allow the parties to carry on their operations so long as there was not an undue interference with recognized rights of foreigners. The examples which show the practice of the period since the middle of the nineteenth century are illustrative.

Peru, 1858.-Prof. Moore cites Secretary Cass, who in a letter to Mr. Osma, the Peruvian minister, on May 22, 1858, says:

It is the duty of foreigners to avoid all interference under such circumstances (in cases of civil war), and to submit to the power which exercises jurisdiction over the places where they resort, and, while thus acting, they have a right to protection, and also to be exempted from all vexatious interruption, when the ascendency of the parties is temporarily changed by the events of the contest. Undoubtedly the considerations you urge respecting the true character of an armed opposition to a government are entitled to much weight. There may be local insurrections, armed opposition to the laws, which carry with them none of the just consequences recognized by the law of nations as growing out of a state of civil war. No fixed principle can be established upon this subject, because much depends upon existing circumstances. Cases, as they arise, must be determined by the facts which they present; and the avowed objects of the parties, their relative strength, the progress they respectively make, and the extent of the movement, as well as other circumstances, must be taken into view.

While contending parties are carrying on a civil war those portions of the country in the possession of either of them become subject to its jurisdiction, and the persons residing there owe to it temporary obedience. But when such possession is changed by the events of the war and the other party expels its opponents, the occupation it acquires carries with it legitimate authority, and the right to assume and exercise the functions of the government. But it carries with it no right, so far, at any rate, as foreigners are concerned, to give a retroactive effect to its measures and expose them to penalties and punishments and their property to forfeiture for acts which were lawful and approved by the existing government when done. (1 Moore, International Law Digest, sec. 20, p. 43.)

Case of the "Haytien Republic," 1888.—In a letter to Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, October 27, 1888, the agents for the steamship Haytien Republic said:

SIR: We are informed that the consul of the Haitian Government in New York has received a cablegram from Port au Prince

stating that the steamship Haytien Republic, of Boston, has been seized at St. Marc, Haiti, and that ship and crew have been taken to Port au Prince and there detained.

The steamship Haytien Republic is owned and manned by citizens of the United States, and is regularly employed in carrying United States mails, passengers, and general freight between the United States and Haiti. Said steamship cleared and sailed from New York on the 4th instant, with United States mails, several passengers, and general cargo for various ports in Haiti, having no arms, ammunition, or unlawful merchandise on board.

We have no information from the master of the vessel whatever as to the seizure, and fear that he has been prevented from communicating with us.

The detention of the steamer causes great pecuniary loss to the owners of the steamer and cargo.

We therefore respectfully ask that the case may be investigated, and that a Government vessel be sent to Port au Prince at once to secure the liberty of the crew and to protect the interests of all concerned.

We remain, etc.,

B. C. MORSE & Co., Agents for Steamship "Haytien Republic."

(U. S. S. Ex. Doc. No. 69, 50th Cong., 2d sess., p. 69.)

The Haitian authorities, under whose orders the Haytien Republic was taken into port, expressed their ideas of the action in the summons to the captain of the Haytien Republic and the local agent as follows:

Whereas during the existence of a state of war it is the duty of neutrals to abstain from all participation in the contest that is going on;

Whereas the American steamer Haytien Republic has violated those principles of neutrality by transporting troops, arms, and emissaries for the account of the insurrection;

Whereas those acts furnish sufficient reason to consider that vessel as being hostile;

Whereas on the 16th day of October the provisional government declared the ports of the Cape, St. Marc, and Gonaives to be blockaded; whereas due notice thereof was given to the representatives of the neutral powers, and the decree announcing the blockade was published in all the towns of the Republic; whereas when the steamer Haytien Republic appeared off the port of St. Marc, that port was blockaded;

Whereas the blockade was effective, since the Haitian advice vessel Dessalines guarded the entrance; and whereas the Haytien Republic must have eluded the vigilance of the blockading forces

and have taken advantage of its superior speed so as not to be sunk;

Whereas signals were made to it, and six cannon shots, with ball, were fired at it for the purpose of stopping it, which acts constitute a sufficient special notice of a blockade;

Whereas the vessel was captured just as it was sailing out of the port of St. Marc, into which it had forced an entrance and to which it had borne dispatches;

Whereas numerous evidences confirm its illegal participation in the acts of the insurrection of the north; whereas the captain refused to show his papers or to allow his vessel to be searched by the examining judges, which he did in order to conceal the papers that were likely to compromise him; and whereas he also refused to allow seals to be placed upon his vessel;

Whereas a delegation consisting of leaders of the insurrectionary movements is still on board of his vessel, and was there at the time when the capture took place;

Whereas the violation of a blockade is an offense which is provided for and made punishable by international law;

To hear sentence pronounced upon them, the one to be condemned to the forfeiture and relinquishment of the vessel under his command, which is to be awarded to the Haitian Government, to which it has occasioned great injury, and the cargo thereof to be confiscated. (Ibid, p. 116.)

