T

7

the United States for the punishment of the sentry was inadmissible as he had already been acquitted by the courts. This view, as has been seen, was accepted by the United States, and the only remailing question was that of the indemnity. On this question the commission of jurists found that as the sentry had been tried and ae quitted in accordance with the laws of the Republic, there was lacking a legal foundation for the claim for indemnity. They suggested. however, that on grounds of good will, the Government might seek an amicable settlement with the United States in order to put an end to the controversy, and for that purpose might offer to pay a smaller sum than that which had been demanded, especially as four of the relations of the deceased had placed in hands of the President of the Republic a letter addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States, in which they declined to accept the share which might be apportionable to them out of the sum demanded."

The United States insisted upon the prompt payment of the $10,000 in gold. The Government of Honduras decided to pay the sum demanded. November 2, 1900, the President of the Republic issued a decree declaring that the case was settled, in order to "avoid difficulties of a more serious character." and that although the Govern ment had been unsuccessful in its efforts to reduce the amount of the indemnity it had obtained an abandonment of the demand for the punishment of the sentry, which was "the most dangerous portion of the claim," in this way "the honor of the country remaining untouched.c

In April, 1899, Bernard Campbell, a citizen of the United States. made a contract in New York for service as an engineer on a steamer in the West Indies. He supposed that his service was to be on board of a merchant vessel, and, with this understanding, he and certain other persons under similar contracts took passage for the West Indies on the steamer Clyde. When the Clyde arrived at Cape Haitien, April 17, 1889, Admiral Cooper and Captain Compton, of the Haytian navy, boarded the vessel and informed Campbell that he was expected to serve on a Haytian man-of-war that lay nearby. He refused; was threatened with death; but still refused. The next day, while waiting on the wharf for passage to Montecristi, in Santo Domingo, he was beaten by Haytian soldiers and thrown into the He finally got back to New York, permanently injured in health. The presumption was strong that the cause of the assault

sea.

a For. Rel. 1900, 692–695.

For. Rel. 1900, 696. The Department of State had brought to the attention of the four members of the Pears family the letter purporting to be signed by them, and had received from them denials that they had renounced their claim. e For. Rel. 1900, 701-702.

upon him was his refusal to serve in the Haytian navy. The United States maintained that he was entitled to a "substantial indemnity." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, Jan. 31, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 811.

The claim was settled in April, 1898, by the Government of Hayti agreeing to pay to the United States the sum of $10,000 in gold. (For. Rel. 1898, 397-398; President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

For correspondence, see H. Doc 305, 54 Cong. 1 sess.

A suit brought by Campbell in New York against certain alleged Haytian agents, related to a matter entirely separate and distinct from the injury on which his diplomatic claim was based. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, No. 136. March 20, 1896, MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 479.)

On June 6, 1904, Lewis L. Etzel, an American war correspondent, was killed by Chinese soldiers at Niuchwang. The killing was not premeditated or intentional and the soldiers were at most only guilty of criminal carelessness. The Chinese authorities sentenced the corporal, who was in charge of the men and commanded them to fire, to five years' imprisonment, cashiered the commandant of the district who was responsible for the discipline which made the commission of such a crime possible, and offered to the family of the deceased in a spirit of friendliness the sum of $25,000 Mexican. This was accepted as a settlement of the case.

For. Rel. 1904, 168-176.

The executors of the deceased asked that the sum of $60,000 in gold be demanded, but the American minister at Peking considered this sum exorbitant, and his opinion was concurred in by the Department of State. (For. Rel. 1904, 173-174.)

VI. ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

1. INDEMNITY NOT DEMANDED WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE REGULAR.

$ 1010.

With reference to the case of Dr. Peck, a citizen of the United States, who, while in Cuba for his health, was, as it was alleged, arrested and thrown into prison without accusation of crime, the Department of State said: "The United States ask no immunity for their own citizens when offenders, but they can not quietly submit. to see them arrested and thrown into prison and there detained without any charge against them."

Mr. Marey, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cueto, Span. min., unofficial, April 17, 1855, MS. Notes to Span. Leg. VII. 56.

There is no provision in the laws of the United States to indemnify a person who has been imprisoned after a trial, and who is

subsequently shown not to have been guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced, or to indemnify a person who has been imprisoned pending trial and afterwards is found not guilty. "The Govern ment holds itself justified in its action by the probable cause that must precede indictment and trial. In case one has been maliciously and falsely accused, upon a charge made by a private person, and as a result of the accusation is imprisoned or committed, he has a right of action against such private person for damages for false imprisonment. Otherwise there is no redress."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Baron Schaeffer, Austrian min., June 28, 1882, MS. Notes to Austria, VIII. 338.

the

In September, 1893, Edgar W. Mix, a citizen of the United States. was arrested at Przemysl by the local police for taking photographs from a railway station. Przemysl is a fortified town, and it is a grave offense to take any pictures of the fortifications or their immediate surroundings. Mr. Mix was detained two days, when he was discharged on a telegraphic order from Vienna. He sought to make a claim against the Austrian Government for 100.000 franes The minister of the United States at Vienna declined to present claim and submitted it to the Department of State. The Department approved the minister's action, saying: "By taking photographs at Przemysl he (Mr. Mix) violated the law in force there. and however innocent in his intentions or ignorant of the law he may have been, his acts subjected him to the arrest and annoyance which he suffered. His release was by your exertions effected as soon as could possibly have been expected, and meantime no har-h or unreasonable treatment seems to have been experienced by him."

Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Tripp, min. to Austria-Hungary, Nov. 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1894, 23-26.

A citizen of the United States, who was temporarily in Guatemala for his health, was arrested while making a pencil sketch of a fort in Guatemala city. He was confined in the military barracks about thirty-six hours, and complained that he suffered severe physical detriment by reason of the coldness of the room in which he was detained. He was released upon the interposition of the United States minister, who vouched for his innocence of any intentional wrongdoing. The arrest occurred at a time when trouble existed between Mexico and Guatemala in regard to the boundary, and it appeared that the person in question was arrested because he was suspected of being a Mexican spy. It was held that, as it did not appear by the facts presented that he was illegally imprisoned, or that he was maltreated while in prison, or that his release was unduly

delayed, the United States would not be warranted in demanding an indemnity.

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gould, June 29, 1896, 211 MS. Dom. Let. 149.

A naturalized citizen of the United States, of Austrian origin, having been arrested in his native country on suspicion that he had fled therefrom in order to avoid military duty, was detained while the matter was being investigated. Through the intervention of the American minister he was released. He afterwards filed a claim for indemnity. This claim was brought to the attention of the Austro-Hungarian Government, which declined to entertain it. No further action was taken by the United States, and, in view of this apparent acquiescence in the decision of that Government, the Department of State declined to press the claim further.

Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Pitzele, Sept. 30, 1896, 213 MS.
Dom. Let. 34.

2. REPARATION FOR FALSE OR IRREGULAR ARREST.

§ 1011.

November 12, 1892, Frederick Mevs, a citizen of the United States, who represented in Hayti an American firm which paid annually about $75,000 in customs duties into the Haytian treasury, was suddenly arrested at Port au Prince, apparently on suspicion of attempting to evade, personally, the payment of duties to the amount of two dollars. By the Haytian law a person imprisoned is required to be interrogated within twenty-four hours after his confinement. This provision was not observed, and Mr. Mevs was held in prison under circumstances of great aggravation till December 1, 1892, when his case was called in the correctional court and dismissed. Before the news of his release was received, the vice-consul-general of the United States at Port au Prince was instructed to enter an earnest protest against his imprisonment, and, if he had not already been released, to report by cable. The American minister, who was then on leave in the United States, was sent back to Port au Prince on the U. S. S. Atlanta to investigate the case and ask for such reparation as he might, in his discretion, deem proper. The minister having reached the conclusion that a gross outrage had been perpetrated on Mr. Mevs, he was instructed to present a demand in writing, setting forth the expectation that Hayti would be impelled by its sense of amity and justice to tender a proper indemnity for Mr. Mevs's illegal imprisonment, and stating that a settlement must be reached through the legation. The Department of State refused, however, to concede the

minister's urgent request that the commanding officer of the Atlanta be present at his interview with the minister of foreign affairs, the President being unwilling to have any naval demonstration made while diplomatic negotiations were pending. The question as to the proper course to be adopted in the event of an unconditional refusal of indemnity was reserved. April 12, 1893, the case was finally closed by the payment of $6,000 United States currency to the legation.

Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terres, chargé at Port au Prince, tel., Dec. 2, 1892, For. Rel. 1893, 358; Mr. Foster to Mr. Durham, min. to Hayti, Dec. 22, 1892, id. 363; same to same, tel., Jan. 17, 1893, id 369; same to same, tel., Jan. 20, 1893, id. 374; same to same, Feb. 16, 1893, id. 378. See, also, as to the final settlement, id. 381.

See MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 304, 305, 310.

W. H. Argall, Henry Thomas, and Robert Pardee alleged that they were held in prison unlawfully, and that the Guatemalan authorities refused to accept bail offered by the United States minister, or to permit a messenger sent by him to see the prisoners in order that measures might be taken for their defense. It was also stated that Argall was while in custody lashed with a whip. The authorities alleged, while two witnesses denied, that Argall had struck the subofficer who gave him the blows. The case was settled by Guatemala paying $1,200-$1,000 for Argall and $100 each for Thomas and Pardee, the parties all being satisfied.

For. Rel. 1894, 312; For. Rel. 1895, II. 771-775.

"The recommendation made in my special message of April 27th last is renewed, that appropriation be made to reimburse the master and owners of the Russian bark Hans for wrongful arrest of the master and detention of the vessel in February, 1896, by officers of the United States district court for the southern district of Missis sippi. The papers accompanying my said message make out a most meritorious claim, and justify the urgency with which it has been presented by the Government of Russia."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LXXXVI.

A claim was made against the Argentine Government for the alleged wrongful arrest of William J. Hale, a citizen of the United States, at Rosario, in 1871. The claim was eventually settled as a matter of good will by the payment of the sum of $7,500.

Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hale, Aug. 6, 1896, 211 MS. Dom.
Let. 674.

In the case of Charles Lillywhite, a naturalized citizen of the United States, of British origin, the American ambassador in London