able, or willing, to insure precisely the same degree of protection to aliens resident within their territories. If, therefore, an individual ventures into a country where life and property are less secure, or in which there is less respect for law and order, than in his own state, he can only demand from his own government that measure of protection which is afforded to foreigners generally in the state in which he chooses to travel or reside; and it is only when the injury complained of is serious-involving danger to life, or insecurity to property or business-that the government can be expected to interpose in his behalf. A person who voluntarily enters the territory of a state in which the standards of enlightenment are less high than, or different from, those prevailing in his own country, does so of his own free will, and has no valid ground for complaint, so long as his life and property are reasonably secure, and he is placed upon the same footing in respect to protection as other resident foreigners.'

The Right of Interference. In international affairs noninterference is the rule, interference the exception, This follows from the definitions of state sovereignty and independence. The recognition of any other rule would strike at the very foundation of international law, and would render the maintenance of general peace impossible. For this reason the right of interference is denied save in certain extremely exceptional cases, in which the circumstances calling for interference must be of such a character as not only to justify that course, but to render the adoption of any other impossible.'

The instances of such interference, in history, are but too frequent. In a vast majority of cases they have not been justified by existing facts, and have led to results in every way more deplorable than those which they were intended to prevent. "The list includes the invasion of Holland by the Prus

'Hall, § 87; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 189-249; Snow, pp. 62, 63. For assistance in respect to the collection of public debts, see Pomeroy, § 213; Hall, § 87; II Dig. Int. Law, § 231.

'I Phillimore, § 392; Pomeroy, S$ 202, 203; Snow, p. 57; I Halleck, chap. iv. §§ 2-13; Woolsey, §§ 4351; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 63-71.

sians in 1787, to restore to his old prerogatives as stadtholder the Prince of Orange, who was brother-in-law to the Prussian king. It includes the infamous and pernicious attacks on Poland by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, the invasion of France in behalf of Louis XVI. by the Prussians and Austrians in 1791, and the interference of the Holy Alliance with the popularized governments of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Piedmont, in 1820 and the three following years. The historical student of these transactions will be fully qualified to form a judgment as to whether such proceedings are calculated to promote or to impair the general benefit of the community of nations."1

The Duty of Non - Interference. As states are entitled to a complete immunity from interference in their internal concerns, a corresponding duty devolves upon them to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other states. This is called the duty of non-interference. Save in the cases presently to be discussed, no occasion less urgent than selfpreservation, or the infringement of treaty stipulations, can justify such acts of interference.'

If the right of interference exists, therefore, as a perfect right at international law, it can be accepted and sanctioned only with important reservations, and can be exercised only in accordance with, and subject to, limitations of the severest character. It may be said to exist, to a qualified extent, in the following cases:

In Self-Defence. A state is not only independent within its own territory, but is entitled to an absolute immunity from external interference, and from acts of hostility or annoyance originating beyond its boundaries, but carried into effect within its territory. An insurrectionary movement within its jurisdiction may be largely supported and maintained by persons residing beyond its borders, and the offending state may be unable or unwilling to lend its aid towards their prevention. In such an event a state is authorized, in the exercise of the

'Creasy, p. 289.

Woolsey, § 43: Wheaton, § 63; Snow, p. 57; Pomeroy, § 202; I

Halleck, chap. iv. § 2; Hall, §§ 88, 89; Lawrence, International Law, §§ 74-89.

right of self-defence, to invade the territory of the offending state, and secure redress for the injury it has received. To justify such a course, however, the cause of offence must be clear, redress must have been demanded and plainly denied, and the wrong must be of such a character as to render neces sary a resort to forcible measures of redress.'

Marauding Expeditions. As a consequence of its sovereignty and independence, a state is entitled to an immunity from incursions by expeditions, or marauding parties, whose base of operations is in the territory of another state; when such incursions occur, the injured state will expect, and may demand, a prompt disavowal of the act, with reparation for its consequences, and the punishment of its perpetrators.' When the sovereignty of a territory permits it to be made the base of hostilities, by outlaws and savages, against a country with which such sovereign is at peace, the government of the latter country is entitled, as a matter of necessity, to pursue the assailants wherever they may be, and to take such measures as are necessary to put an end to their aggressions.'

