Page images
PDF
EPUB

effect, liability for the effect is not barred by the circumstance that when the procedure was started no liability could be maintained. But in this case, while the original embargo was laid before the claimant's citizenship was perfected, it is otherwise with the confiscation and subsequent enormous appropriation of the revenues of the estates. These were subsequent to the perfection of Mr. Mora's citizenship and aside from the point above given the Spanish Government is liable for them, as for distinct acts of injury."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curry, Jan. 22, 1886, MS. Inst. Spain,
XX. 156.

"It is true that Mr. Acosta's naturalization, the validity of which was admitted by the advocate for Spain, on the 30th October, 1882, was subsequent to the executive order of sequestration of his property by about five months. But while for losses accruing prior to his naturalization he can not claim such interposition, it is otherwise as to losses accruing subsequent to his naturalization. The case may be likened to a series of continuous injuries sustained by a person before and after reaching full age. The disabilities attaching to him as a minor, however much they might prevent him by the lex fori from suing when a minor, would not preclude him from suing when of full age in his own name, at least for damages sustained subsequent to his majority. Hence the claimant in the present case, as to matters not barred by the decision of the arbitrators, is entitled to the intervention of this Department, at least for injuries sustained by him subsequent to his naturalization."

Mr. Layard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curry, Apr. 9, 1886, MS. Inst. Spain,
XX. 183.

To a person who sought to make, as a citizen of the United States, a diplomatic claim against Mexico, the Department of State said: "Your certificate of naturalization in the United States is dated August 18, 1893, while the seizure of your property occurred in 1891, so that even if the case which you present were otherwise a proper one for intervention, which appears very doubtful, this Department could not act in the matter."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bentaing, Feb. 21, 1894, 195 MS. Dom.
Let. 529.

See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Struller, June 30, 1896, 211 MS.
Dom. Let. 168.

4. RIGHT OF INTERPOSITION NOT ASSIGNABLE.

§ 982.

"An assignment of a claim by a foreigner, or another government, to a citizen of the United States, even if such claim be founded in

tort, is not conceived to impose on this government any obligation to interfere in behalf of such citizen, in respect of the government against which the complaint is made. This rule, however, is especially applicable in matters of contract between a foreigner and another government, or where a citizen of the United States becomes the assignee of the contract."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hodgskin, Oct. 25, 1877, 120 MS. Dom. Let. 238. See same to same, Dec. 27, 1877, 121 MS. Dom. Let. 146. The principle that the right of intervention can not be transferred by the assignment of a claim by the citizen of one country to the citizen of another is altogether independent of the assignability of diplomatic claims as between citizens of the same country, where nothing but the private interest passes. (Judson v. Corcoran, 17 How., 612.)

"It is a settled rule in this Department that a claim which the Department can not take cognizance of in its inception because of the alienage of the creditor, is not brought within the cognizance of the Department by its assignment to a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 42, Feb. 5,
1886, MS. Inst. China, IV. 118.

To the same effect is Mr. Strobel, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr.
Cravath, Feb. 27, 1894, 195 MS. Dom. Let. 593.

See, also, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1267.

"This Government will never recognize an assignment of a claim against a foreign country made by a citizen or subject of that country to a citizen of this for the purpose of invoking diplomatic aid in the recovery thereof. Still less will it undertake to aid in the recovery of claims against subjects of foreign countries which originally accrued in favor of their fellow-subjects and have been assigned by the latter to American citizens."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, Nov. 11, 1893, For. Rel. 1894, 485, referring to a communication of the Persian minister of foreign affairs, declaring null and void the transfers of claims by Persian subjects to foreigners "until, according to international engagements, the papers or documents have the indubitable seal of the foreign office, and on the faith of that security the legation legalizes them."

Although, in order to justify the intervention of the United States, a claim must when it accrued have been that of an American citizen, yet, if a foreigner obtains from his government a concession which is capable of transfer, and afterwards transfers it to an American, the latter, upon violation by the foreign government of his rights under the concession, would be entitled to the aid of the United States, since the wrong in such case would be done to an American.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, No. 291, Dec. 23, 1898, MS. Inst. Hayti, IV. 103.

Mr. Hay added that claims arising out of concessions were generally contractual in their origin," and that the United States in such cases only used its good offices in adjusting them. (Ibid.)

5. NOR DERIVABLE FROM PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS.

§ 983.

Stephen Zacharie, Francis Coopman, and John Vochez were in 1793 partners in mercantile business at Baltimore, Zacharie and Vochez residing in Baltimore and Coopman in St. Domingo. In 1793, in consequence of the capture of their ships by British and French cruisers, they failed. In 1794 the firm executed a power of attorney to Vochez to recover all moneys due to them. In 1795 he arrived in England, and in 1798 he gave a power of attorney to two persons named Mullett and Evans to act as agents for himself and his partners, and also for himself on his own private account. Mullett and Evans presented claims to the commissioners under Article VII. of the Jay treaty. On July 8, 1803, the commissioners awarded them seven sums of money for Zacharie and Vochez, and a certain sum for Vochez individually. The commissioners withheld any relief from Coopman on the ground that he "resided at St. Domingo as a French citizen," and was therefore "an alien enemy.” Part of the money was obtained by Mullett and Evans from the British Government and a part was withheld.