In the Haytian statement of the law which governed this case was the following:

Considering that in case of war between two States, and, therefore, in case of insurrection of a portion of a country against the established Government, neutral States and their subjects are bound not to interfere in the struggle, whether it be to aid one of the belligerents or to aid the rebels.

That the neutrals who break this obligation render themselves liable to be treated as enemies, and that this rule applies to ships as to individuals.

That it is generally admitted that the neutral ship which transports either troops, arms, correspondence, or emissaries, who enters in any manner whatsoever into the service of one of the belligerents, or in that of the insurgents, places itself beyond the protection given to neutral property, and can be lawfully condemned and confiscated. (Ibid, p. 129.)

Many other specific. considerations were enumerated, and finally the decision was rendered on October 31 confiscating the steamer, contraband, and goods belonging to the enemy, making the captain and crew liable to

further proceedings, and condemning the owners to pay 50,000 piasters.

On November 2, 1888, the minister of the United States sent a letter protesting against the action:

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Port au Prince, Haiti, November 2, 1888. SIR: The undersigned has been informed authoritatively that a tribunal has rendered a verdict that the American steamship Haytien Republic be delivered to the authorities at Port au Prince, and in consequence that all of the crew on board leave the ship. Now I, the undersigned, minister resident of the United States, protest in the name of the Government of the United States against:

(1) The seizure of such vessel.

(2) Against the irregular tribunal that has rendered the decision.

(3) Against the verdict.

(4) Against any action being taken by the authorities until I can receive instructions from my Government.

And do by the present hold the authorities of Port au Prince responsible for all damages in the premises, declaring most solemnly, at the same time, that the crew of the above-mentioned steamer are under the protection of my flag, the ensign of the United States of America.

The undersigned has the honor to be, sir, with assurance of distinguished consideration,

In a long review and opinion on the case Secretary Bayard on November 28, 1888, said:

On the 26th instant the department received a full report upon the case by the captain of the United States steamer Boston, who had just returned from Port au Prince to the port of New York.

Upon examinations of the record and proceedings in the case, the department is led to the conclusion that the seizure and detention of the vessel and the imprisonment of her officers have, from the beginning, been irregular and wrongful; that she should, without delay, be restored to her American owners, and her officers released from all detention; and that adequate compensa

tion should be made to them and to the owners of the vessel for the loss and injuries they have suffered by reason of the proceedings in question.

It is unnecessary to discuss the charge of attempting to run a blockade, upon which allegation it is understood that the seizure of the vessel was originally made. Whether any valid blockade did or did not exist, it is clear that the Haytien Republic had and could have had no notice of it. (Ibid., p. 171.)

Then after mentioning other matters the irregularity of the proceedings are referred to and the treaty provisions cited:

From the above stipulations it is manifest that so far as the proceedings against the Haytien Republic rest upon a charge of attempting to run a blockade, they were in clear violation of the express terms of the treaty, and wholly improper and inadmissible.

Nor can the tribunal by which the charges against the Haytien Republic and her officers were examined be recognized by this Government as competent for that purpose. By the twentyeighth article of the treaty above referred to it is provided that in matters of prize "in all cases the established courts for prize causes in the country to which the prizes may be conducted shall alone take cognizance of them."

The tribunal before which the Haytien Republic and her officers were brought was hastily improvised for the occasion and consisted of two commissioners specially appointed on the 21st of October, 1888, to examine the case of the Haytien Republic. It was in no sense "an established court for prize causes," as stipulated in the treaty, but had for its special and only authority the order of the provisional president, Légitime. Its proceedings had scarcely a feature of formality and regularity. (Ibid., p. 173.)

Reviewing the conditions in Haiti, Secretary Bayard further says:

Local supremacy in Haiti thus shifts from week to week, and from hand to hand, so rapidly and unexpectedly that it would be wholly unreasonable and impossible to subject the merchant marine and citizens of other countries, who find themselves so surrounded by factions contending violently for mastery, to extreme penalties, because of their alleged favor to either side, or because of their necessary and enforced acquiescence in the demands of factions locally and temporarily in power.

The rights of person and property of American citizens engaged in business in Haiti can not be permitted to become the football