Page images
PDF
EPUB

applicable to the awards of the joint commission created by that treaty. So long as these matters are pending in Congress the Executive can not assume either to pass upon the questions presented, or to distribute the fund received. It is eminently desirable that definite legislative action should be taken, either affirming the awards to be final, or providing some method for re-examination of the claims." President Hayes, annual message, 1877, For. Rel. 1877, xiii.

III. CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION.

1. CITIZENSHIP, AS A RULE, ESSENTIAL.

§ 979.

As to the special case of seamen, see supra, § 484; and as to protection in oriental countries, see supra, § § 287–290

Where a person requested the interposition of the United States in respect of outrages upon him alleged to have been committed in Mexico, the Department of State said: "The fact which you state, that, although long a resident of this country, you have not been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, is an insuperable bar to any interference of this Government in your behalf."

Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Champly, April 15, 1837, 29 MS. Dom.
Let. 71.

See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Selding, March 3, 1856, 45 MS.
Dom. Let. 123.

L. F. Foucher, Marquis de Circé, a citizen of France, owned a plantation in Louisiana, which was occupied in 1862 by the Federal troops. An award of compensation was made to him by a military commission, but the claim was not paid, and he died in 1869, leaving his widow as universal legatee. In 1877 the widow died, leaving as joint universal legatees her nephews and nieces. Both estates were settled up, but no money was received on the war claim and no mention was made of it in the distribution. When the mixed commission was installed under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880, the claim was revived. The successions of Mr. and Mrs. Foucher were opened, and a representative. named Denis, was appointed, who filed a memorial with the commission, in which he presented the claim in the right of L. F. Foucher, deceased, and joined with him all parties interested in both successions. All these parties were American citizens except two, who were citizens of France and who subsequently filed a separate memorial in person. The commission awarded on the claim presented by Denis a lump sum, with interest. Of this sum the two French lega

tees claimed the whole. The supreme court of Louisiana, Fenner, J., dissenting, held that the money should be distributed among all the legatees without regard to their nationality. This judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that, independently of the provisions of the treaty, which provided for the adjudication of the claims of the citizens of the one country against the government of the other, an award could not be held to inure to the benefit of citizens of the United States.

Burthe v. Denis (1890), 133 U. S. 514, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335, reversing
Succession of de Circé, 41 La. An. 506.

See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1154, for a discussion, in this relation,
of Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, and Campbell v. Mullet, 2 Swanston,
551.
Where the requirement of citizenship is personal and jurisdictional, the
courts regard it as analogous to the requirement of loyalty in the act
of March 12, 1863, 12 Stat. 820, and follow the decision of the court
in Burn's Case, 12 Wall. 246, where a claimant was allowed to
maintain his several action for a half interest. (Rhine v. United
States, 33 Ct. Cl. 481.)

Where, in a French spoliation case, neither the American registry of the vessel nor the American citizenship of the owners is established, the claim can not be allowed.

The Vandeput (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 396.

The register of an American vessel in the eighteenth century was conclusive evidence in French prize courts of her American character and of the nationality of her owners. (The Conrad, 37 Ct. Cl. 459.)

Jean Prevot, a citizen of France, had a claim against the United States for cotton taken from him during the civil war, and the United States admitted its liability to him to the amount of $2,425.15. Subsequently Prevot died, leaving a widow and three children. His widow qualified as administratrix, and as such prosecuted the claim before the mixed commission under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880. The commission allowed $2,020.94, with interest. This sum, as the commission stated, was for the value of the cotton, less one-sixth, which represented the interest of a child, a Mrs. Bodemüller, whose husband had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The commission disallowed her interest on the ground that the nationality of the wife followed that of the husband. Subsequently, Mrs. Bodemüller, having become a widow, brought suit against the United States under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 505), providing for suits against the Government in certain cases. The court expressed the opinion that the deduction made by the commission was improper, but dismissed the suit on technical grounds.

Bodemüller v. United States (1889), 39 Fed. Rep. 437.

I am advised by counsel that a suit subsequently instituted against the
United States in such form as to meet the technical objection failed
on a plea of the statute of limitations. (Mr. Alexander Porter
Morse, of counsel, to Mr. Moore, Feb. 9, 1897.)

See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1150.

In the case of the claim against the Dominican Republic, growing out of transactions with the French firm of J. Sala & Co., the widow of one of the claimants sought, in the character of a citizen of the United States, the good offices of that Government. Her request was granted, the Department of State saying: "While, in the opinion of the Department, a citizen of the United States is not entitled to invoke the assistance of this Government in respect of a claim against another Government acquired from a foreigner by marriage and assignment (by partnership arrangement or otherwise), yet it is believed that where such claim comes to the wife by succession, upon the death of her husband, as in this case, the offices of this Government should be extended to her."

Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Brothers, June 9, 1900, 245 MS. Dom. Let. 484.

