has not ever been invoked. This Government is convinced that said strikers were engaged in acts of lawlessness and that any injuries inflicted were sustained by them in resisting the lawful efforts of the local authorities to keep the peace. . The maintenance of

internal law and order is of sovereign concern to the Government of the United States; and while, out of consideration for the Government of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, this Government would be pleased to defer much to His Majesty's wishes and feelings, I regret that it is unable to do so in this case by consenting to the arbitration of a claim which, in any form, is believed to be inadmissible."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Baron von Riedenau, June 11, 1899, For Rel. 1899, 39.

See, also, President McKinley's annual message, Dec. 5. 1899.

X. CLAIMS BASED ON WAR.

1. CLAIMS NOT USUALLY ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF OPERATIONS OF WAR.

§ 1032.

A claim was presented to the Russian Government in behalf of a citizen of the United States for the loss of certain property destroyed by the burning of Moscow in 1812. The request for redress was so peremptorily refused that it appeared to be "utterly vain and useless" further to press the matter, which was accordingly dropped.

Mr. McLane, Sec. of State, to Mr. Treadwell, Nov. 30, 1833, 26 MS. Dom.
Let. 103.

"The liability of this Government to make amends to those Prussian subjects who complained of maltreatment and robbery by soldiers in the service of the United States in Mexico, can not be acknowledged. It is believed that no war in modern times has been prosecuted with greater forbearance towards non-combatants of all descriptions, than that which characterized the conduct of our forces in the war between the United States and Mexico. Not only was it our belligerent policy to respect private persons and property, as indicated by the orders to our commanding officers in that country, but everything was done which could reasonably have been expected towards carrying that policy into effect. Instances of irregularities undoubtedly occurred, in which both foreigners and Mexicans may have suffered, but this should be considered the fortune of war, from which no foreigners settled in that country had any right to expect to be free.

"You seem to suppose that because the United States claimed and may have received indemnification for injuries done to their citizens. during the civil wars in Mexico, they ought to indemnify those for

eigners who may have been injured during our war with that country. No analogy can be perceived between the two cases. The United States had a treaty with Mexico which promised protection to their citizens in that country. When this stipulation was disregarded by Mexican officers, during the commotions in the Mexican Republic, the Government of that Republic became accountable therefor. If the United States had a treaty stipulation with Prussia by which they engaged to indemnify Prussian subjects domiciled in a country with which we might be at war, for injuries from troops engaged in prosecuting the war in such foreign country, that stipulation would be applicable in this instance and would be respected. No such stipulation, however, exists. It is not even pretended that the injuries complained of resulted from any orders or connivance of officers of the United States. On the contrary, upon the complaint of the sufferers, measures were adopted to inquire into the subject, which, it seems, were defeated by their failure to appear before the proper tribunal.” Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Baron Gerolt, Prussian min., Feb. 15, 1854, MS. Notes to Pruss. Leg. VII. 10.

"Baron Gerolt intimates that foreigners in Mexico must be considered as under the special protection of their respective governments on account of the almost constant state of anarchy in that country. The undersigned, however, understands that Prussia as well as the United States has recognized Mexico as an independent nation. This implies an acknowledgment that the Mexican Government is entitled to the rights and is capable of discharging the duties of a sovereign state, and as such is competent to protect foreigners within her jurisdiction. But even if, for argument's sake only, it were to be allowed that foreign governments were warranted in considering their citizens or subjects as under their own protection in Mexico, at least during the frequent civil wars in that country, the same right cannot be held to exist during a war between Mexico and any other foreign power. The rights of neutrals in Mexico must, in such a case, be measured by the general law of nations."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Baron Gerolt, June 15, 1854, MS. Notes to
Prussian Leg. VII. 15.

This note related to certain claims of Prussian subjects domiciled in
Mexico against the United States for the acts committed by the
latter during the war between the United States and Mexico.

A citizen of the United States while on his way from California, in May, 1856, was, as he alleged, induced to stop in Nicaragua for the purpose of engaging in a certain business. While so engaged, in the following October, his establishment was attacked by a party of soldiers, by whom he was wounded, and his property plundered.

He sought to make a claim against Nicaragua for $80,000. The Department of State declined to present it. "When Mr. Butts," said the Department," domiciled himself in Nicaragua, he knew that the Republic was in a state of war, and assumed therefore the necessary hazards which attend the residence even of a neutral in a belligerent country. In estimating these hazards, he probably weighed against them the profits which he hoped to derive from this business, and if he has been disappointed in his expectations, this Government can only lament that it is unable to afford him any remedy."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Burns, M. C., April 26, 1858, 48 MS. Doin.
Let. 323.

Persons domiciled in the Confederate States can not claim for damages sustained by them from the forcible manumission of their slaves by Federal troops.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mercier, French min., Nov. 8, 1862,
Dip. Cor. 1863, II. 742; same to same, Feb. 24, 1863, id. 752.

"The undersigned Secretary of State of the United States, having taken into further consideration the note of the 9th instant, which Count Wydenbruck, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, addressed to this Department, claiming indemnification for certain tobacco belonging to the Austrian Government, the principal part of which was destroyed by the insurgents in consequence of their having set fire to the warehouses where it was stored on the evacuation of the city of Richmond, he has the honor to communicate the decision of this Government upon the subject.

