Blood Indians. (Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hay, ambass. to As to the release of the United States by Mexico from liability for Indian IX. MOB VIOLENCE. 1. DESTRUCTION OF FRENCH PRIVATEERS, 1811. $1022. The question of a government's liability for injuries suffered by foreigners within its jurisdiction has on various occasions been discussed and determined in cases of mob violence. Such cases sometimes apparently present strong grounds of national liability because of the popular approval of the mob's action, and the consequent immunity of the actors from prosecution and punishment. The rule, however, which has generally been maintained in argument, even if not in practice, is that while a government is bound to employ all reasonable means to prevent such disorders, it is not required to make indemnity for the losses that may result from them, unless, as in the case of Art. XXXV. of the treaty of 1846 with New Granada, or as in the case of an attack on official representatives, there is a special obligation of protection. On November 15, 1811, an affray took place in a house of ill fame in Savannah, Georgia, between some American sailors and some seamen belonging to the French privateers La Franchise and La Vengeance, which were then in that port. In the affray one of the American sailors was killed and a French seaman was mortally wounded; and in consequence of this affair a local mob was raised, which killed several of the French seamen and destroyed the privateers by fire, notwithstanding the interference of the police and military authorities of Savannah. It seems that the State of Georgia offered to make reparation for the outrage, but that M. Serurier, French minister at Washington, looking upon it as an attack upon the flag of his country, demanded the prosecution and exemplary punishment of the guilty, the tender of satisfaction for an insult to the flag, and an indemnity for the owners of the vessels. The claim for indemnity, which was for the sum of 170,000 francs, was embraced in the negotiations of Mr. Rives with the French Government in 1831. In a note to Mr. Rives of June 15, 1831, Count Sebastiani, minister of foreign affairs, said: "It is universally admitted that all damages sustained in consequence of popular tumults are to be repaired either by the district in which they were received, or by the government of the country; for, in such cases, the ordinary tribunals are incapable of rendering justice to the individuals who have suffered. The government under the faith and protection of which strangers place their persons and property and, more especially, their navigation and commerce, should secure them from acts of violence of this nature, which, on account of the number of persons engaged, become public acts. In the United States, strangers neither can nor ought to know any other than the General Government of the Union; and if the responsibility rest in the end upon the State of Georgia or the city of Savannah, it is the duty of the Federal Government, towards a country in peace with the United States, to use its power in obtaining justice for the injured. The minister of France at Washington demanded indemnifications for the loss of these two vessels as early as 1812, but the success of this demand became naturally involved in the examination, then going on, of claims against France which the United States was preparing to assert. The chamber of deputies has strongly recommended that this claim should be admitted in the negotiation now pending between France and the United States." In a reply made by Mr. Rives to this note on June 19, 1831, it was intimated that the opposition of M. Serurier to the consummation of an arrangement with the State of Georgia would "materially impair" the application to the United States for indemnity. Mr. Rives also observed that the case was obviously different from those in which the United States was then demanding indemnity, where the wrongs were committed under express orders of the Government of France, but that if, on examination, there was found to be ground for a fair demand on the justice of the United States, he did not doubt that his Government would make reparation for it. Count Sebastiani also presented a claim of 70,000 francs on account of the French privateer La Revanche du Cerf, which was burned by a mob at Norfolk, Virginia, on the night of April 15, 1811, because, it was said, of false reports which were circulated against the vessel. Count Sebastiani stated that the offenders remained unpunished. Mr. Rives possessed no information whatever with regard to the case, but observed that, as the act appeared to have been committed with perfect secrecy under cover of the night, excluding thereby all opportunity for the protective interposition of the laws or of the public authority," it seemed "sufficiently clear that there is no principle of public law which can render the Government of the United States responsible for it." 66 By the convention concluded July 4, 1831, for the mutual settlement of claims, it was recited that, in consideration of the payment of 1,500,000 francs, the United States was liberated from all claims on the part of France or her citizens, either for supplies or accounts, or for "unlawful seizures, captures, detentions, arrests or destructions of French vessels, cargoes, or their property." Count Sebastiani to Mr. Rives, June 15, 1831, II. Ex. Doc. 147, 22 Cong. 2 sess. 191; Mr. Rives to Count Sebastiani, June 19, 1831, id. 201, 203. See, also, Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. McAlister, Dec. 10, 1830, 23 MS. Dom. Let. 541. 2. RIOTS AT NEW ORLEANS AND KEY WEST, 1851. § 1023. In 1851 a riot took place in New Orleans, the Spanish consul and consulate and various Spanish residents being the objects of attack. It appears that on August 21, 1851, news was brought to New Orleans by the steamer Cresent City of the capture by the Spanish authorities in Cuba of one of the Lopez filibustering expeditions. Some of the members of the expedition were executed, while others were held as prisoners. On receipt of the news a Spanish paper at New Orleans, called La Union, published an "extra," giving an account of the affair with comments. Subsequently, the office of this newspaper was attacked by a mob and practically destroyed; some Spanish coffee houses and tobacco stores were wholly or partly demolished; and the Spanish consulate was raided. The consul, Señor Laborde, took refuge in the house of a friend and afterwards went to Havana, leaving Spanish interests in care of the British and French consuls. The Spanish minister, Señor Calderon de la Barca, complained that the consul was not protected, but was left at "the mercy of a ferocious rabble." September 25, 1851, a month after the riot occurred, the Acting United States Attorney at New Orleans, Mr. E. A. Bradford, made a report on the affair, in response to