tort, is not conceived to impose on this government any obligation to interfere in behalf of such citizen, in respect of the government against which the complaint is made. This rule, however, is especially applicable in matters of contract between a foreigner and another government, or where a citizen of the United States becomes the assignee of the contract."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hodgskin, Oct. 25, 1877, 120 MS. Dom. Let. 238. See same to same, Dec. 27, 1877, 121 MS. Dom. Let. 146. The principle that the right of intervention can not be transferred by the assignment of a claim by the citizen of one country to the citizen of another is altogether independent of the assignability of diplomatic claims as between citizens of the same country, where nothing but the private interest passes. (Judson v. Corcoran, 17 How., 612.)

"It is a settled rule in this Department that a claim which the Department can not take cognizance of in its inception because of the alienage of the creditor, is not brought within the cognizance of the Department by its assignment to a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 42, Feb. 5,
1886, MS. Inst. China, IV. 118.

To the same effect is Mr. Strobel, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr.
Cravath, Feb. 27, 1894, 195 MS. Dom. Let. 593.

See, also, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1267.

"This Government will never recognize an assignment of a claim against a foreign country made by a citizen or subject of that country to a citizen of this for the purpose of invoking diplomatic aid in the recovery thereof. Still less will it undertake to aid in the recovery of claims against subjects of foreign countries which originally accrued in favor of their fellow-subjects and have been assigned by the latter to American citizens."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. McDonald, min. to Persia, Nov. 11, 1893, For. Rel. 1894, 485, referring to a communication of the Persian minister of foreign affairs, declaring null and void the transfers of claims by Persian subjects to foreigners "until, according to international engagements, the papers or documents have the indubitable seal of the foreign office, and on the faith of that security the legation legalizes them."

Although, in order to justify the intervention of the United States, a claim must when it accrued have been that of an American citizen, yet, if a foreigner obtains from his government a concession which is capable of transfer, and afterwards transfers it to an American, the latter, upon violation by the foreign government of his rights under the concession, would be entitled to the aid of the United States, since the wrong in such case would be done to an American.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, No. 291, Dec. 23, 1898, MS. Inst. Hayti, IV. 103.

Mr. Hay added that claims arising out of concessions were "generally contractual in their origin," and that the United States in such cases only used its good offices in adjusting them. (Ibid.)

5. NOR DERIVABLE FROM PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS.

§ 983.

of

Stephen Zacharie, Francis Coopman, and John Vochez were in 1793 partners in mercantile business at Baltimore, Zacharie and Vochez residing in Baltimore and Coopman in St. Domingo. In 1793, in consequence of the capture of their ships by British and French cruisers, they failed. In 1794 the firm executed a power attorney to Vochez to recover all moneys due to them. In 1795 he arrived in England, and in 1798 he gave a power of attorney to two persons named Mullett and Evans to act as agents for himself and his partners, and also for himself on his own private account. Mullett and Evans presented claims to the commissioners under Article VII. of the Jay treaty. On July 8, 1803, the commissioners awarded them seven sums of money for Zacharie and Vochez, and a certain sum for Vochez individually. The commissioners withheld any relief from Coopman on the ground that he "resided at St. Domingo as a French citizen," and was therefore "an alien enemy." Part of the money was obtained by Mullett and Evans from the British Government and a part was withheld.

In 1798 Campbell and certain other persons were appointed trustees of Zacharie's estate. These trustees, in 1803, appointed one Heathcote an attorney to demand from Mullett and Evans, and from any other persons liable, all sums received or to be received on the awards on Zacharie's account. The bill was filed by Campbell and the other trustees to require Mullett and Evans to pay to Heathcote Zacharie's share of the money received, and to restrain them from receiving, and Allcock, of the revenue department, from paying, the money still in

his hands.

On the first hearing the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Plumer, said that the question whether the money involved was partnership property had not been argued,

On the reargument the Master of the Rolls, March 19, 1819, said that whether the captures were legal or illegal was immaterial: that the court knew only that the capture and condemnation took place. and that two shares in the ship belonged to Americans, and the third to a French subject resident at St. Domingo. The property was lost and gone by the adjudication of a competent tribunal, and "it was not in the power of individuals to recover it, and reverse the sentence of condemnation." Whatever was obtained from the commissioners was not recovered on "the ground of right." "Right

is that which may be "enforced in a court of justice." The treaty gave a "bounty" as a "compensation for losses." The grant of this bounty was made to Zacharie and Vochez alone. No claim against the partners could reach it.

Campbell . Mullett (1818), 2 Swanston, 551.

The board of commissioners, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, allowed two-thirds of a claim to Louis L. Hargous, a citizen of the United States, and disallowed the other third, which belonged to Hargous's partner, Emilio Voss, a German. Subsequently Voss assigned his interest to Hargous, who presented it as an American claim to the mixed commission under the treaty between the United States and Mexico of July 4, 1868. The umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, rejected it on the ground that a government can not properly take up a claim acquired by one of its citizens by purchase or assignment from the citizen of another country. The Department of State refused to take further action in the matter.

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hargous, June 14, 1890, 178 MS. Dom.
Let. 38.

For the opinion of Sir Edward Thornton, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations,
III. 2327.

