ity. It thinks that such clauses are wrong in excusing states from the performance of their duty to protect their nationals abroad and their duty to protect foreigners within their own territory. It thinks that states which, by reason of extraordinary circumstances, do not feel able to assure in a manner sufficiently efficacious the protection of foreigners on their territory, can escape the consequences of such a state of things only by temporarily denying to foreigners access to their territory." 7. GOOD OFFICES. (1) MATTERS OF BUSINESS. § 920. It is not within the province of the Department of State to make inquiries abroad as to matters of purely private business of citizens of the United States, nor is it the practice of the Department to call upon American ministers abroad to make such inquiries. Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hough, March 13, 1846, 35 MS. Dom. "Under any circumstances, this [a question of succession to property], in the first instance, would be a question for the Swiss courts; but under the special provision of our treaty with Switzerland, it is a question for those courts finally. The 6th article [of the treaty of Nov. 25, 1850] declares that any controversy that may arise among the claimants of the same succession as to whom the property shall belong shall be decided according to the laws, and by the judges of the country in which the property is situated. I think it to be a just construction of this section that it takes the question altogeher out of the domain of diplomacy." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harrington, min. to Switzerland, March 21, 1868, Dip. Cor. 1868, II. 192. In the case, however, to which the foregoing instruction relates, no civil suit having been instituted by anyone in Switzerland to contest the right of the American claimant, the Federal Council directed the communal council of Entfelden, Canton of Aargau, in whose custody the property lay, to recognize the rights of that claimant. (Dip. Cor. 1868, II. 197.) "It is not, however, within the province or the usage of this Government to interfere in behalf of private citizens in their assertion of rights of private property situated in foreign nations. Such rights must be regulated and determined according to the laws of the country where the property may be situated. "The consul of the United States at Warsaw is Mr. Charles de Hofman. Mr. Kulinski is at liberty to address him, requesting his good offices in his behalf, or whatever unofficial services he may be able and willing to render. By inclosing this present letter in the original to the consul, that officer will perceive the view which is taken by the Department of the case; but the Department can have no responsibility in the premises, nor can the consul be expected to incur charges or fees other than such which he may be provided with funds to meet. Any letter to the consul, if desired, may be sent to this Department for transmission to him." Mr. Hale, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kalussowski, May 8, 1872, 94 MS. "To a minister of your experience I need not point out the proper distinction between diplomatic good offices and personal advocacy. To extend all proper protection to American citizens, and to secure for them in any interests they may have a respectful hearing before the tribunals of the country to which you are accredited, and generally to aid them with information and advice, are among the imperative and grateful duties of a minister, duties which increase his usefulness and add to his respect, and duties which, I have no doubt, you will faithfully perform. "To go beyond and assume the tone of advocacy, with its inevitable. inference of personal interest and its possible suspicion of improper interest, will at once impair, if it does not utterly destroy, the acceptability and efficiency of a diplomatic representative." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hurlbut, min. to Peru, No. 18, Nov. 19, See, in this relation, the Chile-Peruvian investigation, H. Report 1790, 47 In a case where a man claimed to have been injured on the Metropolitan Railway in London, the Department of State said: "It is not part of the minister's regular or official duties to assist American citizens in the conduct of their private law suits unless some discrimination against them or some denial of justice makes diplomatic intervention necessary." Mr. Rives, Assistant Secretary, to Mr. Coakley, April 11, 1888, 168 MS. With reference to a request for the intervention of the United States, through its diplomatic representative in Vienna, to present a petition addressed to the Emperor, praying that the legal guardian of His Highness, Prince Benjamin Rolan, jr., and the superior orphan's court at Pressburg be ordered to settle a claim for money alleged to be due from the Prince for money advanced and assistance rendered to him, the Department of State said: "In view of the peculiar relation between the nobles of the AustroHungarian court and His Majesty the Emperor, whereby the latter is the sole appellate power as to suits against the nobles, your request has received very careful consideration, and the conclusion has at last been reached that it would not be expedient to direct the United States minister at Vienna to interfere even by the use of good offices, in order to procure a remedy extraordinary in itself and concerning the relation between a sovereign and a peer of the realm. "The presentation of any form of petition to an appellate tribunal is outside of the diplomatic channels. Such proceedings are understood to be generally conducted by legal counsel having experience in the particular practice involved, and familiar with the law and procedure of the tribunals of resort. It would seem necessary, therefore, for you to secure the services of a capable attorney to manage your case. If you should so desire, the services of the United States consul-general at Vienna to secure a proper attorney, may be offered to you." 66 Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kutsch, May 7, 1888, 168 MS. Dom. 