, who have not been slow to avail themselves of the opportunity, it is evident that this government must feel a peculiar interest in any apparent movement to divert the independent political life of Liberia for the aggrandizement of a great continental power which already has a foothold of actual trading possessions on the neighboring coast.

You are doubtless aware that the policy of the adjacent British settlement of Sierra Leone, has of late years been one of encroachment, if not of positive unfriendliness, toward Liberia, and it may prove that the policy of France in this matter may be merely antagonistic to British encroachment, and designed rather to aid that feeble republic to maintain its independent status, with development of trade with France and French possession, than to merge Liberia in the outlving system of that country. If so, it is desirable at least that the United States should be cognizant of the true tendency of the movement.

(Despatch of Feb. 2, 1880, of Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, to Mr. J. H. Smyth, American Minister to Liberia, from MSS. Records of State Department. Cited Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. V. p. 767.)

Liberia is regarded by us with peculiar interest. Already the home of many of those who were once of our nation, she is the predestined

home of many who now enjoy citizenship in this republic. This going out to a greater or less extent of our citizens of African descent is but a question of time, and if Liberia be in proper condition to receive and care for such emigrants from the United States, her territory will be chosen by them in preference to that of any other country. A large and valuable commerce between Liberia and the United States may be developed if the two countries can be brought to see their true relations toward each other.

(Despatch of April 7, 1880, of Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, to Mr. E. F. Noyes, American Minister to France, from MSS. Records of State Department. Cited Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. V. p. 767.)

The volume of Foreign Relations for 1879 devoted to the affairs of Liberia a much larger space than would seem to be warranted by the relative importance of that country. The reason for this is plain, and grows out of the peculiar relations which this country holds towards. Liberia; and which are likely to become of increased importance. It is therefore quite suitable that the great powers should know that the United States publicly recognizes these relations, and is prepared to take every proper step to maintain them. In this view the publication of this correspondence seems not inopportune.

(The following statement, based entirely, as the notes indicate, on MSS. Records of the State Department, is taken from Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. V. pp. 772-773.)

In 1884, while negotiations between Great Britain and Liberia were in progress, for a settlement on the basis of the Mannah River, it was reported that Kent's Island, in that river, had been occupied by the French. In bringing this report confidentially to the attention of the French minister at Washington, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who was then Secretary of State, adverted to the fact that Liberia " was founded by negro settlers from the United States," and that," although at no time a colony of this government, it began its career among the family of independent states as an offshoot of this country, and as such entitled to the sympathy and, when practicable, to the protection and encouragement of the United States." On the occasion of recent diplomatic disputes between Liberia and Great Britain, "this relationship of quasi-parentage" had, said Mr. Frelinghuysen, been recognized. It was not thought possible that France could seriously intend to assert a claim to territory so notoriously in dispute between those two powers, where no French right of possession

had before been recognized by either; but it was thought proper, said Mr. Frelinghuysen, to state, provisionally, that the United States would consider a French claim to territory in the Mannah River as threatening the integrity and tranquillity of Liberia, and also to intimate "the firm conviction and expectation" of the United States that, in view of its "intimate relationship" to Liberia, "any assertion of claim to any part of Liberia as defined by conventional limits, any enforcement of a settlement of alleged grievance, which might take place without the United States being allowed an opportunity to interpose their good offices to arrange the matter, could not but produce an unfavorable impression in the minds of the government and people of the United States." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roustan, French min., Aug. 22, 1884, MS. Notes to France X. 15.

See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min., to England, No. 955, Aug. 22, 1884, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXVII. 289; Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, min. to France, No. 227, April 21, 1880, MS. Inst. France, XX. 137.

(Despatch of Jan. 13, 1886, of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. McLane, American Minister to France. Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 298.)

You are desired to acquaint yourself with the former inquiries made at the time of the French attempt to control Kent Island, in the Manna River, and with the grounds on which our friendly intervention on behalf of Liberia was based. We exercise no protectorate over Liberia, but the circumstance that the Republic originated through the colonization of American citizens, and was established under the fostering sanction of the Government, gives us the right, as the next friend of Liberia, to aid her in preventing any encroachment of foreign powers on her territorial sovereignty, and in settling any dispute that may arise. The southeasterly boundary at the river San Pedro has never been questioned, and has the powerful sanction of general admission for many years.

(Despatch of July 12, 1886, Mr. Bayard to Mr. McLane, American Minister to France. Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 304.)

As this Government is deeply interested in preserving the territorial integrity of Liberia, it has learned with much concern that French officers have recently been carrying on intrigues with tribes within the long established and universally recognized boundaries of the Liberian Republic, and treating with said tribes as independent.

(Annual Message of President Cleveland, Dec. 6, 1886. Foreign Relations, 1886, p. vii.)

The weakness of Liberia and the difficulty of maintaining effective sovereignty overs its outlying district, have exposed that republic to encroachment. It cannot be forgotten that this distant community is an offshoot of our own system, owing its origin to the associated benevolence of American citizens, whose praiseworthy efforts to create a nucleus of civilization in the dark continent have commanded respect and sympathy everywhere, especially in this country. Although a formal protectorate over Liberia is contrary to our traditional policy, the moral right and duty of the United States to assist in all proper ways in the maintenance of its integrity is obvious, and has been consistently announced during nearly half a century. I recommend that, in the reorganization of our Navy, a small vessel, no longer found adequate to our needs, be presented to Liberia, to be employed by it in the protection of its coastwise

revenues.

(Despatch of March 22, 1887, of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. McLane, American Minister to France. Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 291.)

As mentioned in your note of February 3, 1886, to Mr. de Freycinet, Mr. Waddington in 1879, and Mr. Jules Ferry, in 1884, disclaimed that France had any design upon any territory which Liberia could claim.

It is not, therefore, apparent how, in view of these declarations, the French Government has been able to ratify in 1883 the treaty of 1868, nor to decree in 1885 the annexation of the villages which were recognized in 1883 as part of Liberia.

The relations of the United States Government with Liberia have not changed. It still feels justified in using its good offices in her behalf. These have been repeatedly exercised and its moral right to their exercise admitted by Great Britain in 1843 (see House Ex. Doc. No. 162, first session, Twenty-eighth Congress, Vol. 4, 1843, '44), and again in 1882, 1883, 1884, in the controversy concerning the northwestern boundary of Liberia, and by France in the answers of Mr. Waddington in 1879, and of M. Ferry in 1884, above referred to. We are unwilling to believe that it is now the intention of the French Government to act inconsistently with the spirit of these declarations.

You are requested to lay the facts proving the validity of the Liberian title to the territory in question before the French Government, accompanied by such observations as may seem, in your discretion, best cal