a claim against Chile as a citizen of the United States before an international commission. Henry Chauncey v. Chile, No. 3, United States and Chilean Claims Com- A British railway corporation, considering itself aggrieved by the action of the British colonial authorities, addressed a memorial to the British Government. The Government of the United States was requested, in behalf of an American corporation, which was said to own all the shares of the British corporation, to support the latter's memorial. The United States answered that the railway company, in whose name the memorial was presented, being a British corporation, could not call upon the United States to intervene in its behalf with the British authorities, but that there was 66 a more substantial reason for the refusal than that of the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders. It is an established principle that where a State creates a corporation and confers upon it franchises and obligations of an important public character, such as the operating a railroad, the company entrusted with these privileges and duties is not allowed, without the consent of the Government from which it derives its existence, to transfer them to others. This general principle may be to some extent evaded in the case of an incorporated company by a transfer, not of the property itself, but of the shares of stock in the corporation. But the mere transfer of shares between individuals does not affect the complete subjection of the corporation itself to the Government which created it. That Government still retains all the powers of regulation and legislation in respect to the corporation, its rights, privileges and franchises, which it would have had, had there been no transfer of shares. Any attempt at intervention by the Government of persons holding a portion or even the whole of the shares of a corporation, with the Government which created it and within whose limits its operations are conducted, would be an infringement of the principle above referred to." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Wesson, April 29, 1895, 201 MS. Dom. See Canada Southern Railway v. Gebhard (1883), 109 U. S. 527. A corporation organized in Great Britain, having its principal place of business in that country, is not a subject of that country, within the meaning of a treaty giving subjects of that country the right to do business in any of the States of the United States on the Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. of Edinburgh, Scotland, and London, The Board of Harbor Works of Ponce, Porto Rico, a Spanish corporation, became "as between the United States and other governments, an American citizen," by virtue of the treaty of peace, by which Porto Rico was annexed to the United States. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, March 27, 1900, 244 MS. Dom. XVIII. CARE OF INDIGENT CITIZENS. $486. 66 There is no appropriation or authority for the relief by a diplomatic representative of a distressed citizen of the United States or for furnishing him transportation home. The exception in the case of seamen falls under consular administration." Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States, 1897, § 175, See, to the same effect, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, chargé While the Federal and State Governments in this country make provision for the care of all destitute, sick, or infirm persons within their borders, without regard to nationality, no provision as yet exists in most States, or under the Federal system, for the relief of destitute, sick, or infirm citizens of the United States abroad. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Motley, min. to Austria, April 7, 1863, See, to the same effect, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fogg, July 28, The Russian legation stated, in a note of April 12, 1872, that the Imperial Government had issued a decree providing for the return to their own country of the Russian indigent and sick abroad. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schirkoff, April 22, 1872, MS. Notes to "Congress, from the beginning of the Government, has wisely made provision for the relief of distressed seamen in foreign countries. No similar provision, however, has hitherto been made for the relief of citizens in distress abroad, other than seamen. It is under stood to be customary with other governments to authorize consuls to extend such relief to their citizens or subjects in in cases. A similar authority, and an appropriation to carry it into effect, are recommended in the case of citizens of the United States destitute or sick under such circumstances." President Grant, annual message, Dec. 2, 1873, Richardson's Messages, "Instances of insanity on the part of citizens of the United States abroad have, from time to time, been reported to this Department, by ministers and consuls. When their friends here were known, they were apprised of the case, that they might relieve the sufferer. When, however, we could obtain no information as to those friends, or these were unable to provide relief, the case has been reported to the governor of the State of which the patient might be a citizen, so that proper relief might be afforded." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shishkin, Jan. 8, 1879, MS. Notes to stances Article III. of the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Switzerland of 1850 provides that citizens of the one republic residing in the other, who shall desire to return to their own country or who shall be legally sent thither by a judicial decision or act of police," shall be received at all times and under all circumin the country to which they belong, and in which they shall have preserved their rights in conformity with the laws thereof.” In the case of Spitznagel in 1861, and Zweifel in 1864, the Swiss Government took the ground that this article did not require either contracting party to provide for the return to its territory of its indigent citizens, but only to receive them when sent back to their own country. The United States coincided with this view, but took the ground that, although neither party might be required to provide for the return of its pauper citizens, it might at least be asked to prevent the exportation of its pauper citizens to the other country. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, No. 139, March 5, 1880, MS. Inst. See, also, Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pioda, Swiss min., No. 173, June "While it may not be anticipated that judicial proceedings against aliens in British jurisdiction will be conducted otherwise than in strict conformity to law, and with every constitutional guarantee for the fair trial and defense of the accused, yet it is the clear right and duty of this Government, and, indeed, of any Government, to satisfy itself that its citizens enjoy, whilst temporarily in foreign lands, every right and privilege before the bar of justice, and to see that they are allowed the fullest means of defense. If, therefore, you should find that any citizen of the United States, accused within British jurisdiction of the commission of crime, should, by reason of poverty or friendlessness, or any other cause, not be in enjoyment of all the means of defense which the law assures to him, it is expected that all will be done to aid him which can be done by the representatives of the United States. No expense, however, can be incurred for counsel or otherwise without the authorization of the Department, which in an urgent case may be sought by telegraph." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, Apr. 10, 1885, "The system of public charities in the United States is dependent upon the administrative authority of the respective States and Territories, and the National Government has no jurisdiction over such institutions. Moreover, there is no Federal fund whatever from which the cost of medical treatment or transportation from Europe of an insane pauper could be paid or ever has been paid. "On the other hand, the patients found in the almshouses and asylums throughout the United States comprise large numbers of persons of foreign birth and nationality, who are not for that reason sent out of the country, but are cared for by the authorities of the locality in which their illness happens to occur." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Count Lippe-Weissenfeld, Aust. chargé, With regard to an American citizen, a circus performer, who was confined in a lunatic asylum at Lisbon, Mr. Bayard stated that any remittance that his friends desired to send to pay his debts, or to provide for his transportation home, should be drawn payable to the consul-general's order, but that it was impossible to bring him home on a training ship, as suggested by the consul-general. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, Aug. 5, 1886, 161 MS. Dom. "Applications have frequently been made to this Department by State and municipal authorities in various parts of the country to obtain the return to their native lands of foreigners who, through disease or misfortune, had become a public charge on the community, but the reply has invariably been made that, as this Government has no funds at its disposal for bringing back to this country an American citizen who had become a public charge abroad, and had thus been compelled to decline such requests when made by foreign governments, it could not ask a foreign government to assume this expense in the case of one of its subjects or citizens who had become a public charge in the United States." Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Douglas, Nov. 28, 1891, 184 MS. In February, 1896, a discussion took place between the United States and Germany as to one Jacob Franck, a seaman on a German steamer, who had been discharged from that vessel or had deserted from it in December, 1895, at Savannah, Georgia, and had become a public charge by reason of insanity. The German ambassador stated that no provision for his return was made by the Imperial laws. It seems there was a question as to his citizenship. By the laws and regulations of the United States, provision is made for the relief of destitute or disabled American seamen in foreign lands by the consular representatives of the United States where such seamen are found to be citizens of the United States, even though they may have deserted. The case was brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury, who held that Franck was not an alien immigrant and could not be returned to Germany under the immigration laws, it being impossible to eliminate from the case his character as a deserting seaman. In this relation the attention of the German ambassador was called to article 14 of the treaty between the United States and the German Empire of December 11, 1871, in relation to the delivery of deserters, and it was suggested that although the article was permissive in form, it was framed on the assumption that each contracting party would recover its deserters and not permit them to become a charge upon a foreign community, and that the execution of it in such a case was " an international obligation of comity as well as a duty of humanity to the sufferer." The German ambassador subsequently stated that the Imperial Government was unable to regard the article in question as imposing any obligation on German consuls to take charge of seamen who were deserters. He also stated that three years previously the United States legation at Berlin "expressly informed the foreign office that it declined, on principle, to send home at the expense of the United States destitute Americans who were in German insane asylums." For. Rel. 1896, 199-205. "The Federal Government is without authority of law or appropriated funds to bring such [insane] persons back, even at the instance of their relatives; but, on the other hand, it makes no demand upon other governments to remove foreign lunatics who have been |