'Argentine government has granted to Central & South American Telegraph Company permission to extend line from Buenos Ayres to Brazil. Urge, if necessary, on Brazilian government, to grant landing rights at Rio, and thus secure through an American company independent communication between United States and all South America." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Osborn, tel., June 30, 1885, quoted in Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jarvis, min. to Brazil, No. 4, July 7, 1885, MS. Inst. Brazil, XVII. 298. See, on the same subject, Mr. Bayard to Mr. Jarvis, No. 5, July 20, 1885, id. 300; same to same, No. 21, March 6, 1886, id. 312; Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to Brazil, No. 21, Sept. 30, 1889, id. 416. "It is desirable to facilitate the extension of American cables in South See, to the same effect, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, With reference to differences between the Argentine government and the New York Life Insurance Company, growing out of a decree of that government, the Department of State observed that it would be a matter of deep regret to the government of the United States if measures were taken which would inflict injury upon the interests and prestige of that important business institution. The United States did not question the right of the Argentine government to require of a foreign life insurance company security as a condition of transacting business within its jurisdiction, or a reasonable guarantee for the performance of outstanding contracts and the security of policy holders. The legation was instructed to continue the strenuous exercise of its good offices with a view to the adjustment of the differences between the government and the company in a manner alike honorable and acceptable to both parties, and it was stated that such a happy solution would be a matter of sincere gratification to the President of the United States and would, it was believed, redound to the mutual interest of both countries. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to Argentine Republic, No. 479, April 8, 1899, MS. Inst. Argentine Republic, XVII. 455. Mr. Buchanan was authorized to communicate a copy of his instructions to the Argentine Government, if requested to do so. In 1891, the American minister at Buenos Ayres was instructed to "pro- For a bill imposing certain burdens on foreign insurance companies in Referring to an instruction which he had sent to Mr. McLane, American minister at Paris, in relation to proposed legislation by the French assembly discriminating against American life insurance companies doing business in France, Mr. Bayard said: "It is my desire to avoid any unfavorable results that might arise from jealousy in any supposed interference with French legislation, but I have based my letter upon an intent to promote the interests of both countries. by freedom of contract, and the mutual investment of capital in all its forms. Retaliatory legislation is easily stimulated and only adds to unwisdom, trying to make one right out of two wrongs." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McCall, March 17, 1886, 159 MS. Dom. "Occasion has been found to urge upon the Russian government equality of treatment for our great life-insurance companies whose operations have been extended throughout Europe. Admitting, as we do, foreign corporations to transact business in the United States, we naturally expect no less tolerance for our own in the ample fields of competition abroad." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 2, 1894, For. Rel. 1894. xiii. "However clear may be the strict right of each state to determine the conditions on which it will permit foreign corporations to carry on business within its jurisdiction, there prevails in such matters a comity which it is the interest of all nations to maintain, and which is well illustrated in the freedom and equality with which foreign corporations are permitted to extend their operations to the United States. There is ground for the belief that the necessary result of the course lately adopted by the Prussian authorities in respect to the Mutual Life Insurance Company would be to give to the beneficent principle of comity a restricted and uncertain operation. Under the circumstances, the President is of the opinion that the subject is one proper for presentation through the present diplomatic channels, for consideration in all its aspects by the royal government of Prussia and by the imperial authorities as well, so far as the latter may have jurisdiction in the premises." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Runyon, ambass. to Germany, No. 313, For further correspondence, see For. Rel. 1896, 192-198; For. Rel. 1897, In consequence of the exclusion of American life insurance companies from Prussia, Prussian insurance companies were prohibited to do business in the State of New York. In October, 1899, the New York Life Insurance Company was readmitted to do business in Prussia, and the German companies were readmitted to New York. (For. Rel. 1899, 291-293; President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899.) In the voluminous record of diplomatic negotiations with reference to trade and commerce not a little space, especially in the correspondence of the United States, is occupied with discussions as to the prohibition or restriction of the importation of cattle and hogs, beef and pork. As examples, see the following: Austria-Hungary, For. Rel. 1891, 31. Belgium, For. Rel. 1891, 33-38; For. Rel. 1895, I. 25-37, referring to Denmark, For. Rel. 1891, 487; For. Rel. 1894, 205; For. Rel. 1895, I. 210. Germany, For. Rel. 1891, 501-528; For. Rel. 1894, 226–233; For. Rel. 1895, Great Britain, For. Rel. 1896, 317-363, the "Diseases of Animals Act, |