less hesitation in according as they are citizens of the United States." (Senate Doc. 122, p. 84.)

On October 18, 1889, the Compagnie Française du Telégraphe de Paris à New York applied to your Department for permission to lay a cable from San Domingo to the United States. To this request Mr. Blaine replied, December 21, 1889:

"While the authority of the President to grant the permission you desire must be accepted, subject, of course, to the future ratification by Congress, yet there are certain conditions which he regards as absolutely essential before such provisional permission can be accorded."

These conditions are as follows:

"(1) That neither the company, its successors or assigns, nor any cable with which it connects, shall receive from any foreign government exclusive privileges which would prevent the establishment and operation of a cable of an American company in the jurisdiction of such foreign government.

"(2) That the company shall not consolidate or amalgamate with any other line or combine therewith for the purpose of regulating rates.

"(3) That the charges to the Government of the United States shall not be greater than those to any other government, and the general charges shall be reasonable.

"(4) That the Government of the United States shall be entitled to the same or similar privileges as may by law, regulation, or agreement be granted to any other government. (5) That a citizen of the United States shall stand on the same footing as regards privileges with citizens of San Domingo.

66

"(6) That messages shall have precedence in the following order: (a) Government messages and official messages to the Government; (b) telegraphic business; (c) general business.

"(7) That the line shall be kept open for daily business, and all messages, in the above order, be transmitted according to the time of receipt.

"Conditions similar to these were required of your company in 1879 in reply to its application for authority to land one or more of its cables on the Atlantic coast of this country, and assented to by the company's order November 5, 1879.

And it would seem needless to add that similar conditions have been imposed upon all cable companies desiring to land their cables from foreign countries upon the shores of the United States. It will be observed, however, that the first condition has been modified to meet a case which did not arise in 1879, of the cable for which the privilege of landing is sought being used as a link in a longer line of communication. Such a case is believed now to exist in respect to the proposed cable between the United States and San Domingo, which is understood to be only a link in a line between the United States and South America. The spirit and purpose of the first condition imposed in 1879 require that American cable companies should not now be excluded from operating and establishing lines between the United States and South America, either directly or by way of San Domingo.

"The President, therefore, directs me to say that if the foregoing conditions are satisfactory to your company, and it will first file in this Department a duly authenticated copy of the concessions granted by the Dominican Government to land its cable at Puerto Plata, together with a like certified copy of the conditions imposed by this Government, he will be willing to grant the necessary permission to your company to land its cable at Charleston, S. C., subject to the future action of Congress." (House of Representatives, Fifty-second Congress, first session, Report No. 964.)

The cable company took no steps to comply with these requirements. Nearly two years later, on December 2, 1891, the French Cable Company, through its attorney, Mr. Jefferson Chandler, renewed its application for permission to land a cable. Meantime, on December 1, 1891, the company, through the same attorney, obtained from the legislature of South Carolina a joint resolution purporting to authorize it to land a cable on the coast of that State, and, in January, 1892, from the legislature of Virginia, an act purporting to authorize it to land a cable on the shore of that State. On March 10, 1892, a joint resolution was introduced into Congress to confirm these grants. This resolution was referred to a committee, of which Mr. Wise was chairman, and to him was addressed the letter of Acting

Secretary Wharton of March 22, 1892, published in House Report No. 964, Fifty-second Congress, first session. After receiving this communication the committee reported a substitute granting the landing privilege upon the conditions prescribed by Mr. Blaine. Thereupon, for the time being, the attempt of the company to obtain the consent of Congress ceased.

On June 21, 1893, the same company, through the same attorney, applied again to the Department of State, ostensibly for permission to land a cable on the shore of Virginia, but the application was accompanied by a written argument to show that the President had no power to act in the matter, the concluding paragraph of this argument and application being:

"I respectfully request, therefore, on behalf of the applicant that the honorable Secretary of State will decide this application on its merits, and will declare that under the law the States may freely land cables, and that the Executive has no jurisdiction or disposition to prevent the landing and operation of a submarine cable from the shores of Virginia to any point permitted by the State, and that the authority of the State of Virginia to so permit cable companies to land and establish themselves on its coast is complete; and, further, that no action is required or permitted by any of the executive officers of the Government as the law now is." (Fifty-third Congress, second session, Senate Doc. No. 14; letter to Mr. Gresham.)

