Page:American Diplomacy in the Orient - Foster (1903).djvu/151

 But there were trials yet in store for the young and feeble member of the family of nations. The treaty which the French naval commander had forced upon the king in 1839, at the cannon's mouth, contained two objectionable clauses—the first, that no Frenchman should be tried on a criminal charge except by a jury of foreigners proposed by the French consul; and the second, that all French goods should be admitted at a duty of not more than 5 per cent. The British government having made demand in 1844 for like terms, the Hawaiian king was forced to grant them. It was most unfortunate that these two treaties, obtained by constraint, should be made the occasion of a serious disagreement with the diplomatic representative of the United States, whose coming had been hailed with so much satisfaction. A case of rape on the part of an American citizen arose, and Mr. Brown, the United States commissioner (diplomatic representative), intervened, and, under the terms of the treaty with France and Great Britain, claimed the right to demand a trial by a foreign jury, but the Hawaiian authorities proceeded without granting his demand. They were clearly in the wrong, and although justifying themselves on technical grounds, their action was undoubtedly provoked by Mr. Brown's domineering and insulting conduct. He was sustained by the Secretary of State, but at the request of the Hawaiian government he was recalled and a new commissioner appointed.

This incident directed attention to the unsatisfactory state of the treaty relations with foreign powers. While both England and France had recognized the