A few years later, new treaties were sub jects of correspondence. In 1841, Lewis Cass, the American Minister at Paris, protested against the Quintuple treaty (to which the United States refused to become a party) on the ground that its object was to show the Ameri can government in a bad light. A treaty of extradition was signed 9 Nov. 1843. A consular convention concluded 10 years later (23 Feb. 1853) contained a provision (protecting con suls against compulsory appearance as witnesses before the courts), the violation of which in 1854 at San Francisco was the occasion of a serious complication which, however, was happily adjusted: Meantime relations in Central America, in the Pacific and in the West Indies became sub jects of discussion. It appears that France was expected to join in the guaranty established by the treaty of 1846 for the transit route across the Isthmus of Panama and by the Clayton Bulwer Treaty of 1850 for the canal across Cen tral America. In 1851, on invitation of the Dominican Republic, the American government sent a special agent to co-operate with repre sentatives of France and England in a remon strance to stop the Haytian war against San Domingo and with a view to possible joint inter vention if needed, but in 1852 it declined to accede to the proposed tripartite arrangement for guaranty of Cuba to Spain. The Hawaiian Islands, valuable because of their harbor facili ties in connection with the development of trade interests in the Pacific, were a source of con tention between France and the United States for nearly two decades. In 1843, following the French seizure of the Marquests Islands, and the demands of France on the Hawaiian authori ties, the American government made a &Clara tion against any attempt by any power to take possession of the Hawaiian Islands either by conquest or by colonization. This declaration doubtless influenced both France and England to recognize Hawaiian independence in 1845 and to agree never to take possession even un der a protectorate. In 1849-50, following a punitive blockade of the Hawaiian harbor by a French frigate, the American government re newed its declaration in stronger terms and contemplated joint action with England to pre French occupation. France, checked in her plans, finally withdrew her extravagant demands and disclaimed any intention of improper inter ference, but continued jealously watchful of increasing American influence which in 1854 finally found expression in a draft treaty of annexation — a treaty whose execution was pre vented partly as a result of French protests.
After 1852 the United States was apprehen sive of French policy under Napoleon III. American diplomatic correspondence from the accession of Napoleon III to the throne of France until the opening of the Civil War shows increasing apprehension of French diplomacy in Spanish-America, and especially in Mexico which, beginning with French designs in the mining region of Sonora in 1852. seemed to contemplate a European protectorate. It also shows apprehension of concerted action of France and England in a policy relating to Cuba and in the political adjustment of the. Americas.
Franco-American relations during the Ameri can Civil War, often severely strained were largely determined by Napoleon's policy in Mexico. They were particularly affected by the determined and persistent watchfulness and firm determination of the American govern ment to prevent the European recognition of the Confederate insurgents, or European inter vention in American domestic concerns through the concerted action of European powers under the influence of Napoleon, and by the continued expression of admonishing opposition to Napo leon's Mexican expedition which (in spite of his friendly assurances) was regarded as a deliberate attempt to establish a Latin-American barrier in order to restrict the dominating in fluence of the United States on the continent.
After the establishment of the Franco-Maxi milian empire which was regarded as a blow at the Monroe Doctrine and whose immediate bearing upon the future politics of the Ameri can continent became a subject of much specu lation and concern, relations were affected by the American apprehension of possible plans for a Franco-Confederate alliance as a counter poise to the strength of the United States, and as a strategic step in the extension of French dominion southward from Mexico to the gate of the isthmus. After the failure of the Con federate attempt to destroy the integrity of the Union, American diplomacy successfully cen tred its efforts on urging the withdrawal of French troops by which Maximilian had been sustained.
During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 American diplomatic relations at Paris assumed a position of unusual prominence. The Ameri can Minister while maintaining friendly rela tions with the French rendered important serv ices to foreign residents of Paris and to the Prussian government.
Among the subjects affecting diplomatic re lations after 1870, the most important, aside from questions incident to immigration, naturali zation and citizenship, were the formation (in 1881) of the French company for the construc tion of the canal across the Isthmus of Panama (over which the United States had guaranteed neutrality of transit by treaty with New Gren ada in 1846), and French restrictions on the importation of American pork products after 1880 on alleged sanitary grounds.
In 1884-85 when the French canal company began work on the canal the American govern ment insisted that the United States would exer cise her right to take all needful precautions against the possibility of offensive use of the isthmian transit against American interests on land or sea. In 1884, acting on a report that Hayti contemplated a cession of naval bases to France, the American government promptly in structed its Minister at Paris to state that such acquisition would conflict with the Monroe Doc trine. In 1888, while discrediting the rumor of French plans to declare a protectorate over Hayti or to annex it, Secretary Bayard, in view of the possibility that the French government might be asked to complete the Panama Canal, instructed the American Minister again to take opportunity by explicit language to express the consistent American policy to leave the smaller independent republics of Latin-America free to develop their own resources, free from foreign dictation or interference.
The French act of exclusion of American pork, resulting in threats to prohibit the impor tation of French wines, was a theme of continu ous diplomatic correspondence until its repeal was secured in 1891. The situation was com plicated by the McKinley administrative bill which by a tariff on French wine attempted to accomplish indirectly what the French prohibi tion of American pork accomplished directly. Finally, after Congress enacted legislation pro viding for thorough inspection of all meats in tended for exportation, a repeal of the French restriction was obtained through Whitelaw Reid, the American Minister to France.