exist between the several states that compose the Union, foreign powers have nothing to do: the relations of foreign powers are with the aggregate union; that union is to them represented by the federal government; and of that union the federal government is to them the only organ. Therefore, when a foreign power has redress to demand for a wrong done to it by any state of the union, it is to the federal government, and not to the separate state, that such power must look for redress for that wrong. And such foreign power cannot admit the plea that the separate state is an independent body, over which the federal government has no control. It is obvious that such a doctrine, if admitted, would at once go to a dissolution of the union, as far as its relations with foreign powers are concerned; and that foreign powers in such case, instead of accrediting diplomatic agents to the federal government, would send such agents not to that government, but to the government of each separate state; and would make their relations of peace and war with each state, depend upon the result of their separate intercourse with each state, without reference to the relations they might have with the rest.

"Her Majesty's government apprehend, that the above is not the conclusion at which the government of the United States intend to arrive; yet such is the conclusion to which the arguments that have been advanced by Mr. Forsyth necessarily lead.

"But, be that as it may, her Majesty's government formally demand, upon the grounds already stated, the immediate release of Mr. McLeod; and her Majesty's government entreat the President of the United States, to take into his most deliberate consideration the serious nature of the consequences which must ensue from a rejection of this demand."

§ 85. Mr. Webster's Reply.-Mr. Webster's reply rather evades the subject of federal responsibility for acts of states; in the course of it, however, he says:

"Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note, an instruction was

$ 84.

1 Wharton's Digest, § 21, for citations. See also 25 Wendell, 491,

p. 508, where correspondence in full is printed as a note.

given to the attorney general of the United States, from this department, by direction of the President, which fully sets forth the opinions of this government on the subject of McLeod's imprisonment, a copy of which instruction the undersigned has the honor herewith to enclose.

"The indictment against McLeod is pending in a state court; but his rights, whatever they may be, are no less safe, it is to be presumed, than if he were holden to answer in one of the courts of this government.

"He demands immunity from personal responsibility by virtue of the law of nations, and that law in civilized states is to be respected in all courts. None is either so high or so low as to escape from its authority, in cases to which its rules and principles apply.

"This department has been regularly informed by his excellency the Governor of the state of New York, that the chief justice of that state was assigned to preside at the hearing and trial of McLeod's case, but that, owing to some error or mistake in the process of summoning the jury, the hearing was necessarily deferred. The President regrets this occurrence, as he has a desire for a speedy disposition of the subject. The counsel for McLeod have requested authentic evidence of the avowal by the British government, of the attack on and destruction of the Caroline,' as acts done under its authority, and such evidence will be furnished to them by this department.

"It is understood that the indictment has been removed into the supreme court of the state, by the proper proceedings for that purpose, and that it is now competent for McLeod, by the ordinary process of habeas corpus, to bring his case for hearing before that tribunal.

"The undersigned hardly needs to assure Mr. Fox, that a tribunal so eminently distinguished for ability and learning as the supreme court of the state of New York, may be safely relied upon for the just and impartial administration of the law in this as well as in other cases; and the undersigned repeats the expression of the desire of this government that no delay may be suffered to take place in these proceedings which can be avoided. Of this desire, Mr.

Fox will see evidence in the instructions above referred to." 1

§ 86. Final disposition of the case; McLeod's acquittal. -After McLeod had been remanded the trial proceeded and resulted in a verdict of acquittal, after which he was released. While this prevented all further complications, it left undecided the important questions as to whether or not the Federal Government could have interfered and taken McLeod from the jurisdiction of the State courts, and either tried him under some federal statute, or released him in accordance with diplomatic arrangements made between the two countries.

§ 87. Federal statutes passed to meet similar cases.—At that time there were no federal statutes under which the United States could prevent the trial, in State courts, of McLeod or other persons similarly indicted; in order that the recurrence of such controversies might be prevented thereafter, and that the action of a single State might not jeopardize the foreign relations of the entire country, the act of August 29, 1842,1 was passed by Congress under which fed$ 85.

11 Wharton's Digest, § 21, for citation. See also, 25 Wendell, 491, 512, 513, where correspondence is printed in full as a note. $87.