"It is believed that it is a received principle of public law, that the subjects of foreign powers domiciled in a country in a state of war, are not entitled to greater privileges or immunities than the other inhabitants of the insurrectionary district. If, for a supposed purpose of the war, one of the belligerents thinks proper to destroy neutral property, the other can not legally be regarded as accountable therefor. By voluntarily remaining in a country in a state of civil war, they must be held to have been willing to accept the risks as well as the advantages of that domicile. The same rule seems to be applicable to the property of neutrals, whether that of individuals or of governments, in a belligerent country. It must be held to be liable to the fortunes of war. In this conclusion, the undersigned is happy in being able to refer the Austrian Government to many precedents of comparatively recent date, one of which, a note of Prince Schwartzenberg of the 14th of April, 1850, in answer to claims put forward in behalf of British subjects, who were represented to have suffered in

their persons and property in the course of an insurrection in Naples and Tuscany."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Count Wydenbruck, Austrian min., Nov. 16, 1865, MS. Notes to Aust. Leg. VII. 193.

In connection with the question whether a government is "responsible for damages caused to domiciled or resident foreigners, in its efforts to repress an insurrection," William Beach Lawrence says:

"This question was raised, when the revolutionary movements in 1849 and 1850 at Naples and in Tuscany were frustrated by the interference of Austria. In 1850, an English fleet proceeded to Naples to support, before the King of the two Sicilies, a demand for indemnity presented by the English minister in favor of British subjects who had suffered damages by the bombardment of Messina. About the same time, the English minister at Florence presented to the Grand Duke of Tuscany a similar reclamation based on the losses which the capture of Leghorn had caused to English merchants. The Grand Duke invoked the support of the court of Vienna and requested the arbitration of Russia. The latter refused to serve as arbitrator, because she did not admit the principle of the British claims. But the cabinet of St. Petersburg addressed a note to that of London. 'According to the rules of public law,' said the dispatch of Count Nesselrode of May 2, 1850, as they are understood by Russian policy, it can not be admitted that a sovereign forced to repossess himself of a town occupied by insurgents, is bound to indemnify foreign subjects who may have suffered damage from the assault on such town. When they establish themselves in a country other than their own, they accept the chances of all the perils to which that country may be exposed.' 'If the right which the English Government claims in Tuscany and at Naples should prevail,' further said Count Nesselrode, it would result in giving to British subjects an exceptional position abroad, far beyond the advantages enjoyed by the inhabitants of other countries, and would create for the governments which welcome them an intolerable situation. Their presence would be, to the fomenters of trouble, an encouragement to revolt; for if, behind the revolutionary barricades, there should continually rise up the menacing eventuality of future reclamations in favor of English injured in their property by the act of repression, every sovereign whose position or whose relative weakness exposed him to the coercive measures of an English fleet, would find himself stricken with helplessness in the face of insurrection. If claims such as those made in Sicily and in Tuscany should ever be supported by means other than those of conciliation, His Majesty would inevitably be led to examine and specify in a more formal manner the conditions under which he would henceforth consent to accord in his states to British subjects the right of resi dence and of property.'

"Prince Schwartzenberg expressed himself as follows, April 14, 1850: 'However disposed may be the peoples of Europe to extend the limits of the right to hospitality, they will never do so to the point of giving to foreigners a treatment more favorable than the laws of the country assure to nationals. The first right of every independent state is to assure its own preservation by all the means in its power. When a sovereign using this right is obliged to resort to arms for the suppression of an open revolt, if, in the civil war which results from it, the property of foreigners established in the country is injured, it is a public misfortune which foreigners must share with nationals, and which no more gives them the right to an exceptional indemnity than if their reclamation was founded on any other calamity proceeding from the will of men.'

Lawrence, Commentaire sur Wheaton, III. 128.

In the House of Commons, June 4, 1850, Lord Palmerston said:
"With regard to the supposed announcement that the honorable gentle-
man imagines the Governments of Russia and Austria to have made,
it is true that in arguing-that in stating their opinions upon, not
the Greek claims, but other claims that Her Majesty's Government
have made of a similar kind, those Governments, acting on an imper-
fect knowledge of the circumstances, were of opinion, especially
Austria, that it was impossible to draw a distinction between the
subjects of a country and foreigners resident in that country, and
that if a government chooses to refuse to its own subjects compensa-
tion for injuries of any kind received in the course of hostilities, they
are entitled also to refuse compensation to the subjects of any for-
eign state; and it was indicated as an argument to the Government
of Great Britain that it might become necessary for the Government
of Austria to consider how far it would be its own interest to en-
courage the residence of British subjects in Austria. It was not
stated, however, whether it would exclude our merchants, or our civil
engineers employed in constructing their railways, or the travellers
who were spending their money in that country. That was an
argument, and nothing more. But against that argument I might
quote the example of the Government of Austria itself. Very re-
cently an Austrian merchant brig wrecked on the coast of Ireland,
near Troy Island, was plundered by the people of that district. The
government of Ireland commenced a prosecution for the purpose 'of
punishing the plunderers, and recovering for the owners and mas-
ters of the vessel the amount of their loss. The prosecution, how-
ever, failed in consequence of a question that arose as to the place
where the venue was laid, and no redress could be received in a
court of law. The Government of Austria applied for compensation,
though in a case where it is evident a British subject could have
obtained none in course of law; and Her Majesty's Government, act-
ing on that liberal principle that always guides their conduct in
matters relating to foreign countries, granted compensation to the
extent of 5001.

"MR. M. GIBSON asked when was the decision come to to compensate the
Austrian ship on the part of the English Government?

"VISCOUNT PALMERSTON thought it was about a month ago." (Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, CXI. 717-719.)