indemnity to foreigners residing in this country on account of injuries resulting from riots or mobs. Of course the principle of non-liability on the part of the United States, insisted on under the circumstances of the cases to be referred to, will be conceded by it in favor of other nations, when citizens of the United States domiciled abroad are the sufferers in person or property from mob violence of the people in a foreign country. That is to say, the United States will apply the same rule to other nations as it claims for itself.

In 1839 Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, decided in a controversy with Spain:1

"The government of the United States is not liable for misconduct of its private citizens within their jurisdiction, such citizens not being in any sense its representatives."

In the case of the British subjects, who suffered at the hands of a mob in Texas, Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, ruled, in substance, that the offense was against the laws of Texas, and cognizable only by the laws of that state2 so far as civil redress was concerned.

On the 30th of November, 1885, a mob at Rock Springs, Wyoming, killed twenty-eight Chinese, wounded fifteen, drove many from their homes and destroyed a large amount of property. On a claim for indemnity being urged by China, our State Department, speaking through Mr. Bayard, in substance. held that the government was not liable as such for indemnity; that while the outrage perpetrated on these Chinese was committed in a territory of the United States, still the territory was organized and enjoyed a system of local self-government; that the government as such was not liable for any local disturbance or domestic violence, and that redress must be obtained through local laws of the territory, and that under the rules of international law the federal government was not responsible. The Secretary went on to say, further, in substance: "The 1 Wharton's Dig., sec. 227.

2 Wharton's Dig., sec. 227.

8 Wharton's Dig., notes China, sec. 67.

circumstances of this case were so shocking, and the outrage perpetrated on these men so great, that a recommendation to Congress would doubtless be made by the President for an appropriation to pay for the property destroyed. This was as a gratuity, the government emphatically denying that it was liable for the same, but the recommendation was made solely through pity for the unfortunates whose property was destroyed."

There are two other notable instances of mob violence inflicted on aliens domiciled in the United States. These both occurred in New Orleans. The first was directed against the Spaniards, in 1851, on account of the shooting of American citizens in Cuba who had joined the filibustering expedition. The Consulate of Spain was attacked also. On claim for indemnity by Spain, our government held that it was not liable except as to the case of the consul; that the claim for redress must be sought through the courts of the State of Louisiana, and that the claim of private individuals was no greater than would have been the claim of a citizen of the United States under similar circumstances.

1

The other case was that of the Italians who suffered at the hands of a mob in New Orleans, in 1891. On a demand for indemnity by Italy, our government speaking through Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, ruled emphatically, the same principle of non-liability, but as a mere gratuity, a recommendation was made to Congress, and that body voted $25,000, to be paid to the families of the Italians who were killed. These references are sufficient to illustrate this phase of the subject. The Act of 1868, known as the Expatriation Act, to be found in section 1999, Rev. Stats. U. S., deals only with naturalized citizens, and does not undertake to define what is the status of an alien who has simply declared his intention to become a citizen, with respect to his right, to claim protection at the hands of this government. That act is a 1 Snow on International Law, pp. 35, 36. 2 Snow on International Law, pp. 35, 36.

simple declaration as to what this government understands the law to be, and of its policy with reference to aliens who have expatriated themselves and become citizens of this country. Commenting on this act, Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State,' in a communication to Mr. Fish, in 1879, rules as follows:

"The Act of 1866 before recited made an onward step. It declared that the right of self-expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people and indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In speaking of the legal effect of naturalization of foreigners in this country, Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, in a communication to Mr. Wright, thus expressed himself:

"He held that the moment a foreigner becomes naturalized in the United States he experiences a new political birth, and should he return to his native land he goes as an American citizen. It may be important to qualify the statement by adding the exception that he is not absolved from any crime or offense as against the laws of that country [meaning the country of his former allegiance; these words in brackets are mine] committed prior to his departure, but the offense must

have been such as that he was liable for trial for same before he expatriated himself."

Governmental protection against and redress for injuries is generally sought and obtained through the diplomatic and consular representatives of the government appealed to, but cases may arise where the emergency is so great and pressing that an appeal through such channels would be fruitless. In such cases the naval officers of the country appealed to may interpose to protect the citizen, but in order to justify such interference the danger must be so imminent and pressing as to justify the conclusion that the wrong will be inflicted unless immediate protection through the agency of the navy is extended.

1 Mr. Evarts, Sec. State, to Mr. Fish, Mss. Switzerland, notes to Taylor, 227.

2 Mr. Cass to Mr. Wright, Taylor, 226.

I may say as to the claims arising out of the late disturbance in China, known as the Boxer uprising, and the international complications resulting therefrom, the adjustment and payment of an indemnity to each of the various allied nations concerned, stands on a different footing. That was an outbreak which China could and should have suppressed. It was not only an infliction of injuries on private citizens of the various countries domiciled in that empire, but was a direct attack on the diplomatic corps of each of the countries represented.

It will be observed that in the preparation of this paper the sources of international law most frequently used as authority for the propositions herein laid down have been the papers and documents connected with the Department of State of our own country.

The student of the noble science under consideration can but

be charmed and fascinated with the lofty style, the pure English, the elegant diction, the unambiguous phraseology of the papers issuing from the officers of state, in our own country in the course of whose administration the cases have arisen which are herein collated. Unlike statutes, which are often the creation of compromise, and veiled in obscurity and doubt as to their true meaning, the opinions of our state officers who have spoken for the department are self-explanatory and luminous.

The latitudinous phrase of Jeremy Bentham,' "A citizen of the world" will never find a place in the nomenclature of the nations of earth so long as they are ruled by men with human passions and impulses. So long as this condition exists the enforcement of international law will be required, diplomacy and arbitral tribunals will be resorted to and the strong protective arm of the nation will be extended to succor and relieve the oppressed citizen abroad. But when every man can say for himself, in his heart of hearts, that he is a "brother to humanity," then, and not till then, can he claim to be a "citizen of the world."

1 Wheaton's Law of Nations, 329-331.

I have been impelled by an overwhelming sense of my own. insufficiency for the task, from much obtrusion of my own views on this great subject. I have been content to draw from the great fountains, the true sources of international law in the construction of this paper, and in support of what I have said. If I have succeeded in putting in succinct and systematic order the principles and precedents which go to sustain and make plain the true relation which the government at home bears to the citizen abroad, then this paper may not have been written wholly in vain.