In 1798 Campbell and certain other persons were appointed trustees of Zacharie's estate. These trustees, in 1803, appointed one Heathcote an attorney to demand from Mullett and Evans, and from any other persons liable, all sums received or to be received on the awards. on Zacharie's account. The bill was filed by Campbell and the other trustees to require Mullett and Evans to pay to Heathcote Zacharie's share of the money received, and to restrain them from receiving, and Allcock, of the revenue department, from paying, the money still in his hands.

On the first hearing the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Plumer, said that the question whether the money involved was partnership property had not been argued.

On the reargument the Master of the Rolls, March 19, 1819, said that whether the captures were legal or illegal was immaterial; that the court knew only that the capture and condemnation took place, and that two shares in the ship belonged to Americans, and the third to a French subject resident at St. Domingo. The property was lost and gone by the adjudication of a competent tribunal, and "it was not in the power of individuals to recover it, and reverse the sentence of condemnation." Whatever was obtained from the commissioners was not recovered on "the ground of right." "Right "

is that which may be "enforced in a court of justice." The treaty gave a "bounty" as a "compensation for losses." The grant of this bounty was made to Zacharie and Vochez alone. No claim against the partners could reach it.

Campbell v. Mullett (1818), 2 Swanston, 551.

The board of commissioners, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, allowed two-thirds of a claim to Louis L. Hargous, a citizen of the United States, and disallowed the other third, which belonged to Hargous's partner, Emilio Voss, a German. Subsequently Voss assigned his interest to Hargous, who presented it as an American claim to the mixed commission under the treaty between the United States and Mexico of July 4, 1868. The umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, rejected it on the ground that a government can not properly take up a claim acquired by one of its citizens by purchase or assignment from the citizen of another country. The Department of State refused to take further action in the matter.

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hargous, June 14, 1890, 178 MS. Dom.
Let. 38.

For the opinion of Sir Edward Thornton, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations,
III. 2327.

"The right to the protection of this Government may be acquired by
birth, by naturalization, or in some cases and for some purposes by
domicil in the United States. No other mode occurs to me, nor do I
now perceive the authority of an officer of this Government, except
in virtue of a treaty, or other positive legislation to bring a new
subject within the sphere of its obligations. Least of all can I dis-
cern any faculty in a private citizen to spread the protection of his
Government over a third person by adopting him as partner in a
commercial establishment in foreign parts." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State,
to Mr. De Long, Sept. 19, 1871, MS. Inst. Japan, I. 472.)

6. CORPORATIONS.

(1) INTERPOSITION IN BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.

$984.

It is well settled that a government may intervene in behalf of a company incorporated under its laws, or under the laws of a constituent state or province. In such case the act of incorporation is considered as clothing the artificial person thereby created with the nationality of its creator, without regard to the citizenship of the individuals by whom the securities of the company may be owned. Hence we find in general claims conventions that the submission or settlement uniformly embraces "all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United States," or of some other government, as the case may be. In other H. Doc. 551-vol 641

words, the corporation is recognized as having, for purposes of diplomatic protection, the citizenship of the country in which it is created.

See, also, as to the citizenship of corporations, supra, § 485.

The Government of the United States having in 1886 protested against the suspension by military order of the Panama Star and Herald, a newspaper published by an American corporation, and having in 1887 presented in behalf of the corporation a claim for damages against the Colombian Government, Señor Holguin, Colombian minister for foreign affairs, raised in 1896, the claim being still unsettled, the defense that there had ceased to be anyone possessing legal authority to represent it as an American claim, and in 1898 the further defense that the person then owning the newspaper had made a declaration before the United States consul at Panama that neither he nor the Star and Herald had any valid claim against Colombia, and that he renounced the claim that had been made. It was alleged by Señor Holguin, in this relation, that the Star and Herald Publishing Company, a corporation formed in 1884, under the laws of the State of New York, not having paid taxes to that State since 1890 or 1891, had lost all right to the protection of the United States; that the president of the company, Mr. Spies, a commission merchant ir New York, failed in 1893 and committed suicide; that the vice-presi dent of the company, Mr. Boyd, was "a native and resident of Panama, consequently a citizen of Colombia," as was also his brother, who was manager of the company on the Isthmus till 1892; that in June, 1893, the enterprise having failed, all its goods in Panama, as well as the right to publish the newspaper, were sold by order of court, and were bought by Mr. Gabriel Duque, the present owner; and that the power of attorney given by Mr. Spies to Mr. L. Myers, a lawyer of Philadelphia, to represent in the United States the claim against the Colombian Government, had by Mr. Spies's death become null and void.

Of this defense Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, in an instruction to Mr. Sleeper, minister to Colombia, February 24, 1897, said:

"After almost eleven years' delay, the idea is suggested by Minister Holguin that the Star and Herald was not an American enterprise nor entitled to remedy as such for the wrongs inflicted upon it.

This new evasion seems to be an effort to further trifle with the subject.

"Colombia was originally officially notified by instruction of this Department of May 15, 1886, a copy of which was delivered to that Government by Mr. Jacobs, and again on January 31, 1890, through its minister at Washington, that the Panama Star and Herald was a company of American citizens, incorporated under the laws of the

« PreviousContinue »