procity agreement with Spain under section 3 of the McKinley Act then being in force. When the cargo arrived at San Juan the reciprocity agreement had come to an end, and the authorities declined to assess the duties under it. The firm in question protested against the action of the authorities in imposing without due notice in advance the heavier duties on the cargoes, and appealed to the Department of States for relief. The Department held that, as the new tariff act of the United States, commonly known as the Wilson-Gorman Act, which went into operation at midnight of August 27-28, 1894, repealed the legislation under which the reciprocity agreement was concluded, and as the basis of reciprocal treatment then disappeared the United States could not claim the continuance of the agreement nor contest the right of the Spanish Government to treat it as cancelled from that day and hour. "Our own legislation," said the Department," took effect immediately on the act becoming a law, and without formal notice or other knowledge of its provisions and effects than could be obtained from the publicity given to it during the ten days before it became a law." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Flint & Co., Sept. 11, 1894, 198 MS. As to the refund of duties levied under the tariff act of August, 1842, 6. DEBASEMENT OF THE CURRENCY. § 1005. "Many citizens of the United States complain that contracts entered into with the Spanish Government for metallic money have been discharged to their very great loss in depreciated paper. "The injustice of this is manifest. Between discharging a debt by paying one-half its nominal amount, and the whole of its nominal amount possessing only one-half its real value, there is no difference. "To your remonstrances heretofore made on this subject, we observe that the minister of His Catholic Majesty has only replied— the absolute right of a sovereign nation on its own territory. "This right we mean not to question or impair. But coextensive and coeval with it, is the privilege of a foreign friendly nation, to complain of, and remonst ite against, such acts of sovereignty as are injurious to its citizens or subjects. This privilege we mean respectfully to exercise. "In contracts entered into by individuals with a sovereign power there exists no tribunal to enforce their performance. For this the good faith of the sovereign is alone relied on. This is held sacred, H. Doc. 551-vol 648 and is always pledged to exempt from the operation of that paramount power over all transactions within its dominions the engagements of the sovereignty itself. "The citizens of the United States, therefore, who have formed specie contracts with the Spanish Government, hold as a pledge the faith of that Government solemnly plighted, that its power shall never be so exercised as to work injury or injustice to them." Mr. Marshall, Sec. of State, to Mr. Humphreys, min. to Spain, Sept. 23, 1800, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, V. 383. 66 When a state has recourse to violent financial operations tending to do away with inherent obligations to satisfy its indebtedness, the violation of property rights which results is sufficient to authorize other nations to take up in this respect the cause of their subjects, and to employ for their protection every means authorized by the law of nations." (Martens, Droit des Gens, by Vergé, 1864, liv. 3, ch. 3, 298-299.) December 22, 1903, the President of Guatemala issued a decree legalizing the payment in silver or bank notes of gold debts judicially demanded. The subject was brought to the attention of the Department of State by American merchants doing business in Guatemala, as well as by the American legation there. The legation was instructed to make earnest remonstrance against the application of the decree to debts due to American citizens. Remonstrances were made by other powers. The decree was subsequently revoked. For. Rel. 1904, 346-351, and particularly Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. 7. PATENTS AND INVENTIONS. § 1006. A citizen of the United States sought the interposition of his Government to obtain reimbursement from the Russian Government for the value of an invention made by him, which was said to be in use in Russian fortifications and vessels, as well as for the heavy outlay in bringing his plans to perfection. It was held that the matter was "not one which can properly be presented through the legation of the United States." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Myers, M. C., Jan. 27, 1875, 106 MS. Dom. With reference to the request of a citizen of the United States for assist- compensation therefor has been refused. Questions concerning the protection to be granted to inventions, or compensation when the same are used, in the absence of treaty stipulations, are dependent upon the law of the particular country where the protection is claimed or the supposed injury is committed. If the laws of the country afford no protection in such cases, it is not competent for this Government, by a diplomatic channel, to supply the omission or to procure either protection for an American inventor, or compensation for his invention." (Mr. Cadwalader, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Broadwell, July 28, 1875, 109 MS. Dom. Let. 233.) Applications are frequently made to the Department of State and its representatives abroad for aid in obtaining moneys supposed to be due from unclaimed estates in foreign lands. In June, 1886, the American minister at Brussels wrote that no trace of any such estate as that of Hannah Rouk, in Belgium, could be found, and that if any such estate ever existed, the rights of the claimants apparently had long since been barred by lapse of time. In May, 1886, the American minister in London reported that, so far as he could learn, there was no such estate in England known as the "Dalton estate." The case, he said, appeared to be one of