In response to this argument, Mr. Gresham, changing the attitude of the Government as established by the Presidents and their Secretaries of State from President Grant's time down, declined to act on the application, saying in his communication of August 15, 1893:

"There is no Federal legislation conferring authority upon the President to grant such permission, and in the absence of such legislation, Executive action of the character desired would have no binding force." (Fifty-third Congress, second session, Senate Doc. No. 14; letter of Mr. Gresham.)

October 2, 1895, Mr. Olney addressed a letter to Mr. Scrymser, president of the Central and South American Telegraph Company, in which, in answer to his letter of

September 25, 1895, he stated that La Compagnie Française des Cables Telégraphiques had not made application for permission to land its cables on the coast of the United States, and added:

"Furthermore, in the absence of Federal legislation conferring authority upon the Executive to grant such permission, this Department has no power to act in the matter."

On the 24th of October, 1895, Mr. Scrymser laid before your Department certain information concerning an agreement for laying and maintaining submarine cables between France, North America, and the Antilles, to which the Government of France was a party, and suggested that the French minister be officially informed as to the policy of the Government of the United States in the matter of cablelanding privileges on our shores. Replying to this communication on October 28, 1895, Mr. Olney referred to his former letter, and said:

"There is no Federal statute conferring authority upon the Executive to grant or withhold permission to land cables on the shores of the United States. This Department has, therefore, no power to act in the matter, and I am unable to comply with your request.'

As a natural sequence of the attitude taken by your Department under Mr. Gresham and Mr. Olney, La Compagnie Française des Cables Telégraphiques, acting in connection with the United States and Haiti Telegraph and Cable Company and the United States and Haiti Cable Company, in 1896, landed a cable, extending from Haiti to this country, at Coney Island, New York, without permission of the Government. This Department, acting through the AttorneyGeneral and the United States attorney, brought an injunetion suit against the companies named to prevent the landing and operation of the cable, but in view of the fact that the cable had been landed, the motion for an injunction against its operation was refused. At the same time Judge Lacombe said (77 Fed. Rep., 496):

"It is thought that the main proposition advanced by complainant's counsel is a sound one, and that without the consent of the General Government, no one, alien or native, has any right to establish a physical connection between the

shores of this country and that of any foreign nation. Such consent may be implied as well as expressed, and whether it shall be granted or refused is a political question, and in the absence of Congressional action would seem to fall within the province of the Executive to decide. As was intimated upon the argument, it is further thought that the Executive may effectually enforce its decision without the aid of the courts."

It thus appears that from 1869 to August, 1893, during the terms of Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland (first term), and Harrison, it was held by the Presidents and their Secretaries of State that the Executive has the power, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to control the landing, and, incidentally, regulate the operation of foreign submarine cables in the protection of the interests of this Government and its citizens. Against this established rule, supported by the opinion of the only United States judge who has passed upon the question, stands opposed the refusal to act of Mr. Gresham, followed by the dictum of Mr. Olney. The attitude taken by your Department under Mr. Gresham has resulted in the landing of two foreign cables upon our shores without permission of this Government and subject to no limitations or restrictions whatever. Must this condition continue? Is the President powerless to act until Congress legislates?

A foreign submarine cable which lands upon our shores, in its location enjoys rights upon our territory and in its operation provides a means of international communication, public and private, political and commercial.

The jurisdiction of this nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. (Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 136.) No one has a right to land a foreign cable upon our shores and establish a physical connection between our territory and that of a foreign state without the consent of the Government of the United States.

The preservation of our territorial integrity and the protection of our foreign interests is intrusted, in the first instance, to the President. The Constitution, established