law;" that the act could not justify a diplomatic claim, since the investigation was being conducted in accordance with the laws, and that it was not possible to allege a denial of justice, since no one had appeared as an interested party accusing the author of the death of Mr. Pears or asking an indemnity. These contentions were supported by a report of Mr. Fiallos, minister of justice.

Late in February or early in March, 1899, the sentry was arrested and brought before a special military court on a charge of manslaughter. The trial began March 7, 1899, and was concluded on the 24th or 25th of the following month. This court decided that Pears was killed unintentionally and without gross negligence, and that the act of shooting was under all the circumstances lawful and innocent. The court therefore discharged him. The Government of the United States held that, considering the manner of the prosecution before the military court, in which the prosecuting attorney argued in defense of the sentry, it was "impossible to confide in its finding of facts or in its conclusions;" that it was more reasonable to accept the view of the minister of justice who conceded that the sentinel ought to have acted with greater prudence, although the military court had exonerated him; that, if there was any doubt of the liability of the Government of Honduras in the first instance, that doubt was dispelled by the subsequent action of the military authorities. The conclusion of the United States was expressed as follows: "That Pears was wantonly shot through the sentinel's gross ignorance of his duty and through the gross ignorance or negligence of the officers of the guard and of the post in failing properly to instruct him, can not be doubted. Either this is true, or the alternative conclusion is inevitable, that he was intentionally shot. In either case it was done in violation of the military ordinance. And there has appeared no serious purpose on the part of the Honduran Government to punish either the sentinel or his superiors. Under all the circumstances the Government of Honduras ought in equity to pay the indemnity demanded." The United States therefore insisted on the payment of the sum previously demanded."

In a later instruction the United States said: "The Department is not disposed to require the punishment of the sentinel who killed Pears. His punishment was not mentioned in instruction No. 236, of March 20 last. But delay in responding to the demand for indemnity should not be allowed to pass unnoticed." c

The President of Honduras submitted the claim to a commission of three jurists, who reported that the demand originally made by

a For Rel. 1900, 678-685.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, min. to Honduras, March 20, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 685–689.

© Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, min. to Honduras, July 22, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 691.

the United States for the punishment of the sentry was inadmissible. as he had already been acquitted by the courts. This view, as has been seen, was accepted by the United States, and the only remaining question was that of the indemnity. On this question the commission of jurists found that as the sentry had been tried and acquitted in accordance with the laws of the Republic, there was lacking a legal foundation for the claim for indemnity. They suggested, however, that on grounds of good will, the Government might seek an amicable settlement with the United States in order to put an end to the controversy, and for that purpose might offer to pay a smaller sum than that which had been demanded, especially as four of the relations of the deceased had placed in hands of the President of the Republic a letter addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States, in which they declined to accept the share which might be apportionable to them out of the sum demanded."

The United States insisted upon the prompt payment of the $10,000 in gold. The Government of Honduras decided to pay the sum demanded. November 2, 1900, the President of the Republic issued a decree declaring that the case was settled, in order to "avoid difficulties of a more serious character," and that although the Government had been unsuccessful in its efforts to reduce the amount of the indemnity it had obtained an abandonment of the demand for the punishment of the sentry, which was "the most dangerous portion of the claim," in this way "the honor of the country remaining untouched.c

In April, 1899, Bernard Campbell, a citizen of the United States, made a contract in New York for service as an engineer on a steamer in the West Indies. He supposed that his service was to be on board of a merchant vessel, and, with this understanding, he and certain other persons under similar contracts took passage for the West Indies on the steamer Clyde. When the Clyde arrived at Cape Haitien, April 17, 1889, Admiral Cooper and Captain Compton, of the Haytian navy, boarded the vessel and informed Campbell that he was expected to serve on a Haytian man-of-war that lay nearby. He refused; was threatened with death; but still refused. The next day, while waiting on the wharf for passage to Montecristi, in Santo Domingo, he was beaten by Haytian soldiers and thrown into the sea. He finally got back to New York, permanently injured in health. The presumption was strong that the cause of the assault

a For. Rel. 1900, 692–695.

For. Rel. 1900, 696. The Department of State had brought to the attention of the four members of the Pears family the letter purporting to be signed by them, and had received from them denials that they had renounced their claim. c For. Rel. 1900, 701–702.

upon him was his refusal to serve in the Haytian navy. The United States maintained that he was entitled to a "substantial indemnity." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, Jan. 31, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 811.

The claim was settled in April, 1898, by the Government of Hayti agreeing to pay to the United States the sum of $10,000 in gold. (For. Rel. 1898, 397–398; President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

For correspondence, see H. Doc 305, 54 Cong. 1 sess.

A suit brought by Campbell in New York against certain alleged Haytian agents, related to a matter entirely separate and distinct from the injury on which his diplomatic claim was based. (Mr. Olney, Sec.

of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, No. 136. March 20, 1896, MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 479.)

On June 6, 1904, Lewis L. Etzel, an American war correspondent, was killed by Chinese soldiers at Niuchwang. The killing was not premeditated or intentional and the soldiers were at most only guilty of criminal carelessness. The Chinese authorities sentenced the corporal, who was in charge of the men and commanded them to fire, to five years' imprisonment, cashiered the commandant of the district who was responsible for the discipline which made the commission of such a crime possible, and offered to the family of the deceased in a spirit of friendliness the sum of $25,000 Mexican. This was accepted as a settlement of the case.