those constantly recurring delusions among the less intelligent class of the American people, which occasioned many hundreds of applications to the legation. Such delusions were fostered by designing persons, who issued advertisements inquiring for heirs of almost all known surnames, and gave it out that these advertisements emanated from the British Government, which was anxious to distribute the property in its hands. In reality, the Government held no such property and of course had issued no such advertisements. In 1887, one George F. Anderson, a citizen of the United States, was found guilty by the central criminal court in London of obtaining money by false pretenses from certain American citizens in connection with an alleged unclaimed estate in England. The culprit was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. In 1886 the American minister at Paris, answering an inquiry concerning an alleged estate in France left by Baron von Kuhmann, who died in that country in 1811, said that the experience of the legation in searching for estates of the class in question had never resulted in anything satisfactory, and that the proper course for those who wished to obtain information was to apply to a lawyer. Similar reports as to nonexistent estates have been received from Denmark and Germany. In 1852 the Government of the Netherlands appointed a commission to settle all estates remaining in charge of the old orphans' chambers when they were abolished in 1811. The name Hartsinck is not among those found in the records of the commission. In 1886-1887 a report was widely circulated in the press as to “an imaginary estate known as the Graaf, Graff, Graef, Groff, or Grove" in the Netherlands. The report was unfounded. One of the most active and persistent of the unclaimed-estates swindles is that which is now and then carried on from Spain, particularly from Valencia, where a Spanish prisoner is supposed to have died leaving the care of a young daughter to some educational institution. The prisoner is alleged to have left a valuable concealed treasure, the whereabouts of which can be discovered only by regaining possession at considerable cost of the sequestered baggage or other property left by the supposed prisoner. An advance of money of from $2,000 to $7,000 is generally asked for by a supposed priest who is seeking to recover the treasure or to take care of the unfortunate daughter. As to estates in Belgium, see Mr. Tree, min. to Belgium, to Mr. Bayard, As to estates in France, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, As to England, see Mr. Phelps, min. to England, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of As to Denmark, see Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Plumb, Aug. 28, As to Germany, see the circular referred to by Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, As to the Netherlands, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. 9. LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF PUBLIC SHIPS. § 1008. A claim for damages exists against a vessel of the United States guilty of a maritime tort, as much as if the offending vessel belonged to a private citizen; and although, for reasons of public policy, the claim can not be enforced by direct proceedings against the vessel, yet it will be enforced by the courts whenever the property itself, upon which the claim exists, becomes, through the affirmative action of the United States, subject to their jurisdiction and control. Therefore, where a prize ship, in charge of a prize master and crew, committed a maritime tort by running into and sinking another vessel, the damages of the owners of the latter were ordered to be assessed and paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the former, before distribution to the captors. The Siren, 7 Wall. 152. February 21, 1885, the American schooner Lanie Cobb, while at anchor in the harbor of Laguayra, was run into by the Venezuelan schooner Ana Eulogia, which was owned by the President of Venezuela and was in the service of the Venezuelan Government. The master of the Lanie Cobb sought to obtain redress from the Venezuelan authorities, both administrative and judicial, but without success. In September, 1885, the American minister in Caracas was instructed to demand from the Venezuelan Government an indemnity of $1,986. A clearer case, said the Department of State, of a denial of justice could scarcely be conceived. The master had sought to secure an equitable settlement, which, after much circumlocution, was denied him. As the Ana Eulogia, at the time of the accident, was under the commission of the Venezuelan Government, it was contended that that Government was responsible for damage inflicted 66 on account of the careless and inexcusable acts" of those on board. "The right of our citizens," said the Department of State, "to demand compensation for damages which they may sustain, as in the accident to the Lanie Cobb, as well as that of a government to insist upon due reparation of such wrongs in behalf of its citizens, whenever necessary, is one which belongs to them by the rules of international law, and which is so recognized by all civilized countries.” Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scott, min. to Venezuela, No. 22, Sept. 3, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 923. See, also, For. Rel. 1885, 903, 905, 913, 914, 915, 926. For the claim by the United States against Mexico for the sinking of the American schooner Daylight by the Mexican gunboat Independencia, see For. Rel. 1884, 340, 343, 345, 358, 362, 370; and supra, § 988. See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, min. to Mexico, May 19, 1884, MS. Inst. Mexico, XXI. 82. In 1885 Congress appropriated $1,973.84 to pay damages to Nagai Jinske, a Japanese, for injuries done to his junk by the U. S. S. Ashuelot by a collision in Japanese waters in 1869. Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat, 496. |