FRANCE.

APPLICATION OF ANTILOTTERY LAW TO NEWSPAPERS CONTAINING LISTS OF DRAWINGS OF THE LOANS OF PARIS.

Mr. Patenôtre to Mr. Gresham.

[Translation.]

EMBASSY OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,

Washington, March 15, 1895.

Mr. SECRETARY: Mr. Dermigny, general agent for the French newspapers in New York, informs me that the post-office of that city, by an evidently erroneous interpretation of the Federal law which forbids publications bearing on lotteries to be handled by the post-office, has just seized 1,600 copies of the Petit Journal and 100 copies of the Petit Parisien which contained the list of the last drawings of the loans of the city of Paris and of the Crédit Foncier, as also certain information concerning the premiums given by the first of these newspapers.

These same newspapers having been in 1891, when the law in ques tion first went into force, seized in the same way for identical reasons, my predecessor requested the Hon. Mr. Blaine to remove this interdic tion in reason of the essential difference which exists between the financial drawings which have just been spoken of and lotteries properly so called. These latter are forbidden by our laws just as they are by American law.

The bonds of the Crédit Foncier and of the city of Paris can not be included in the same category as lottery tickets, because they bear a regular interest which is never less and is sometimes more than 3 per cent, and they are consequently to be assimilated to other securities of the stock exchange, such as national loans, railroad bonds, etc. This distinction has, furthermore, been admitted by Mr. Blaine, as is proven by a letter from him dated April 30, 1891, that I have this moment before my eyes. With this letter was inclosed a note destined to inform my predecessor that instructions had been sent in this sense to the postmasters of the Federal ports. This note, which is also dated the 30th of April, 1891, was as follows:

The Postmaster-General has given instructions to the postmasters at all seaport cities to deliver all foreign newspapers including the French, of course, that do not contain the advertisements of regularly organized and well-known lottery schemes. The newspapers containing advertisements of premium Government and municipal bonds, are not disturbed.

Referring to the views expressed herein by Mr. Blaine, I trust that the Post-Office Department will be pleased to confirm the instructions given to its agents in 1891, and I would be obliged if you would kindly call their attention to this subject.

Please accept, etc.,

PATENÔTRE.

No. 12.]

Mr. Gresham to Mr. Patenôtre.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 16, 1895.

EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 19th ultimo, touching the complaint of Mr. Dermigny that certain copies of French newspapers containing lists of drawings and information concerning premiums in connection with loans of the city of Paris and of the Crédit Foncier, had been denied circulation in the mails.

I called the attention of the Postmaster General to your request that the Post-Office Department confirm the instructions, which it appeared from a note addressed by Mr. Blaine to your predecessor, Mr. Roustan, under date of April 30, 1891, had been given to the postmasters at seaport cities, to deliver all newspapers, including the French, that did not contain the advertisements of regularly organized and well-known lottery schemes, and to leave undisturbed newspapers containing advertisements of premium Government and municipal bonds. In his reply Mr. Bissell informs me that in December, 1890, and February, 1891, the general question was very fully examined, in order to determine the action of the Post-Office Department under the then recently amended and enacted lottery act, with regard to foreign journals containing advertisements and drawings of the Austrian lottery premium bonds. Prosecutions under the penal clause of the act in question were then pending in some of the United States district courts, which evidently involved the constitutional features of the law. Indictments were pending in United States district courts of several of the States, based on the use of the mails by dealers in and agents for the sale of European premium bonds by circulating newspapers and circulars advertising those schemes, and this led to the refusal of the postmaster at New York to deliver at that time to Mr. Dermigny certain issues of Le Petit Journal, containing lists of prizes awarded at the drawing of bonds in the city of Paris, against which act Mr. Roustan remonstrated. It was then thought that in at least one important case, that of E. H. Horner, of New York, all of the questions involved in Mr. Roustan's objections would receive judicial construction, but the case of Mr. Horner was carried on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. This circumstance delayed answer to Mr. Roustan, but as Mr. Dermigny announced that the Petit Journal had omitted from the issues of the paper sent to this country the objectionable lottery advertisements, Mr. Tyner, the Assistant Attorney-General for the Post Office Department, wrote, under date of March 14, 1891, to the postmaster at New York city, as follows:

This induces me to suggest that, for the present and until the whole matter can be discussed and decided upon, it would be wise to deliver to Mr. Dermigny any issues of that paper reaching your office that do not contain the advertisements of regular lottery companies-that is to say, that if the advertisements be that [sic] of only premium city bonds or of premium Government bonds, although the lottery attachment may be connected with each, the papers shall be delivered to him.

