With reference to a claim sought to be made against the Government of Hayti by a citizen of the United States for military services rendered to the Légitime government in March and April, 1889, under a contract with the Haytian minister in the United States, in the contest between the Légitime government and the forces of General Hyppolite, who afterwards became President of Hayti, the Department of State said: "The Government of the United States maintains a neutral position between the two contestants, favoring neither the one nor the other. It would clearly be a departure from that policy to ask the Government established by the successful party and now recognized as the Government of Hayti to pay the debts contracted by the adversary in employing military or naval officers to help him in maintaining the conflict." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Patterson, April 7, 1890, 177 MS. Dom. April 17, 1897, Mr. Rodriguez, minister of the Greater Republic of Central America, requested that the consuls of the United States at Ceiba and Trujillo, or at any other place along the coast, put no obstacles in the way of his government's chartering American vessels to transport troops and war materials from one port to another of the Confederation, in the interest of the reestablishment of order. Mr. Sherman, Secretary of State, April 20, 1897, replied that if the proposed chartering of American vessels contemplated a regular contract with their owners or agents, not compulsory, but voluntary on their part, it was not perceived how the United States consuls "could interpose any valid objections to a legitimate transaction which the representatives of the American owners may be legally competent to effect." He also stated that a copy of the correspondence would be sent to the proper diplomatic and consular officers for their information. In an instruction of April 21, 1897, to Mr. Coxe, United States minister to Guatemala and Honduras, Mr. Sherman, besides repeating what he had said to Mr. Rodriguez and observing that, if there should be any appearance of coercion on the part of the contracting Government the intervention of the consul would be justified, added: "The owners of the vessel should also understand that they can not expect the United States to intervene in their behalf should the employing Government fail to pay them for their services; for while the United States would not interfere to prevent an American vessel from voluntarily carrying arms and troops in the service of a government trying to put down an insurrection, it would leave the vessel and its crews so voluntarily entering into such service to the consequences of establishing such a relation. Should a seaman employed for other services desire to be discharged, he ought not to be compelled to serve Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rodriguez, min. of the Greater Repub- A foreigner, domiciled during the year 1864 in Texas, who, in order to obtain permission of the Confederate Government to export his cotton, sold at a nominal price and delivered to its agents or officers for its use an equal amount of other cotton, which he subsequently redeemed by paying a stipulated sum therefor, directly contributed to the support of the enemy, and gave him aid and comfort. Out of such a transaction no demand against such agents or officers can arise which will be enforced in the courts of the United States. Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U. S. 210. Adopted in Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Muruaga, Spanish min., During the civil war in the United States, C., a nonresident alien, was engaged under a contract, first with the State of North Carolina. and then with the Confederate States, in running out cotton and running in arms and munitions of war through the blockade of the Confederate ports. After the war he brought suit against the United States, under the Abandoned and Captured Property Act, for the recovery of some cotton seized and sold by the Federal forces. By that act the claimant was required to show that he had never given "aid or comfort to the rebellion." Held, that he was excluded by these words, the court saying: "The words 'aid or comfort' are used in this statute in the same sense they are in the clause of the Constitution defining treason (art. 3, sect. 3), that is to say, in their hostile sense. The acts of aid and comfort which will defeat a suit must be of the same general character with those necessary to convict of treason, where the offense consists in giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. But there may be aid and comfort without treason; for 'treason is a breach of allegiance, and can be committed by him only who owes allegiance, either perpetual or temporary.' United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 96. . . A claimant to be excluded need not have been a traitor: it is sufficient if he has done that which would have made him a traitor if he had owed allegiance to the United States." Young v. United States (1897), 97 U. S. 39, 62. Cited and followed, in principle, in Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. H. Doc. 551-vol 640 See, also, Watson v. United States, 25 Ct. Cl. 116; Osborne v. United A citizen of the United States stated that a demand for $800,000 had been made on his company by the Cuban insurgents, who had threatened to destroy the company's property in Cuba unless the money was paid by a certain date. The complaint was sent to the American legation at Madrid, with instructions to request the Spanish authorities to give complete protection to the property in question against any attempt to carry out the threat of destruction. The Department of State added: "With reference to your proposed writ ten reply to the insurgents' demand, it is not within the province of this Department to give any advice, and though earnestly desirous of affording every assistance to American citizens in their efforts to protect their properties abroad from destruction or damage, the question as to whether or not a reply should be sent to the insurgents' demand is so clearly one of business expediency, or for reference to private counsel, that I am unwilling to give any opinion thereon." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rand, Dec. 3, 1896, 214 MS. Dom. Let. 283. A claim having been made by a citizen of the United States against the Government of Peru for live stock forcibly taken from him by the Peruvian Government in 1885, that Government set up the defense that the animals were taken during the civil war as a reprisal for hostile acts of the claimant, who had " joined a party," and as a commander in the “Urban Guard" had committed outrages and extor tions of a criminal character against the Government. The claimant, when called on by the United States to answer this charge, presented a statement showing the nature of the so-called "Urban Guard" and his connection with it. "From this statement,” said the Department of State, "it appears that the power and efficiency of the Peruvian Government to protect life and property were completely paralyzed in the locality where Mr. Backus resided; that the Indians and other lawless inhabitants of the community were murdering and robbing without any restraint or any effort on the part of the constituted authorities to protect either natives or foreigners. In such an emergency every man became under the law of nature his own protector. and the foreign residents in the unprotected localities were compelled to unite for self-protection, forming what was called the Urban Guard,' a temporary committee of safety which confined its efforts to safeguarding life and property, and avoiding taking either side. in the civil strife which then divided the republic. If his statement is true, it would seem that Mr. Backus's conduct during this period of anarchy was in no way reprehensible or hostile to the Government of Peru. He and the foreigners associated with him simply undertook for the time to perform as voluntary agents for the Government of Peru important police functions which that Government was unable at the time to perform for itself by its regular officers. The inauguration and action of the Urban Guard' was simply in the interest of law and order, and not in support of any faction." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Neill, chargé, No. 209, Dec. 22, 1896, MS. 3. DISCRETION AS TO TIME AND MANNER OF PRESSURE. § 978. Where a government takes up the claim of one of its citizens against another government it necessarily possesses and exercises the power to decide for itself when and to what extent it will press the claim, as well as the means which it will employ for that purpose. A claim against the United States, which the claimant has elected to present to Congress, will not, while before Congress, be entertained. by the Department of State. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schlözer, German min., Sept. 14, 1874, MS. "It is understood to be customary to at least suspend the prosecution of any claim on a foreign government when either House of Congress shall have called for the papers with a view to consideration of the subject." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Bartley et al., Sept. 26, 1871, For. Rel. 1887, 594. When one department of the government has lawfully assumed jurisdiction of a particular case, any other coordinate department should decline to interfere with or assume to control its legitimate action. Hence when the courts have acquired jurisdiction of a case of maritime capture, the political department of the government should postpone the consideration of questions concerning reclamation and indemnities until the judiciary has finally performed its functions in those cases. Bates, At. Gen., 1864, 11 Op. 117. "Much delay (consequent upon accusations of fraud in some of the awards) has occurred in respect to the distribution of the limited amounts received from Venezuela under the treaty of April 25, 1866, applicable to the awards of the joint commission created by that treaty. So long as these matters are pending in Congress the Execu tive can not assume either to pass upon the questions presented, or to distribute the fund received. It is eminently desirable that definite legislative action should be taken, either affirming the awards to be final, or providing some method for re-examination of the claims." President Hayes, annual message, 1877, For. Rel. 1877, xiii. III. CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION. 1. CITIZENSHIP, AS A RULE, ESSENTIAL. § 979. As to the special case of seamen, see supra, § 484; and as to protection in oriental countries, see supra, § § 287-290 Where a person requested the interposition of the United States in respect of outrages upon him alleged to have been committed in Mexico, the Department of State said: "The fact which you state. that, although long a resident of this country, you have not been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, is an insuperable bar to any interference of this Government in your behalf.” Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Champly, April 15, 1837, 29 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Selding, March 3, 1856, 45 MS. L. F. Foucher, Marquis de Circé, a citizen of France, owned a plantation in Louisiana, which was occupied in 1862 by the Federal troops. An award of compensation was made to him by a military commission, but the claim was not paid, and he died in 1869, leaving his widow as universal legatee. In 1877 the widow died, leaving as joint universal legatees her nephews and nieces. Both estates were settled up, but no money was received on the war claim and no mention was made of it in the distribution. When the mixed commission was installed under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880, the claim was revived. The succes sions of Mr. and Mrs. Foucher were opened, and a representative. named Denis, was appointed, who filed a memorial with the commission, in which he presented the claim in the right of L. F. Foucher, deceased, and joined with him all parties interested in both successions. All these parties were American citizens except two, who were citizens of France and who subsequently filed a separate memorial in person. The commission awarded on the claim presented by Denis a lump sum, with interest. Of this sum the two French lega |