trance into Honduran ports. All the acts complained of took place in July, 1892. As appears by decree of September 5, 1899, the Honduran Government settled the claim for $2,500 in gold. The decree recited that it was a fact capable of proof that Colonel Nuila detained the steamer and used it in his expedition to Trujillo with the consent of the captain and other officers, and that it consequently was only natural that the authorities of the titular government should afterwards exclude the steamer from entering the ports of the country. The decree, however, further declared that, as the new government of the country arose out of the revolutionary movement begun by Col. Nuila at Ceiba, it was possible to treat the matter "from a benevolent standpoint," and that the sum in question was paid "not as an indemnity for damages, but as payment for services lent by the steamer." For. Rel. 1899, 352–354. In December, 1894, the commander of a revolutionary force in Peru demanded of William Fowks, an American citizen engaged in business at Tumbez, the sum of 400 soles for the use of the insurgent forces. The money was refused, and the insurgent commander then cast Mr. Fowks into prison and kept him there without food, water, or bed for twenty-four hours, when he yielded. Fearing further exactions Mr. Fowks, after his release, left Peru. In 1896 he presented to the Department of State a claim against Peru for the 400 soles extorted from him and for indemnity for his imprisonment and sufferings and consequent losses. It appeared that during the revolution Tumbez was held by the regular government forces, but was abandoned by them on the approach of the insurgent forces. The revolution, which lasted about six months, was successful, and resulted in the establishment of the government whose cause it asserted. From the date of Fowks's imprisonment till the inauguration of the provisional government the revolutionary forces occupied Tumbez, though the rest of the department in which it is situated was in the hands of the government forces. The commander of the insurgent forces, which occupied Tumbez and imprisoned Fowks, was Colonel Seminario, a nephew of the person who became second vicepresident of Peru and a member of the Peruvian Congress. The insurgents at the time when Fowks was imprisoned had not been recognized by the United States. By Article XV. of the treaty between the United States and Peru of 1887, which was in force at the time of the occurrence in question, the contracting parties engaged "to give full and perfect protection to the persons and property of the citizens of each other . who may be dwelling or transient in the territories subject to their respective jurisdiction." The same H. Doc. 551-vol 6-63 . article also provided that the citizens of the one country should not be liable within the territory of the other to imprisonment without formal commitment under a legal warrant, except in cases flagrantis delicti, and that when detained in prison they should be treated with humanity and without unnecessary severity. By Article II. of the same treaty it was further stipulated that they should not be called on for any forced loan or extraordinary contribution for any military expedition without being indemnified in advance. "For the treatment to which Mr. Fowks was subjected, in violation of express provisions of treaty and of the principles of international law, the Peruvian Government is," said the Department of State, "responsible." The Department referred to the correspondence in the MacCord case, and demanded for Mr. Fowks reimbursement of the money extorted from him, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, and an indemnity for his imprisonment and ill treatment, for which $5,000 was suggested as a reasonable amount. The Department held that a claim which Mr. Fowks sought to make for reimbursement of himself and his partners for the alleged enforced abandonment of their business in Tumbez was not valid. In 1901 the Peruvian Government, "without entering into any discussion as to the bases of said claim, or performing any act which might serve to establish a precedent either for or against analogous cases," offered to pay the sum of 3,000 soles silver in full settlement of the claim, embracing the forced loan and damages for imprisonment. This offer was accepted and the claim thus adjusted. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dudley, min. to Peru, Nov. 21, 1898, For. Rel. 1901, 430; Mr. Dudley to Mr. Hay, No. 466, April 8, 1901, id. 432-434. As the revolution in Venezuela of 1899, led by General Cipriano Castro, proved to be successful, its acts, under a well-established principle of international law, are to be regarded as the acts of a de facto government. Bainbridge, commissioner, delivering the opinion of the commission in It was also followed by Plumley, umpire, case of the Bolivar Railway Also, by Gaytánde Ayala, umpire, in the cases of Bovallins and Hedlund. 