1 Sec. 752. The several justices and judges of the said [Federal] Courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty.

"Sec. 753. The writ of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to a prisoner in jail, unless when he is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process, or decree of a court or judge thereof; or is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States; or, being a subject or citizen of a foreign state, and domiciled therein, is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemp tion claimed under the commission, or order, or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof depend upon the law of nations; or unless it is necessary to bring the prisoner into court to testify.

"Sec. 754. Application for writ of habeas corpus shall be made to the court, or justice, or judge authorized to issue the same, by complaint in writing, signed by the person for whose relief it is intended, setting forth the facts concerning the detention of the party restrained, in whose custody he is

eral courts have jurisdiction of such matters. That statute has since been incorporated in sections 752-4 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The United States courts are thus enabled to investigate the cause of detention of any person held under a State indictment for offences similar to those with which McLeod was charged, and which are really not so much violations of the sovereignty of any particular State as they are of the sovereignty of the United States. The right of the United States to intervene in such cases is apparent when it is considered that if any international complications had arisen owing to the McLeod incident, they would have affected not only the State of New York, but the entire country. Had Great Britain seen fit to resort to arms to redress the injuries which she claimed her citizen has sustained, she would not necessarily have limited her attacks to the northern frontier of New York State, but could have commenced hostilities wherever she saw fit, at any point on land or sea; nor would the State of New York have been able, nor would she have been permitted, to meet these attacks solely with her own State militia. The entire naval and military forces of the United States, as a nation, would necessarily have been called into action in order to repel the invasion by, or the hostile attacks of, a foreign State, on any part of the domain of the United States, State or national. $88. Anti-Spanish Riots in New Orleans of 1851.-In August, 1851, a mob in New Orleans demolished the building in which the office of the Spanish consul was located. At the same time attacks were made upon coffee houses and cigar shops kept by Spanish subjects. American citizens were involved in the loss which, in the aggregate, was large. The supposed cause of the mob was the intelligence of the execution of 50 young Americans in Havana and the banishment to Spanish mines of nearly 200 citizens of the United States. The victims were all members of the abortive Lopez expedition against Cuba. In consequence of these depre

detained, and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known. The facts set forth in the complaint shall be verified by the oath of the person making the application.'

5 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 539; 29 Aug. 1842, c. 257, s. 1; see also Wharton's Int. Law Dig. vol. 1, section 21.

dations of the mob upon the property of the Spanish consul, as well as against Spanish subjects, the Minister of Spain demanded indemnification for all the losses, both official and personal. Mr. Webster admitted that the Spanish consul was entitled to indemnity, and made a proposition as to how the indignity offered to the representative of the Spanish government should be accorded; but when pressed by the Spanish Minister to afford an indemnity to Spanish subjects who were injured by the mob, in common with American citizens, Mr. Webster declined to accede to the demand, and gave as his reasons that as many American citizens had suffered equal loss, the private individuals, Spanish subjects, coming voluntarily to reside in the United States had no cause of complaint, for they were protected by the same laws and the same administration of law as native born citizens of this country.1

§ 88.

rests with the government, according to the general principles of law, public faith, and the obligation of treaties.

1 The history of the anti-Spanish riots in New Orleans will be found in the Foreign Relations Reports for 1851-2, and rehearsed in the "Mr. Calderon thinks that the Reports for 1891, during the Mafia enormity of this act of popular Riot correspondence. The follow-violence is heightened by its insult ing is an extract from a note sent to the flag of Spain. The Governby Daniel Webster, Secretary of ment of the United States would State, to Mr. Calderon, the Spanish earnestly deprecate any indignity Minister, November 13, 1851: offered in this country, in time of peace, to the flag of a nation so ancient, so respectable, so renowned as Spain. No wonder that Mr. Calderon should be proud, and that all patriotic Spaniards of this generation should be proud of the Castilian ensign which in times past has been reared so high and waved so often over fields of acknowledged and distinguished valor; and which has floated, also, without stain, on all seas, and especially, in early days, on those seas which washed the shores of all the Indies.

"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, whenever 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

"Mr. Calderon may be assured that the government of the United States does not and cannot desire