By the convention between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, signed at Washington Nov. 7, 1899, for the submission to the King of Sweden and Norway, as arbitrator, of any claims of the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties growing out of alleged unwarranted military action of American, German, or British officers in Samoa between Jan. 1, 1899, and May 13, 1899, it was agreed that either government might, with the consent of the others, submit to the arbitrator similar claims of other persons (not Samoan natives) who were under its "protection."

For. Rel. 1899, 671.

See, as to the protection of seamen, supra, § 484.

As to special rules of protection under extraterritorial jurisdiction, see supra, Chap. VII.

With reference to a request for the protection of an American missionary in Turkey, in which mention was made of the fact that several native instructors and students in a school kept by him had been imprisoned, the Department of State said: "It is not clear whether you mean that the protection of the United States should be extended to the imprisoned persons or to Mr. Christie. If the former, I have to inform you that they are all understood to be Ottoman subjects, and to remind you that the mere fact of their connection with an American school does not exempt them from Turkish jurisdiction or from liability for violation of Turkish law. Our min

ister at Constantinople has, however, been instructed to exert his influence to secure their release, and permission for them to return to their duties at the school.”

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lodge, April 17, 1895, 201 MS. Dom.
Let. 534.

In reply to a request for interposition made in behalf of nuns of a religious order in Ecuador, the Department of State said: "It has been generally understood that all religious associations in Ecuador belong to the established church and are supported by taxation of the Ecuadorian people, and the Department has not been advised that any monasteries or convents have been instituted in Ecuador by American capital, their property being owned by the parent organization in this country and their operations being conducted at the expense of American citizens. If there be any such institution, the facts should be clearly shown before a collective claim on the part of the parent organization in the United States could be satisfactorily made out; otherwise, the claim for indemnity would have to be individual on the part of each sufferer, and based on the fact of American citizenship and lawful residence and occupation in Ecuador."

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sister M. Genevieve, September 10, 1895, 204 MS. Dom. Let. 532.

In response to an inquiry whether certain native Cubans, not naturalized in the United States, who had then recently enlisted in the American Army, were entitled to the protection of the United States for the recovery of claims against the Spanish Government for property destroyed in Cuba, the Department of State said: "The Department can answer your inquiry, which is general in its character, only by general statements, and by assuming that the acts of destruction to which you refer took place before the outbreak of the war between the United States and Spain, and were not belligerent acts against enemies, such as are not the subject of diplomatic claims for indemnity. This being so, the rule that this Government can not undertake to prosecute claims for indemnity against foreign governments unless the claimants are citizens of the United States would be applicable to the present case, since the claimants, not being citizens of the United States, doubtless were, at the time of the injuries complained of, subjects of Spain or of some other government. . The acquisition of a title to a government's protection does not operate retroactively."

Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Eustis, July 26, 1898, 230 MS.
Dom. Let. 378.

In the case of the killing and wounding of seamen of the U. S. S. Baltimore by a mob at Valparaiso, in 1891, the United States ex

pressed the belief that the Chilean Government, which had made known its desire to make a prompt and friendly settlement of the claims, would" be ready to make a liberal indemnity to the families" of the men who were killed and to the wounded survivors.

Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Egan, min. at Santiago, tel., July 1, 1892,
MS. Inst. Chile, XVII. 416. See also same to same, two tels., July
5, 1892, id. 417, 418. The sum of $75,000 was subsequently paid by
Chile.

"The legation guards killed or wounded during the siege [of the foreign legations in Peking in 1900] should be on the same footing as civilians killed or wounded for whom indemnity is claimed."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, min. to China, tel., Feb. 19, 1901,
For. Rel. 1901, App. 362.

A seaman injured by the explosion which destroyed the United States battle ship Maine in the harbor of Havana, Cuba, February 15, 1898, had no individual claim against Spain, even if that Government was responsible to the United States for the explosion; and therefore such a seaman is not entitled to an award in his favor from the Spanish Treaty Claims Commission organized by the act of Congress of March 2, 1901, to adjudicate all individual claims of citizens of the United States against Spain which the United States released to Spain and agreed to pay by the treaty of peace of Dec. 10, 1898.

This decision, which was announced by the president of the Commission, Mr. Chandler, was concurred in by Commissioners Diekema, Wood, and Maury, and proceeded on the ground that individual claims do not arise in favor of officers and seamen of a ship of war who receive, in the line of duty, injuries to their persons for which a foreign government is responsible.

Mr. Maury, however, delivered a separate opinion, in which he besides maintained that Art. VII. of the treaty of peace extinguished the claims, if any, viewed as international demands

Commissioner Chambers dissented.

Harry S. McCann v. The United States, No. 30, Spanish Treaty Claims
Commission, Art. VII. Treaty with Spain, Dec. 10, 1898, and act of
Congress, March 2, 1901.

2. DECLARATION OF INTENTION INSUFFICIENT.

§ 980.

As to the declaration of intention, see, further, supra, §§ 385-387.

Where a person made a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and his property in Cuba was seized six months

« PreviousContinue »