"The right to the protection of this Government may be acquired by
birth, by naturalization, or in some cases and for some purposes by
domicil in the United States. No other mode occurs to me, nor do I
now perceive the authority of an officer of this Government, except
in virtue of a treaty, or other positive legislation to bring a new
subject within the sphere of its obligations. Least of all can I dis-
cern any faculty in a private citizen to spread the protection of his
Government over a third person by adopting him as partner in a
commercial establishment in foreign parts." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State,
to Mr. De Long, Sept. 19, 1871, MS. Inst. Japan, I. 472.)

6. CORPORATIONS.

(1) INTERPOSITION IN BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.

$984.

It is well settled that a government may intervene in behalf of a company incorporated under its laws, or under the laws of a constituent state or province. In such case the act of incorporation is considered as clothing the artificial person thereby created with the nationality of its creator, without regard to the citizenship of the individuals by whom the securities of the company may be owned. Hence we find in general claims conventions that the submission or settlement uniformly embraces "all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United States," or of some other government, as the case may be. In other H. Doc. 551-vol 641

words, the corporation is recognized as having, for purposes of diplomatic protection, the citizenship of the country in which it is created.

See, also, as to the citizenship of corporations, supra, § 485.

The Government of the United States having in 1886 protested against the suspension by military order of the Panama Star and Herald, a newspaper published by an American corporation, and having in 1887 presented in behalf of the corporation a claim for damages against the Colombian Government, Señor Holguin, Colombian minister for foreign affairs, raised in 1896, the claim being still unsettled, the defense that there had ceased to be anyone possessing legal authority to represent it as an American claim, and in 1898 the further defense that the person then owning the newspaper had made a declaration before the United States consul at Panama that neither he nor the Star and Herald had any valid claim against Colombia, and that he renounced the claim that had been made. It was alleged by Señor Holguin, in this relation, that the Star and Herald Publishing Company, a corporation formed in 1884, under the laws of the State of New York, not having paid taxes to that State since 1890 or 1891, had lost all right to the protection of the United States; that the president of the company, Mr. Spies, a commission merchant in New York, failed in 1893 and committed suicide; that the vice-presi dent of the company, Mr. Boyd, was a native and resident of Panama, consequently a citizen of Colombia," as was also his brother, who was manager of the company on the Isthmus till 1892; that in June, 1893, the enterprise having failed, all its goods in Panama, as well as the right to publish the newspaper, were sold by order of court, and were bought by Mr. Gabriel Duque, the present owner; and that the power of attorney given by Mr. Spies to Mr. L. Myers, a lawyer of Philadelphia, to represent in the United States the claim against the Colombian Government, had by Mr. Spies's death become null and void.

66

Of this defense Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, in an instruction to Mr. Sleeper, minister to Colombia, February 24, 1897, said:

"After almost eleven years' delay, the idea is suggested by Minister Holguin that the Star and Herald was not an American enterprise nor entitled to remedy as such for the wrongs inflicted upon it. This new evasion seems to be an effort to further trifle with the subject.

"Colombia was originally officially notified by instruction of this Department of May 15, 1886, a copy of which was delivered to that Government by Mr. Jacobs, and again on January 31, 1890, through its minister at Washington, that the Panama Star and Herald was a company of American citizens, incorporated under the laws of the

State of New York, and as such entitled to our protection. It was scarcely necessary to give this notice, as the charter was recorded both at Panama and Bogota, and the Colombian Government had accorded it the privileges authorized by law to such foreign corporations for the term of fifty years. Still further, the Colombian Congress, by resolution, had publicly thanked the Star and Herald as an American paper for its friendly conduct. President Nuñez even exempted it on September 15, 1885, from an order applying to other newspapers in the Republic, 'principally as a demonstration of appreciation of the United States.' Throughout the diplomatic correspondence in this claim until now the American nationality of the owners of the Star and Herald was admitted by Colombia, the only defense set up being that under our treaty the consequences of what Minister Hurtado termed the unjust suspension of this paper should rest and be allowed to fall heavily on its responsible author.' . The Star and Herald corporation is a legal person' in contemplation of law, and is not to be deprived of its just compensation and damages by technicalities unknown to the law."

In November, 1898, a bill passed the Colombian Congress, against "strong opposition," authorizing the Government to pay the claim. It was definitively adjusted in January, 1899, by an arrangement for the payment of $30,000 U. S. gold ($91,000 being the amount originally demanded), Señor Marquez, the minister for foreign affairs, having previously filed a protest against the demand, embracing the arguments previously employed against it.

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sleeper, min, to Colombia, Feb. 24, 1897,
For. Rel. 1899, 228.

See, also, For. Rel. 1899, 219, 230-231, 228, 239–241.

In a letter to Mr. Blaine of May 17, 1889, Mr. Barlow, of counsel for the Panama Railroad Company, in answer to an inquiry made at a recent interview in Washington, enclosed a letter of Messrs. Coudert Brothers of May 16, 1889, in relation to the ownership of the stock of the Panama Railroad Company. The Messrs. Coudert say in their letter that although the Panama Canal Company had acquired by purchase a large amount of the stock of the Panama Railroad Company, a "material portion" of it had always remained in American hands; "that the Company was incorporated under the laws of New York; that an appeal for protection to the French Government would undoubtedly be met with that conclusive objection; that if an appeal for protection to Washington was unheeded the company would become an outlaw; that if the nationality of stockholders was to be taken into account an investor in an American company would have no security, since without the will or assent of the company the shares might be transferred by purchase in open market the next day to for