owner of even the poor return which might enable the constantly accruing taxation thereon to be met, and working grievous wrong to a citizen of a friendly State." Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dupuy de Lôme, Span. min., July 2 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 514. The previous correspondence above referred to is printed in For. Rel. 1896, 670, 674. Mr. Dupuy de Lôme in reply, July 3, 1897, to Mr. Sherman's note of the preceding day, did not contest the legal positions therein assumed. but suggested that until it had been shown "by an actual study of the facts and circumstances" that there had been "a deliberate violation of the treaty, or that just reparation has been denied," a “simple appeal to the sentiments of justice and benevolence" of the Spanish Government would have been more conducive to the attainment of the objects in view. (For. Rel. 1897, 516-517.) It was alleged that on November 20, 1887, the American steam tug William S. Moore, while lying at anchor in the Rama River, Mos quito Reservation, was forcibly seized by an armed body of Nicara guan troops or-persons bearing the uniforms of Nicaraguan soldiers. The American minister to Nicaragua was instructed to present the case to the Nicaraguan Government, with a view to the investigation and the proper explanation or reparation, as the facts of the case might require. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, min. to Central America, No. 323, See, also, Mr. Hall to Mr. Bayard, Dec. 12, 1887, id. 98. July 13, 1894, during a revolutionary uprising on the Mosquito coast, General Cabezas, in command of the Nicaraguan forces, seized two steam launches called the Buena Ventura and the Alerta, and employed them in the transportation of troops. The launches were at the time under charter to the Orr & Laubenheimer Co., a Louisiana corporation, which employed them in bringing bananas down the Rama River for shipment on the steamer Espana, chartered by the same firm. Through the good offices of Captain O'Neil, U. S. S. Marblehead, the launches were soon restored, and the Espana, duly laden, sailed after a loss of two days for Mobile. During her next trip to Bluefields the launches were, on July 30, again seized by Gen. Cabezas, and used in transporting troops, who were on the following day landed near Bluefields. The launches were then turned over to the company's agent, but being out of coal they did not resume their regular work till the 1st of August, and the company had meanwhile temporarily employed two other tugs. There resulted another delay of three days in the sailing of the Espana. By a protocol signed at Washington March 22, 1900, the case was referred to Gen. E. P. Alexander, as arbitrator, to determine the amount of the damages. He found that, owing to the nature of the country and the lack of roads, the use of boats was essential to all military movements in Nicaragua in time of war, and that punitive damages could not be allowed, since the military emergency justified the governmental seizure of private property, but that full compensation should be allowed and the doubt, if any, cast in favor of the private person, though the latter must do his best to reduce his losses to a minimum. The arbitrator awarded $6,963, as follows: 1. For the first seizure, $3,109, namely: (1) $2,700 injury to bananas, resulting from two days' delay of the Espana; (2) $130, pilotage of the Espana when fetching Captain O'Neil; (3) $154, two days' demurrage of the Espana; (4) $125, two days' wages of launches' crews and of 30 laborers on the Espana. 2. For the second seizure, $3,854, namely: (1) $2,700, injury to bananas, resulting from two days' delay of Espana, the arbitrator holding that one of the three days' actual delay was due to panic and unnecessary; (2) $154, two days' demurrage of Espana; (3) $700, charter of two substitute tugs, with their lighters; (4) $100, two days' wages of launches' crews and of laborers on the Espana; (5) $200, minor expenses of launches for two days. The arbitrator rejected (1) a claim of $180 for coal used in keeping up steam on the Espana during her second delay at Bluefields, since he considered the keeping up of steam on that occasion unnecessary; (2) a claim of $650 for damages to a lighter, alleged to be due to overloading with troops, no such claim being mentioned in the memorial or the original papers. For. Rel. 1900, 824-835. 5. FORCED LOANS. § 1036. For the consideration of the subject of forced loans by international commissions, see Moore, International Arbitrations, IV. 34093411. The Italian Government in 1856, finding itself obliged to order the levy of a forced loan to provide for the wants of the public treasury, several powers which had no treaty with Italy on the subject found themselves at a disadvantage as compared with Great Britain, whose treaty with Italy expressly stipulated for exemptions from forced loans in case of war. At the request of the representatives of other powers the Italian Government agreed to admit them to the benefits of the British treaty, on condition of eventual reciprocity on the part of their governments, which condition was to be estab lished by an exchange of declarations. By direction of the President, the minister of the United States at Florence was instructed to represent that such a declaration on the part of the United States was unnecessary, for the reason that neither the Federal Government nor that of any of the States had ever adopted forced loans or was by its constitution allowed to impose them; and that the attempt to arrange the matter by exchange of declarations would also be inconvenient, for the reason that the President would be obliged to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which would probably disallow the agreement on the ground that it was exceptional and entirely unnecessary. The Italian Government, satisfied with this statement. decreed the exemption of citizens of the United States from forced loans in case of war. It was suggested that a reciprocal exemption from forced loans might not be objected to by the Senate if it formed part of a general treaty. