and in view of the improbability of that particular case being reached by the bill now pending, Congress make gracious provision for indemnity to the Italian sufferers in the same form and proportion as heretofore. "In my inaugural address I referred to the general subject of lynching in these words: "Lynching must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests.' "This I most urgently reiterate and again invite the attention of my countrymen to this reproach upon our civilization." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 3, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, XXII. As to the indemnity paid in this case, see supra, § 387. July 15, 1901, the Italian embassy at Washington urgently presented to the Department of State the case of three Erwin, Miss., 1901. Italians, named Giovanni and Vincenzo Serio and Salvatore Liberto, two of whom were killed and the third wounded at Erwin, Miss., and asked (1) that the matter be officially investigated; (2) that the guilty parties be arrested and punished, and (3) that steps be taken to secure to Italians in the locality in question the protection to which they are entitled by treaty. The case was referred to the governor of Mississippi for appropriate action. It seems that the crime was committed under cover of darkness, and the identity of the criminals was not discovered either at the coroner's inquest or at the subsequent investigation by the grand jury. The embassy having suggested that the Federal Government should send a "detective" to the spot for the "detection of the lynchers," the Department of State in reply referred to a suggestion made by Baron Fava in the case of the Tallulah incident in 1889, that the special agent appointed by the Department to investigate the case should "discover and denounce the criminals," and to the answer then made, that "in the actual status of the matter and in the absence of Federal jurisdiction over an offense committed in a State," the agent in question could not assert any part in the administration of justice. Subsequently the Italian embassy, acting under instructions, protested against what was pronounced to be "a denial of justice, a flagrant violation of contractual conventions, and a grave offense to every human and civil sentiment," and, referring to the omission of Congress to confer jurisdiction in such cases on the Federal courts, as recommended by the President, declared that, until such a measure should have been adopted the Italian Government would not only "have grounds of complaint for violation of the treaties to its injury," but would "not cease to denounce the systematic impunity enjoyed by crime, and to hold the Federal Government responsible therefor." The protest was transmitted by the Department of State to "the committees of the Senate and House of Representatives having under consideration the President's recommendation that indemnity be graciously tendered to the families of the victims and that legislation be enacted to give the Federal courts original jurisdiction of treaty offenses against aliens." For. Rel. 1901, 283, 285, 287, 288, 289, 292-293, 297, 298, 299. By the act of March 3, 1903, the sum of $5,000 was appropriated to be paid, "out of humane consideration, without reference to the question of liability therefor to the Italian Government, as full indemnity to the heirs of Giovanni and Vincenzo Serio, who were slain, and to Salvatore Liberto, who was injured, by an armed mob at Erwin, Mississippi, on July 11, 1901." 33 Stat. 1032. The crime was committed at night, and the identity of the persons who committed it was not ascertained by the judicial investigations that were held. (For. Rel. 1901, 283-299.) 6. CASE OF BAIN, AND OTHER CASES. $ 1027. Bain's case. In March, 1895, during a labor disturbance at New Orleans, James H. Bain, then purser of the British steamship Engi neer, while on the wharves in the discharge of his duties, was shot and wounded by a body of armed men without provocation or warning. As Bain was apparently permanently injured the British Government informally suggested that the United States pay him £500" as a voluntary grant of compensation." It appears that the rioters did not intend to shoot Bain, but that he was struck by a shot fired at laborers whom the rioters wished to prevent from working on the levee. Six men were arrested for the shooting and indicted. for assault with intent to commit murder, but the district attorney stated that as Bain, who had returned to England, was not there, the case could not be tried in his absence. The British ambassador expressed the hope that the case would be pressed upon the authorities of Louisiana, in view of the strong claims of Mr. Bain to their sympathy and liberality. He stated that some months prior to the event in question foreign ships and property were exposed to great danger owing to the lawless proceedings of certain societies which attempted forcibly to prevent the employment of colored laborers in the lading H. Doc. 551-vol 654 and unlading of ships, and that, notwithstanding the appeals of the foreign consuls, adequate protection was not afforded to foreign shipping. The rioters were, it was said, allowed by the police to assemble in a building, where they kept an arsenal of revolvers, rifles, and other weapons. When Bain was shot, the few policemen on the spot concealed themselves for safety behind cotton bales. Similar attacks were made on the British steamship Merrimac, but the officers and crew were unhurt though the mob fired at the laborers on the dock. The ambassador called attention to Article I. of the treaty of commerce of 1815, which provides that "the merchants and traders of each nation, respectively, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce." On the occasion in question, it could not be said that the British steamer had any protection whatever from the armed mob which it was the duty of the local authorities to restrain." It seems that Bain subsequently proceeded to New Orleans. A copy of the correspondence was communicated to the governor of Louisiana. The governor in reply enclosed a report of the attorney-general of the State, who denied that the State authorities were guilty of any neglect of duty or failure to protect the commerce of the city; and he referred to the opinions of some persons that "the steamship agents were largely responsible for the trouble in giving the preference to unorganized colored labor." But without regard to the merits of this controversy, he stated that the governor called out the militia and gave full and ample protection to the commerce of the city as soon as practicable, after his attention was called to the threatening situation; that the rioting occurred early in the morning before the governor arrived, and that neither he nor any other State authority was to blame for it. It was