For. Rel. 1904, 168-176.

The executors of the deceased asked that the sum of $60,000 in gold be demanded, but the American minister at Peking considered this sum exorbitant, and his opinion was concurred in by the Department of State. (For. Rel. 1904, 173-174.)

VI. ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

1. INDEMNITY NOT DEMANDED WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE REGULAR.

§ 1010.

With reference to the case of Dr. Peck, a citizen of the United States, who, while in Cuba for his health, was, as it was alleged, arrested and thrown into prison without accusation of crime, the Department of State said: "The United States ask no immunity for their own citizens when offenders, but they can not quietly submit to see them arrested and thrown into prison and there detained without any charge against them."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cueto, Span. min., unofficial, April 17, 1855, MS. Notes to Span. Leg. VII. 56.

There is no provision in the laws of the United States to indemnify a person who has been imprisoned after a trial, and who is

subsequently shown not to have been guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced, or to indemnify a person who has been imprisoned pending trial and afterwards is found not guilty. "The Government holds itself justified in its action by the probable cause that must precede indictment and trial. In case one has been maliciously and falsely accused, upon a charge made by a private person, and as a result of the accusation is imprisoned or committed, he has a right of action against such private person for damages for false imprisonment. Otherwise there is no redress.”

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Baron Schaeffer, Austrian min., June 28, 1882, MS. Notes to Austria, VIII. 338.

In September, 1893, Edgar W. Mix, a citizen of the United States, was arrested at Przemysl by the local police for taking photographs from a railway station. Przemysl is a fortified town, and it is a grave offense to take any pictures of the fortifications or their immediate surroundings. Mr. Mix was detained two days, when he was discharged on a telegraphic order from Vienna. He sought to make a claim against the Austrian Government for 100,000 francs. The minister of the United States at Vienna declined to present the claim and submitted it to the Department of State. The Department approved the minister's action, saying: "By taking photographs at Przemysl he (Mr. Mix) violated the law in force there, and however innocent in his intentions or ignorant of the law he may have been, his acts subjected him to the arrest and annoyance which he suffered. His release was by your exertions effected as soon as could possibly have been expected, and meantime no harsh or unreasonable treatment seems to have been experienced by him."

Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Tripp, min. to Austria-Hungary, Nov. 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1894, 23–26.

A citizen of the United States, who was temporarily in Guatemala for his health, was arrested while making a pencil sketch of a fort in Guatemala city. He was confined in the military barracks about thirty-six hours, and complained that he suffered severe physical detriment by reason of the coldness of the room in which he was detained. He was released upon the interposition of the United States minister, who vouched for his innocence of any intentional wrongdoing. The arrest occurred at a time when trouble existed between Mexico and Guatemala in regard to the boundary, and it appeared that the person in question was arrested because he was suspected of being a Mexican spy. It was held that, as it did not appear by the facts presented that he was illegally imprisoned, or that he was maltreated while in prison, or that his release was unduly

delayed, the United States would not be warranted in demanding an indemnity.

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gould, June 29, 1896, 211 MS. Dom. Let. 149.

A naturalized citizen of the United States, of Austrian origin, having been arrested in his native country on suspicion that he had fled therefrom in order to avoid military duty, was detained while the matter was being investigated. Through the intervention of the American minister he was released. He afterwards filed a claim for indemnity. This claim was brought to the attention of the Austro-Hungarian Government, which declined to entertain it. No further action was taken by the United States, and, in view of this apparent acquiescence in the decision of that Government, the Department of State declined to press the claim further.

Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Pitzele, Sept. 30, 1896, 213 MS.
Dom. Let. 34.

2. REPARATION FOR FALSE OR IRREGULAR ARREST.

§ 1011.

November 12, 1892, Frederick Mevs, a citizen of the United States, who represented in Hayti an American firm which paid annually about $75,000 in customs duties into the Haytian treasury, was suddenly arrested at Port au Prince, apparently on suspicion of attempting to evade, personally, the payment of duties to the amount of two dollars. By the Haytian law a person imprisoned is required to be interrogated within twenty-four hours after his confinement. This provision was not observed, and Mr. Mevs was held in prison under circumstances of great aggravation till December 1, 1892, when his case was called in the correctional court and dismissed. Before the news of his release was received, the vice-consul-general of the United States at Port au Prince was instructed to enter an earnest protest against his imprisonment, and, if he had not already been released, to report by cable. The American minister, who was then on leave in the United States, was sent back to Port au Prince on the U. S. S. Atlanta to investigate the case and ask for such reparation as he might, in his discretion, deem proper. The minister having reached the conclusion that a gross outrage had been perpetrated on Mr. Mevs, he was instructed to present a demand in writing, setting forth the expectation that Hayti would be impelled by its sense of amity and justice to tender a proper indemnity for Mr. Mevs's illegal imprisonment, and stating that a settlement must be reached through the legation. The Department of State refused, however, to concede the