5. PAYMENT OF DUTIES TO INSURGENTS. $ 1048. See, also, supra, §§ 21, 989. In reply to an inquiry made by the British minister on the 31st of December, 1860, as to what position the United States proposed to take with regard to the action of the authorities of South Carolina in assuming to regulate foreign commerce and exact duties on imports at Charleston, the Department of State said that the payment of duties to a person who was not an officer of the United States and authorized by its laws to receive them would be a mispayment, and that the clearance which might be obtained contrary to those laws could not be regarded as valid by the Federal authorities, but that the question whether the state of things existing at Charleston would or would not be regarded as a sufficient reason for not exacting the penalties which might be incurred by British subjects was a question which must be reserved till it arose practically. Each case, said the Department, would no doubt have its own peculiarities, and no general assurance could be given concerning the intentions of the President. "Any uncertainty on such a subject is in itself," said the Department," an evil which ought to be removed if it could be. But the reliance which your lordship can not but feel on the justice of this Government will no doubt quiet all apprehension of ultimate wrong to British subjects, if such wrong can possibly be avoided." Mr. Black, Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., Jan. 10, 1861, MS. It may be superfluous to say that no claim for the repayment of duties "If customs duties are demanded of merchants by the insurgents, and they should be compelled to pay them, this should be done under protest. The Colombian Government must understand that in no instance of such compulsory payment will this Government acquiesce in another payment of the same duties to the regular authorities." Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Scruggs, min. to Colombia, Sept. 11, 1875, MS. Inst. Colombia, XVII. 2. "I have the honor to call your attention to the inclosed copy of a decree of the President of the United States of Colombia, which I am informed by our consul at Barranquilla, under date of the 24th April, was published in the Official Gazette of the 12th February last, and is dated the 10th of the same month. "By Article I. of this decree the payment of custom-house dues in any place incidentally occupied by rebel forces not only does not exempt the respective importers of the goods which have already paid duties to the insurgents from their obligations to the national treasury, but will be a reason for adding to such obligations 50 per cent of the amount of duties illegally paid, if immediate payment is refused, and the collectors are further instructed to proceed immediately to a collection of such dues, as also of the extra 50 per cent in case of delay, and are required to make a report to the treasurer of all such importers as have paid duties to the rebels. "Our consul at Barranquilla informs me that on the 17th April the foreign consuls in Barranquilla protested collectively to the military commander of the city against the decree in question. The reply of the general is herewith inclosed. It does not appear from the consul's dispatch whether this decree has been enforced and the duty been actually collected, but it is probable that now that the rebellion is partially overcome all means of raising revenue have been adopted, and I desire, in anticipation of the protests of our merchants, to express the views of this Government on the subject. "The question as to how far a government is responsible to its citizens and foreigners within its borders for losses occasioned by insurgents may perhaps be open to argument, but there can be no question that no government has the right to inflict a punishment (for this double tax, with superadded penalty, amounts to a punishment) on neutral and peaceful merchants who have been compelled by military force to contribute against their will to the revolutionary funds or supplies, as if such merchants were voluntarily aiding and abetting the rebellion. "A government is bound to use all proper measures to protect the denizens within its borders from revolutionary acts, and in case it fails to insure such protection, it can not with any justice hold the citizens of foreign nations responsible for its own weakness and failure to protect them, by imposing on them a penalty or fine for the very occurrences which the government itself was bound to avert. Such a course of action as is authorized by the decree of the 10th February would be especially objectionable as being a retroactive revenue measure at ports admitted to have been beyond the control of the Government at the time the rebel dues were paid. Should an attempt be made to justify it on the ground of being in effect a fine for illicit trading with ports assumed to be embargoed, as mentioned in the President of Colombia's decree of the 9th April, I must again use the arguments in my note of the 24th ultimo to those decrees, and contend that a blockade must be efficient to be recognized, and that executive measures relative to ports over which the Government has no control can only be considered as nugatory." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Becerra, Colombian min., June 1, 1885, A remonstrance against the decree of Feb. 10 was also made by Mr. Scruggs, United States minister at Bogota. The Colombian minister of foreign affairs, adverting to the circumstance that no American names were on the list of persons fined under the decree, intimated that it never was intended to be enforced against neutral foreigners, and he afterwards stated that it would be revoked. (For. Rel. 1885, 221-222, 229–230.) The reply of the Colombian general, Señor Acevedo, of April 20, 1885, to Dec. 3, 1885, Mr. Becerra, the Colombian minister at Washington, "Referring to the terms of my note of June 1, respecting the first de- The titular government has no right to collect taxes on property which have already been paid to a revolutionary government which |