also intimated that Bain should bring suit against the city for any damages he had received. The British ambassador decided not to press the case further upon the authorities of Louisiana, but expressed the hope that the Government of the United States might take such action as might "be necessary to obtain from Congress or otherwise the relief to which Mr. Bain is so justly entitled." The deficiency act of June 8, 1896, contains the following provision for the payment, out of humane consideration and without reference to the question of liability therefor, to the British Government, as full indemnity to certain British subjects: "To James Bain, who was assaulted and injured in the State of Louisiana by residents of that State, $1.000; to Frederick B. Dawson, wife and daughter, for loss of property and bodily injuries inflicted in the State of Nebraska by residents of that State, $1,800." The money in these cases was transmitted to the British ambassador, June 12, 1896. For. Rel. 1895, I. 686, 689, 690-691, 694-696; For. Rel. 1896, 300. Cases of Moreno and Suaste. August 5, 1895, two persons named Sears and Mierhaus were shot, the former fatally, at Yreka, California. Two persons named Stemler and Moreno, the latter a Mexican, were arrested and put in jail on the charge of having committed the crime, and both were identified by Mierhaus. On the night of August 26, 1895, both Moreno and Stemler and two other persons, all of whom were charged with murder, were taken from the jail at Yreka by a mob and escorted to the court-house park, where they were hanged. In May, 1896, Mr. Romero, Mexican minister at Washington, asked that the persons concerned in the lynching be punished, and that a suitable indemnity be paid to Moreno's family. The Department of State requested the governor of California to investigate the affair and report the facts. He replied, July 17, 1896, that shortly after the lynching he took steps to have the guilty parties punished, but that the grand jury failed to find an indictment, no clue to the identity of the persons concerned having been discovered. The governor made a later report to the same effect, in which he declared that he did not think it within the bounds of possibility that any person connected with the affair would ever divulge it. Copies of these reports were furnished to the Mexican Government, which renewed its request for indemnity. In a report to the President, January 14, 1898, Mr. Sherman, as Secretary of State, said: "The case is similar to that of the lynching of the Italian subjects at Hahnville, La., which was brought to the attention of Congress on May 3 and 24, 1897. (See House Doc. No. 37, Fifty-fifth Congress, first session, and Senate Doc. No. 104, same Congress and session.) In this latter case Congress, in the deficiency appropriation act approved July 19, 1897, appropriated, out of humane consideration and without reference to the question of liability therefor, the sum of $6,000 as full indemnity to the heirs of the three Italian subjects lynched. I have the honor to recommend that the same course be pursued in the case of the lynching of Moreno, and that Congress be requested, without question of the liability of the United States, to appropriate the sum of $2,000 as full indemnity to his heirs." Message of President McKinley, Jan. 18, 1898, H. Doc. 237, 55 Cong. 2 sess. By the act of July 7, 1898, Congress appropriated the sum of $2,000 to be paid "out of humane consideration, without reference to the question of liability therefor, to the Mexican Government, as full indemnity to the heirs of Luis Moreno, who was lynched in 1895 at Yreka, California." (30 Stat. 653.) By the act of March 3, 1901, Congress made an appropriation of the same amount in similar terms to be paid to the Mexican Government as indemnity to the heirs of Florentino Suaste, a Mexican citizen who was lynched in Lasalle County, Texas. (31 Stat. 1010.) With refer ence to this case, Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, in a report to the President, December 4, 1900, said: "The case is similar to that of the lynching of the Mexican citizen Luis Moreno, at Yreka, California, in August 1895." (Message of President McKinley, Dec. 6, 1900, S. Rep. 1832, 56 Cong. 2 sess. 2.) In a report in favor of the appropriation which was made in the case of Suaste, Mr. Lodge, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, January 9, 1901, said: "While the contention of the Government of the United States has always been in answer to claims of this nature that the only guaranty provided by treaty stipulations is that aliens residing in this country shall have the same protection under the laws and in the courts provided for its own citizens, and while this position has been in every respect tenable and in a strictly legal sense justifiable, yet in almost every instance we have deemed it advisable, as a matter of equity and justice and good policy and out of humane consideration, to pay indemnities and make reparation." (S. Rept. 1832, 56 Cong. 2 sess.) 7. CASE OF DON PACIFICO. § 1028. Few cases of mob violence are so celebrated as that of the Chevalier Pacifico, commonly called Don Pacifico, a British subject, who suffered injuries at the hands of a mob in Athens in the spring of 1847. This case, not by itself, but in connection with other cases, one of which involved the taking of the property of a British subject by the Greek Government without proper compensation, and another the arrest of a boat belonging to a British man-of-war, formed the subject of reprisals by Great Britain against Greece. The facts in the case of Don Pacifico were that it had for some years been the custom at Athens to burn on Easter day an effigy of Judas Iscariot. In 1847 the Government, in consequence of the presence of Baron C. M. de Rothschild, at Athens, endeavored to prevent the custom from being observed. A report was spread, however, to the effect that this interference with the popular custom was due to the Chevalier Pacifico, who was of the Jewish faith. His house was therefore attacked in the middle of the day by several hundred persons, who, as Sir Edmund Lyons, then British minister at Athens, declared "were aided, instead of being repressed, by soldiers and gendarmes, and who were accompanied and encouraged, if not headed, by persons whose presence naturally induced a belief amongst the soldiers and the mob, that the outrages they were committing would be indulgently treated by the Government." This charge was directly made to the Greek Government, together with a suggestion of compensation, on April 26, 1847. No answer was made to this letter, and on September 14 Sir E. Lyons sent to the minister of foreign affairs, by direction of Lord Palmerston, a demand for redress. The Greek Government took no notice of either of these notes. The names of some of those |