Upon this letter of Mr. Tyner Mr. Blaine appears to have based his informal note of April 30, 1891, to Mr. Roustan, but no record is found showing that general orders had been given to postmasters at "all seaport cities." Mr. Bissell further states that the question whether premium bonds issued by a foreign Government or city with lottery features attached came within the purview of the antilottery act of September 19, 1890, had not then been finally settled judicially, and pending its settle

ment such matter was permitted to be delivered. On January 30, 1893, nearly two years later, Horner's conviction was sustained, and the scheme of the premium bonds issued by the Austrian Government was declared to be a lottery. In that case it appeared that the Austrian Government "offered to every holder of a 100-florin bond, if it was redeemed during the first year, 135 florins; if during the second year, 140 florins, and so on, with an increase of 5 florins each year until the sum should reach 200 florins; and she also offered the holder as a part of the bond a chance of drawing a prize, varying in amount from 400 florins to 250,000 florins."

In speaking of this scheme the court said:

Whoever purchases one of the bonds purchases a bond in a lottery, and within the language of the statute an "enterprise offering prizes depending upon lot or chance." The element of certainty goes hand in hand with the element of lot and chance, and the former does not destroy the existence or effect of the latter. What is called in the statute a "so-called gift concert" has in it an element of certainty and also an element of chance, and the transaction embodied in the bond in question is a “similar enterprise" to lotteries and gift concerts.

That advertisements of government or municipal bonds where prizes, differing in amount and determinable by chance, in addition to par value of the bonds with interest, are offered the holders, are, under the rule laid down in the Horner case, forbidden by the act of September 19, 1890, to be carried in the mails is beyond question, and I do not see that any discretion exists with the Post-Office Department in regard to the imported journals to which your note relates.

I return herewith the original printed inclosure with Mr. Dermigny's letter of March 18 last, left personally by you at the Department.

Accept, etc.,

W. Q. GRESHAM.

FRENCH POSSESSION OF MADAGASCAR AND THE EXTENSION TO THAT ISLAND OF UNITED STATES TREATIES

FRANCE.

No. 444.]

Mr. Eustis to Mr. Olney.

WITH

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, Paris, January 16, 1896. (Received Jan. 27.) SIR: I send herewith a copy of the Yellow Book on Madagascar distributed day before yesterday to the Chambers. It contains the correspondence between the French Government and its representative in the island from December 17, 1885, date of the signing of the first treaty with the Hovas, to December 11, 1895, date of the decree withdrawing the management of the Madagascar affairs from the foreign office and placing it under the minister of colonies.

This correspondence gives the diplomatic history of the efforts of the French Government to substitute for the treaty of 1885, which was disregarded by the Hovas, another one defining in an unequivocal manner the nature of the French suzerainty, particularly with regard to the relations of the Malagasy Government with the foreign nations, and shows how the new treaty was signed after the success of the French expedition.

The only new fact which this correspondence brings to light is that Mr. Hanotaux, who had drafted the treaty of 1895, and who had intrusted it to the general commanding the French expedition when he left Paris, attempted later on to modify it in a manner which would have materially increased the power of France over the island, and that

it is only because the instructions to that effect reached General Duchesne after the original treaty was signed that they were not carried out.

I inclose herewith a translation of the treaty as signed, and I italicise the parts which General Duchesne was to suppress had he received the instructions in time. You will readily see that these suppressions would have changed altogether the character of the instrument, which would not have been then a treaty-that is to say, an agreement between the two parties, but simply an act of submission of the Hovas. It is believed, however, that the treaty will remain as it was signed, although doubts are expressed on that point.

I have, etc.,

J. B. EUSTIS.

[Inclosure in No. 444.-Translation.]

Treaty between France and the Malagasy Government, signed October 1, 1895.

The Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Queen of Madagascar, with the view of putting an end to the difficulties which have arisen between them, have appointed [here follow the names], who, after an interchange of credentials, have agreed upon the following:

1. The Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar recognizes and accepts the protectorate of France with all its consequences.

2. The Government of the French Republic will be represented at the court of her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar by a resident-general.

3. The Government of the French Republic will represent Madagascar in all its exterior relations. The resident-general will have charge of the relations with the agents of foreign powers. Questions relating to foreigners in Madagascar will be transacted through his agency. The diplomatic and consular agents of France abroad will be intrusted with the protection of the subjects and the interests of Madagascar. 4. The Government of the French Republic reserves the right of maintaining in Madagascar the military forces necessary for the exercise of its protectorate. It binds itself to lend a constant support to Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar against all dangers that might assail her or compromise the tranquillity of her states.

5. The resident-general shall have control over the interior administration of the island. Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar undertakes to bring about such reforms as the French Government may judge useful for the exercise of its protectorate, as also for the economic development of the island and the progress of civilization.

6. The whole of the expenditure for the public services in Madagascar and for the service of the debt shall be guaranteed by the revenues of the island. The Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar undertakes not to contract any loan without the authorization of the Government of the French Republic. The Government of the French Republic does not assume any responsibility for the engagements, debts, or concessions which the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar may have contracted previous to the signing of the present treaty. The Government of the French Republic will lend its assistance to the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar to facilitate the conversion of the loan of December 4, 1886.

7. The settling of the boundaries of the territories of Diego Suarez will be begun as soon as possible. The boundary line will follow as nearly as the configuration of the ground will allow 12° 45′ of south latitude.

Mr. Patenôtre to Mr. Olney.

[Translation.]

EMBASSY OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

IN THE UNITED STATES, Washington, February 12, 1896.

Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: Owing to the difficulties which have arisen in Madagascar in the exercise of its protectorate, the Government of the French Republic has, as you are aware, been obliged to intervene by military force for the purpose of causing its rights to be

respected, and of securing guarantees for the future. It has thus been led to occupy the island with its troops and to take final posession of it. I have the honor to notify the United States Government of this in obedience to instructions which I have just received from my Government.

I avail, etc.,

PATENÔTRE.

No. 42.]

Mr. Olney to Mr. Patenôtre.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 26, 1896. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 12th instant, stating that, owing to difficulties which have arisen in Madagascar in the exercise of its protectorate, the French Republic has been obliged to intervene by military force for the purpose of causing its rights to be respected and of securing guarantees for the future, and that it has thus been led to occupy the island with its troops and to take final possession of it.

The Department has noted the contents of your note with due reserve as to the effect of the action of the Government of France upon the treaty rights of the United States.

Accept, etc.,

No. 635.]

Mr. Olney to Mr. Eustis.

RICHARD OLNEY.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 30, 1896.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of a dispatch from Mr. E. T. Wetter, United States consul at Tamatave, No. 130, of February 18, 1896, treating of political and general news to Madagascar, from which I take the inclosed copy of a letter addressed by Mr. Ferraud, the French resident at Tamatave, of February 18, 1896, to Mr. Wetter, announcing the raising of the siege and stating that from that date American citizens would be under French jurisdiction.

I inclose also a copy of Mr. Wetter's reply of the same date, requesting that the contemplated transfer of jurisdiction be suspended until he could receive instructions from his Government touching the matter.

It becomes necessary, in this connection, to apprise you of the receipt of a note from the French ambassador, of February 12, 1896, saying that his Government had been led, by difficulties that it had encountered in exercising its protectorate over Madagascar and in insuring guarantees for the future, to take final possession of the island.

On the 26th of February last I replied to Mr. Patenôtre that the Department had noted the contents of his note "with due reserve as to the effect of the action of the Government of France upon the treaty rights of the United States." Copy of this correspondence is also inclosed.

In view of the foregoing facts, you are instructed to request of the Government of France an explicit statement of its understanding of the effect of this "definite occupation" of the island of Madagascar, in regard to the rights and privileges conceded to the Government of the United States by its existing treaty of peace, friendship, and commerce, concluded May 13, 1881, modifying its previous treaty of February 14, 1867.