The Capture of St. Mark's, Florida. In 1818 a body of United States troops, under the command of General Jackson, advanced upon and captured St. Marks, Florida, a post within the territorial jurisdiction of Spain, from which it was alleged that hostile Indians had obtained supplies and ammunition with which to make inroads upon the inhabitants of the State of Georgia. During the invasion two persons, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, who were known to be British subjects, were arrested by Jackson, after hostilities had ceased, and brought before a court-martial charged with aiding and abetting the Creek Indians in war with the United States, and inciting the Indians to war; Arbuthnot was also charged with being a spy. Both were convicted: Arbuthnot was sentenced to be hung, and the sentence was approved and carried into effect by Gen

'I Twiss, §§ 107, 108-110; Walker, Manual, § 32; I Halleck, chap. iv. §§ 18-27; Pomeroy, $$ 79, 84-87; Woolsey, § 43; Wheaton, §§ 62, 63;

I Phillimore, §§ 393-398; Hall, §§ 91, 92.

'III Dig. Int. Law, § 398; I Ibid. $$ 50-50e. I Ibid. § 500b.

eral Jackson; the other offender was less severely punished. The British Government refrained from taking any further notice of the affair, at the time, than to institute an inquiry into the facts connected with the punishment of its subjects. The United States Government strongly disapproved of General Jackson's action, and stood ready to disown his proceedings and make reparation for the injury.' Somewhat earlier, Amelia Island on the northeast coast of Florida, which had become a place of resort for slavers, freebooters, and smugglers, whose predatory operations had been directed against the people of the State of Georgia, was captured by United States troops, and its inhabitants dispersed, on the ground that the government of Spain was either unable or unwilling to restrain the lawless acts of persons within its territorial jurisdiction. This action was made the subject of an energetic protest on the part of Spain, and gave rise to an extended controversy, which was terminated by the purchase of Florida by the United States in 1819.2

Case of the "Caroline." This vessel had been employed by the Canadian insurgents to carry munitions of war and persons. taking part in the insurrection from the New York side of the Niagara River to the Canadian side. A Canadian armed force was sent to capture her, expecting to find her in Canadian waters; but, learning that she was on the American side, they went over and destroyed her. In the correspondence which ensued between the governments of Great Britain and the United States Mr. Webster contended that, for such an infringement of territorial rights, the British Government must show "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation"; and it should further appear that the Canadian authorities, in acting under this exigency, "did nothing unreasonable or excessive." Lord Ashburton admitted the correctness of Mr.

1 Sumner, Life of Jackson, pp. 53-54; I Dig. Int. Law, § 50b; I Benton, Thirty Years in the United States Senate, p. 167; II Amer.

State Papers, Misc. p. 801; II Gallatin's Writings, p. 69.

I Dig. Int. Law, § 50a.

Webster's doctrine, contended that the circumstances came up to the statement of it, and "regretted that some explanation and apology for the occurrence were not immediately made." This was accepted by the United States as satisfactory.'

In Accordance with Treaty Stipulations. It has been seen that certain questions of strictly internal concern may properly be made the subject of treaty guarantee. Such are the maintenance of a particular government or constitution, the permanent neutrality of a state, or its existence within certain territorial limits. When the particular state of affairs which has been made the subject of guarantee is menaced with change, or when its existence is threatened in any way, by force applied from without, or originating within the guaranteed territory, it becomes the duty of the guarantor to interfere, and to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty. Interference under such circumstances is both just and legal. It is limited in character and amount by the terms of the treaty which authorizes it, and it becomes unlawful, and must cease, when the cause of danger is removed and the internal affairs of the state have been restored to their normal condition.'

To Assist a State in Suppressing an Insurrection or Rebellion. International law is essentially conservative in character. It recognizes an existing state of affairs, and opposes, and is slow to recognize, changes effected by violent and revolutionary methods. Interference in favor of insurgents is

1 Dana's Wheaton, pp. 526, 527, note; Walker, Manual, Int. Law, pp. 87, 88. In 1842 the existing laws were so amended by Congress as to confer jurisdiction on the Federal courts to make such use of the writ of habeas corpus as would enable the United States Government to perform its international obligations.-I Dig. Int. Law, §§ 21, 50c; III Ibid. § 350.

2 The United States, in its treaty of 1846 with New Granada, guaranteed the sovereignty of the latter state. In 1885 it was obliged to

interfere to assist in the repression of disturbance. For case of the interference of 1906 in Cuba, see Appendix H. The United States by its treaty of 1867 with Nicaragua, is also obliged to interfere when the case exists which is contemplated by the sixteenth article of that instrument. See also Wheaton, §§ 73-75; Pomeroy, $ 203; I Halleck, chap. iv. §§ 5-8; I Phillimore, § 399; Heffter, $45; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 7779, 83; III Dig. Int. Law, §§ 287-297.