the proud Japanese. It was forced upon them in 1866, when the country was in the throes of a revolution, when the government of the Shogun was falling to pieces, and the emperor was not yet able to maintain his sovereignty.

The enforcement of the provisions of the treaties as to exterritorial jurisdiction was equally as objectionable to the Japanese. Not only were foreigners tried by their own consuls for offenses committed against Japan and its people, but the natives were required to prosecute their suits against foreigners in the consular courts of the defendants. It was humiliating enough even when the consuls had a legal education and were competent to administer justice, but often the persons who held these positions were ignorant of law and utterly unfitted for judicial duties. In the latter case the consular judges were in marked contrast to the Japanese judges, who were trained in their profession and independent of executive control.

Even when the consuls were qualified in other respects for their duties, it was not always easy to divest themselves of partiality for their own countrymen, and this influence sometimes led to remarkable decisions. An example was that of an English merchant detected in trying to smuggle a large quantity of opium (a prohibited article) through the custom house, who was brought by the Japanese authorities before the British consular court. He was acquitted on the ground that it was "medicinal opium," and might be freely imported by paying the duty of five per cent. levied on medi

The exterritorial principle was found inconvenient in other respects than in judicial matters. When the consulates were first established in the treaty ports the Japanese government had no postal system, and in each consulate there was a post-office for the convenience of resident foreigners, through which foreign mail matter passed. When the excellent postal service organized by the Japanese government was in full operation, it requested that the consular post-offices might be closed and the government service substituted. The American consulates were the only ones which promptly acted on the suggestion, the others claiming for several years afterwards the right to maintain a separate service in Japanese territory.

A still more aggravating application of exterritoriality was made respecting quarantine matters. During a cholera epidemic in 1879 the government established health regulations at the ports, which the British, German, and some other ministers refused to recognize, and they claimed the right to enact regulations in the ports for their own vessels. A German ship, coming directly from an infected port, was placed in quarantine outside of Yokohama, but under the orders of the German minister the vessel was taken out of quarantine by the consul, attended by a German man-of-war, and brought into port. General Grant, who was visiting in Japan at the time, was emphatic in his denunciation of the European diplomats, and said the government would have been justified in sinking the German ship. The British minister gave instructions to the consuls of his nation to disregard entirely the regulations. On the

MU

other hand, the American minister required all the vessels of his nationality to observe the quarantine. Over one hundred thousand Japanese lost their lives by the epidemic. The American minister, in forwarding the statistics to his government, expressed the conviction that the death roll would not have been so great if the Japanese government had been aided, and not resisted, by certain of the foreign powers in its laudable efforts to prevent the spread of the pestilence.

The minister for foreign affairs urged the application for a revision of the treaties on the representatives of the Western nations, under the conviction that with the governmental and social reforms so well advanced, and with the objectionable features of exterritoriality so manifest, some relief would be granted from the embarrassments which attended the continued enforcement of the treaties. But his arguments and appeals were unsuccessful. The British minister took the lead in the opposition to revision and the other European representatives concurred with him. At that period the influence of Great Britain was all-powerful in the East. Twice had its naval and military forces been used to extort from China unwilling treaties; twice had Japan been humiliated by demonstrations of its martial power; and its squadrons were everywhere present to support its ministers and consuls.

In commercial affairs as well were British interests predominant. In Japan the import trade was largely English, and British merchants were the greatest beneficiaries of the low duties. It did not suit their interests to abandon the practice of exterritoriality or to

change the tariff. Under these conditions the negotiations came to naught, as the American minister was the only one of the foreign representatives willing to accept the proposals of the Japanese government.

Up to this time it had been the policy and the practice of the foreign representatives in Tokio to coöperate in all measures of general interest, but Mr. Bingham, the American minister, was so strongly impressed with the equity and justice of the Japanese claim that he dissented from his European colleagues, and decided to take an independent course. Upon his recommendation the United States, in 1878, entered into a treaty with Japan by which the existing tariff was to be annulled and the exclusive right of Japan to establish imports was recognized. This treaty, however, had no other effect than to place the United States on the side of Japan in its efforts to break the bands which held it in bondage, as its provisions were not to go into effect until similar treaties were made with the other powers.1

Not discouraged by this failure of 1878, new proposals were submitted in 1882, but without avail, the American minister being the only one ready to concede the Japanese claim. Again in 1886 a more formal effort was made and a diplomatic conference or congress was assembled, in which the Japanese minister for foreign affairs, Count Inouye, and the representatives of all the treaty powers participated. Some progress was made towards an agreement on tariff revision,

1 U. S. For. Rel. 1879, pp. 647, 670; 1880, pp. 652, 657, 679; U. S. Treaties, 621; N. A Rev. Dec. 1878, p. 406; Atlantic Monthly, May, 1881, p. 610; Ib. Dec. 1887, p. 721; Nitobe's Intercourse, etc. 104.

but there was an irreconcilable divergence of views on the jurisdictional question. After long discussions, the conferences extending into the year 1887, the Japanese were finally brought to agree that to the native judges there should be added a body of European and American experts, who should constitute a majority in every court before which aliens might be required to appear. But when this important concession was offered, the European representatives insisted that the foreign judges should be nominated by the diplomatic body, and that it should control the laws, rules of procedure, and the details of the administration of justice.

When the concession tendered by Count Inouye and the demands of the diplomatic representatives became known to the Japanese public, a storm of indignation spread through the land, and the opposition became so threatening that the conference was dissolved, and Count Inouye was forced to resign his portfolio. Again the American minister alone was on the side of Japan. To signalize the attitude of his government, an extradition convention was negotiated by Minister Hubbard, ratified, and proclaimed in 1886, while the conference was in progress. In submitting the treaty to the Senate, President Cleveland stated that it had been made not only because it was necessary for the proper execution of the criminal laws, "but also because of the support which its conclusion would give to Japan in her efforts towards judicial autonomy and complete sovereignty."

This treaty originated in questions which were raised through an American, charged with a crime committed