a request of the Department of State. He stated that on the morning of August 21 placards were posted up, threatening an attack on La Union during the ensuing night. The attack was made, however, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, probably having been precipitated by the "extra" in regard to the capture of the expedition. No police were present and no arrests were made. The next disturbance occurred at a Spanish coffee house. The office of the Spanish consul was first attacked between 5 and 6 o'clock the same afternoon. On hearing of the attack, the recorder of the first municipality repaired to the spot with two or three police officers, and found the mob in the office destroying the furniture. He at length persuaded the rioters to withdraw, but they took with them the consul's sign and burnt it in a public square. The consular office was then nailed up, but no guard was placed over it. "Within an hour afterwards," says Mr. Bradford, "the rioters returned, forced their way again into the office and without any inter ruption or hindrance destroyed all the furniture of the office, threw the archives of the consulate into the street, defaced the portraits of the Queen of Spain and of the Captain-General of Cuba, and tore the flag of Spain (which they found in the office) into pieces. All these outrages were committed upon the office of the consul without any interference on the part of the police (none of whom appear to have been present) and without the apprehension, as yet, of any of the offenders. Other disturbances took place during the night and numerous arrests of the rioters were made; but, so far as I can learn, none of the persons concerned in the attack upon the consul's office have been taken or identified. . . . The riots doubtless are to be ascribed to the exasperation excited by the news from Cuba. It was a sudden outbreak, for which the public authorities were not prepared and which the citizens did not immediately rally to resist; but it is a significant fact that in no instance where the police made the attempt, did they fail to check the rioters-that in no case was any violent resistance opposed to them, nor was any effort even made to rescue parties which they arrested." Mr. Webster, writing to Mr. Calderon, November 13, 1851, said: "The assembling of mobs happens in all countries; popular violences occasionally break out everywhere, setting law at defiance, trampling on the rights of citizens and private men, and sometimes on those of public officers, and the agents of foreign governments, especially entitled to protection. In these cases the public faith and national honor require, not only that such outrages should be disavowed, but also that the perpetrators of them should be punished, wherever it is possible to bring them to justice; and, further, that full satisfaction should be made, in cases in which a duty to that effect rests with the government, according to the general principles of law, public faith, and the obligations of treaties. "Mr. Calderon expresses the opinion, that not only ought indemnification be made to Mr. Laborde, her Catholic Majesty's consul, for injury and loss of property, but that reparation is also due from the Government of the United States to those Spaniards residing in New Orleans whose property was injured or destroyed by the mob, But, while the Government has manifested a willingness and determination to perform every duty which one friendly nation has a right to expect from another in cases of this kind, it supposes that the rights of the Spanish consul, a public officer residing here under the protection of the United States Government, are quite different from those of the Spanish subjects who have come into the country to mingle with our own citizens, and here to pursue their private business and objects. The former may claim special indemnity; the latter are entitled to such protection as is afforded to our own citi zens. The President is of opinion, as already stated, that, for obvious reasons, the case of the consul is different, and that the Government of the United States should provide for Mr. Laborde a just indemnity; and a recommendation to that effect will be laid before Congress at an early period of its approaching session. This is all which it is in his power to do. The case may be a new one; but the President, being of opinion that Mr. Laborde ought to be indemnified, has not thought it necessary to search for precedents." In conclusion Mr. Webster stated that if Mr. Laborde should return to his post, or a successor to him be appointed, he would be received and treated with courtesy, and with a national salute to the flag of his ship, if he should arrive in a Spanish vessel. President Fillmore, referring in his annual message of December 2, 1851, to the incident in question, said: "Ministers and consuls of foreign nations are the means and agents of communication between us and those nations, and it is of the utmost importance that while residing in the country they should feel a perfect security so long as they faithfully discharge their respective duties and are guilty of no violation of our laws. This is the admitted law of nations and no country has a deeper interest in maintaining it than the United States. Our commerce spreads over every sea and visits every clime, and our ministers and consuls are appointed to protect the interests of that commerce as well as to guard the peace of the country and maintain the honor of its flag. But how can they discharge these duties unless they be themselves protected? And if protected it must be by the laws of the country in which they reside. And what is due to our own public functionaries residing in foreign nations is exactly the measure of what is due to the functionaries of other governments residing here. As in war the bearers of flags of truce are sacred, or else wars would be interminable, so in peace ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, charged with friendly national intercourse, are objects of especial respect and protection, each according to the rights belonging to his rank and station. In view of these important principles, it is with deep mortification and regret I announce to you that during the excitement growing out of the executions at Havana the office of her Catholic Majesty's consul at New Orleans was assailed by a mob, his property destroyed, the Spanish flag found in the office carried off and torn in pieces, and he himself induced to flee for his personal safety, which he supposed to be in danger. On receiving intelligence of these events I forthwith directed the attorney of the United States residing at New Orleans to inquire into the facts and the extent of the pecuniary loss sustained by the consul, with the intention of laying them before you, that you might make provision for such indemnity to him as a just regard for the honor of the nation and the |