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to the Chevalier Cerruti, Dec. 11, 1867, MS. "Your despatch No. 200, of the 20th ult., was duly received. The explanation which it contains in regard to the Italian forced loan of 1866 confirms the previous impression of the Department, that that loan was merely an extraordinary tax occasioned by a financial emergency, and differed from an ordinary tax chiefly in being nominally reimbursable. It seems to the Department that citizens of the United States, residing in Italy, could scarcely expect with reason that they should be exempted from such tax, especially by treaty. If, however, the exemption from forced loans should not be expressly stipulated for, it might, if deemed advisable, be claimed under the article of the treaty which is intended to secure to United States citizens in Italy the same privileges which may there be granted to the citizens or subjects of other countries. There would not, however, be any occasion to claim the benefit of such a stipulation if the tax referred to should be impartially levied and no other foreigners should be free from its operation." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Italy, No. 187, Feb. 26, 1868, MS. Inst. Italy, I. 261. In the case of Messrs. Ulrich and Langstroth, in 1873, the position was taken by the Department of State that the stipulation of Article VIII. of the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1831, that the effects of the citizens of the contracting parties should not be detained for any public or private purpose whatsoever without corresponding compensation, rendered the Mexican Government liable for the repayment of forced loans. The stipulation in Article XIV. of the same treaty for the protection of the persons and property of the citizens of one party within the jurisdiction of the other was cited to the same effect. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, No. 21, Aug. 15, 1873, MS. Inst. Mexico, XIX. 18; same to same, No. 54, Dec. 16, 1873, id. 48; Mr. Cadwalader, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, Sept. 22, 1874, No. 141, id. 121. See, further, as to Ulrich and Langstroth's case, infra, § 1046. "It may be conceded that by the public law foreigners in a country in a state of insurrection can not expect to be indemnified for all losses sustained from insurgents when the regular government shall have been restored. The case of a forced loan, however, is believed to be an exception. The meaning of the word loan is, that the money borrowed is to be returned. If the borrower is a sovereign, his obligation to repay the amount is as sacred as that of a private individual. If he is an insurgent, who for a time usurps the regular authority, the latter may justly be expected to make it good if the loan was an involuntary one." Mr. Cadwalader, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, No. 141, Sept. 22, 1874, MS. Inst. Mex. XIX. 121. There does not appear to be any article in the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1831 which expressly exempts citizens of the United States in that country from forced loans, the purpose of that instrument appearing in general to have been to place citizens of the United States in Mexico on the same footing as other foreigners and as Mexicans themselves. Hence, although it is understood that the supreme court of Mexico has decided against the pretension of the Government to raise revenue in that way, yet, so long as the present Executive of the country discards that opinjon, it would seem that no beneficial result can be expected from a prolonged diplomatic discussion of the subject. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scott, consul at Chihuahua, No. 4, April See, also, Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Referring to the action of the Peruvian Government in relieving a consular agent of the United States, who seems to have been an American citizen, from the payment of a forced loan, apparently on the special ground of his consular character, the Department of State said that its position was " that of diplomatic resistance to the collection of forced loans from any American citizen located in Peru, whether in business or not, and whether a consular officer or not.;" and that, although, when the case in question arose, Art. II. of the treaty of Sept. 6, 1870, forbidding forced loans, was still in force, yet "the principle announced" could not, after the expiration of that article, " cease to commend itself to either Government." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, mir.. to Peru, No. 65, May 20, 1886, MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 215. Citizens of the United States residing in Nicaragua are expressly exempt from forced loans in time of war, by the terms of Art. IX. of the treaty of 1867. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Cent. Am., No. 15, June 16, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 198; same to same, No. 117, Jan. 24, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 460. 6. DAMAGES FOR WANTON OR UNLAWFUL ACTS. § 1037. "According to the laws and usages of nations, a state is not obliged to make compensation for damages done to its citizens by an enemy, or wantonly or unauthorized by its own troops." Report of Mr. Hamilton, Sec. of Treas., Nov. 19, 1792; Am. State Papers, Class IX. vol. i, of claims; adopted in report of March 26, 1874, on war claims, House Rep. 262, 43d Cong. 1st sess. 32. The correspondence with Great Britain as to the bombardment of the fortress of Omoa, Honduras, by the British ship of war Niobe, on Aug. 19 and 20, 1873, is given in 67 Brit. and For. State Papers, 955. "If a nation, during a war, conducts itself contrary to the law of nations, and no notice is taken of such conduct in the treaty of peace, it is thereby so far considered lawful, as never afterward to be revivied, or to be a subject of complaint." Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 230. "We do not, at the present day, often hear, when a town is carried by assault, that the garrison is put to the sword in cold blood, on the plea that they have no right to quarter. Such things are no longer approved or countenanced by civilized nations. But we sometimes hear of a captured town being sacked, and the houses of the inhabitants being plundered, on the plea that it was impossible for the general to restrain his soldiery in the confusion and excitement of storming the place; and under that softer name of plunder it has sometimes been attempted to veil all crimes which man, in his worst excesses, can commit: horrors so atrocious that their very atrocity preserves them from our full execration, because it makes it impossible to |