This time she will probably not escape so easily. * * * * * When the President sent the Hawaiian Annexation Treaty to the Senate, he sent with it a message, giving reasons why the annexation of Hawaii seems advisable. His message stated that the idea of joining the two countries together is no new one, that all our dealings with the Sandwich Islands for the past three-quarters of a century have been leading toward this point, and that for seventy years the government of the Hawaiian Islands has leaned on the friendship of the United States, and annexation would be only the natural outcome of the existing relations. The Treaty has been published. It provides, in addition to the clauses regarding the debt and the public lands (about which we told you last week), that all existing treaties between Hawaii and foreign nations shall cease, and that no further immigration of Chinese shall be allowed to Hawaii, nor shall any of the Chinamen at present living in the Hawaiian Islands be allowed to visit the United States. These two clauses are objected to by both the Chinese and the Japanese. China declares that if Hawaii is annexed it will become a part of the United States, and protests that Chinamen living in Hawaii shall therefore have the same right to come to the United States that they have to journey from one State to another. Japan has entered a formal protest against the annexation. She claims that she has perpetual treaty rights with Hawaii; that is to say, that her treaties can never be ended. She declares that the Annexation Treaty must not have any clause cancelling existing treaties with other nations. Such a clause would seriously damage her interests. This protest from Japan comes in some degree from injured feelings. Japan complains that throughout her disagreement with Hawaii she recognized the interests of the United States, and caused copies of all papers relating to the matter to be sent from her embassy to this Government. Despite this courtesy on her part, she was kept in complete ignorance of the Annexation Treaty. When rumors of such an arrangement reached her minister, he went to the State Department to make inquiries, and claims that Mr. Sherman did not give satisfactory answers, but seemed purposely trying to keep Japan in ignorance of the true state of the case. Mr. Sherman replied to this protest that there can be no such thing as a perpetual treaty. According to his point of view, a treaty, no matter how strongly drawn, must end when one of the countries that made it ceases to be a nation any longer. Should the Senate ratify the treaty, Hawaii will become a part of the United States, her life as a nation will be at an end, and her treaties will cease with her.