A mob may, for our present purposes, be defined as an assemblage of persons pursuing for the time a course of conduct contrary to law, and accompanied with force or the show of force. I say, "with the show of force," because, as in the case of assault, the offence, though violent in its character, may be committed without the actual striking of a blow. I remember once to have heard of a case of this character, which occurred in a place where the forms of law were not regarded as altogether sacred. A certain individual had committed a crime which enlisted the sympathy of his neighbors. Accordingly on the morning of the trial a considerable number of the defendant's friends appeared in and about the court-room with arms of various kinds, as if prepared for an emergency; and, when they were questioned as to their intentions, they replied that they had come to see that "justice was done." The trial proceeded and the defendant was acquitted. This satisfactory result rendered any act of disapproval unnecessary. The prisoner was released, and the jury escaped forcible reproof. Notwithstand

ing the fact that "justice" was so triumphantly vindicated, I have always regarded the case as one of mob violence, both in spirit and in effect. The mob, however, is generally distinguished by the commission of flagrant acts of force. Descriptions of riot and bloodshed compose its history, and its victims are numbered by thousands.

The mob is not indigenous to any particular soil, nor is it confined to any particular time. It is "always with us." Every country furnishes us examples of popular tumults, attended with the destruction of life and property. Every age has its discontents, breaking out now and then into violence. No matter how high may be the development of law, no matter how general the spirit of order, there will arise sudden gusts of passion, sweeping away all barriers and defying all restraint. For such emergencies the ordinary precautions against disorder are insufficient. Such outbreaks can no more be prevented than the commission of crime by individuals.

For these reasons governments are not assumed to be responsible for mob violence. While a government is bound to employ all

reasonable means to prevent disorder, its liability is not that of an insurer. It is therefore held that if due diligence is used to prevent and repress sudden outbreaks, and to punish those who may be concerned in them, no liability to make indemnity exists, unless the government is under an obligation to render special protection. Such an obligation may arise either from the stipulations of a treaty, or from the character of the person assailed.

As an example of a special conventional obligation we may take the treaty between the United States and New Granada, now the Republic of Colombia, of 1846. By the 35th article of that treaty the government of New Granada guaranteed to that of the United States that the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama, on any modes of communication that then existed or that might thereafter be constructed, should "be open and free to the government and citizens of the United States," and "in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said advantages," and for certain other favors," the United States guaranteed, "positively and efficaciously," the "perfect neutrality" of the Isthmus, and "the rights of sovereignty and property" of New Granada over it.

66

On the 15th of April, 1856, a riot occurred at Panama, one of the terminal points of the trans-Isthmian railway, which caused the United States to call upon New Granada for the fulfilment of her conventional obligations. As often happens, the riot had its origin in a personal altercation.

The steamer Illinois had arrived at Colon on the morning of the 15th of April with about nine hundred and fifty passengers, among whom was a large number of women and children, en route for Cali

fornia. Three trains, containing these passengers, the United States mails, and a considerable amount of freight, had arrived at Panama, when, about six o'clock in the evening, a quarrel arose between a drunken passenger and a Panama negro, who kept a provision stall near the railway station, over the refusal of the former to pay for a slice of watermelon which he had purchased from the negro, and of which the price was a dime. A companion of the passenger paid the negro, but the disturbance did not cease. During the quarrel a pistol shot was fired, by whom was uncertain, though the pistol belonged to the passenger. Immediately thereafter the negro and a companion ran to the Cienaga, a marshy negro settlement near the railway station, and presently returned with a large crowd armed with stones, matchettes, and other weapons, and commenced an attack upon two adjacent hotels, in which were many of the passengers and their families. At this point a messenger was despatched to the chief of police, and it was hoped that he would arrive with his forces in time to prevent an attack on the railway station, in which there were also many passengers, including women and children. The police, however, when they arrived on the scene, joined the mob, in spite of the exertions of the chief to control them the station was attacked, and almost every one in it was massacred.

The government of the United States demanded redress for this outrage, and a negotiation was begun which resulted, on September 10, 1857, in the conclusion of a convention. By this convention it was provided that all claims for damages caused by the riot should be submitted to a board of commissioners to ascertain what amount should be paid by New Granada, which acknowledged its liability

'arising out of its privilege and obligation to preserve peace and good order along the transit route." Whether, in view of the conduct of the police, the liability of New Granada might have been asserted on ordinary grounds, it is not necessary now to consider, since the ground on which it was declared to vest was that of the special duty resting upon that gov ernment under the treaty of 1846. As an example of liability growing out of the special character of the person assailed, we may take the riot at New Orleans of August 21, 1851. In that case a lawless assemblage of persons, acting in resentment of the rumored execution by the Spanish authorities of some of the participants in a military expedition set on foot in that city, in violation of the laws of the United States, against the island of Cuba, attacked the Spanish consulate, destroyed the furniture, threw the archives into the street, defaced the portrait of the Queen of Spain, and tore the Spanish flag, which was found in the office, into pieces. The consul fled for his safety. Property of private subjects of Spain was also destroyed. On Novem ber 13, 1851, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, writing to the Spanish Minister, expressed deep regret for the outrage, but denied that the government was bound to indemnify private persons. He acknowledged special liability in regard to the consul, and promised that, if he should return to his post, he would be received and treated with courtesy, and with a national salute to the flag, if he should arrive in a Spanish vessel. Referring to this subject in his annual message to Congress, President Fillmore said:

"As in war, the bearers of flags of truce are sacred, or else wars would be interminable; so in peace, embassadors, public ministers, and consuls, charged with

friendly national intercourse, are objects of especial respect and protection, each. according to the rights belonging to his rank and station."

An indemnity was subsequently paid for the damage done at the consulate, as well as to the property of Spanish subjects; but in the latter case it was paid as a gratuity.

On the 2d of September, 1885, twentyeight unoffending Chinese were driven from their homes and massacred at Rock Springs, in the Territory of Wyoming, their dwellings burned, their property destroyed, fifteen of their companions beaten and wounded, while for fifteen hours of riot, pillage, and murder, the local authorities stood by in all the supineness of warm approval. approval. The "judicial proceedings " that followed have been described as a burlesque; the Chinese Minister said that with his imperfect knowledge of American procedure he preferred not to discuss them. No attempt was made to punish the guilty. Mr. Bayard, then Secretary of State, writing to the Chinese Minister on February 18, 1886, expressed indignant regret at the outrage, but denied the liability of the government to make indemnity. He stated, however, that in view of the shocking character of the outrage and the shameful failure of justice, the President would recommend the subject to the benevolent consideration of Congress, with the distinct understanding that a precedent was not to be created. Congress appropriated, and the government of the United States subsequently paid, an indemnity, which was by the statute itself declared to be an act of humanity and not of obligation.

The denial of a general liability for the acts of a mob was again made by the United States in the late riot at New Orleans. On the morning of March 14, 1891, eleven persons in the custody of the