even if it can not have the great aid which the cooperation of Mexico would assure; and it will hope, at no distant day, to see such concord and cooperation between all the nations of America as will render war impossible." Mr. Morgan was directed to leave a copy of this instruction with Mr. Mariscal. Señor Ubico, Guatemalan min. to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, June 15, 1881, While the United States would not look with favor on any schemes of aggrandizement" by which "the individuality of any of the states of Central America would disappear in civil turmoil or conquest," yet it would view with approbation "such an intimacy of union between the states of Central America as would not only secure their domestic interests but render them outwardly strong against the rest of the world." (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, min. to Cent. Am., No. 53, confld., March 4, 1880, MS. Inst. Cent. Am. XVIII. 73.) It appeared upon investigation that the particular point that prevented a friendly arrangement between Guatemala and Mexico was the calling into question by the former of Mexico's title to the State of Chiapas, including the territory of Soconusco. On December 31, 1881, Mr. Morgan, under further instructions of the Department of State, made a formal tender to the Mexican government of the "good offices" of the President of the United States and of his services as arbitrator. Mr. Mariscal, on March 20, 1882, replied that the Mexican government found it impossible to discuss or submit to arbitration the question of her rights to this portion of her territory, but would agree to arbitration if the Guatemalan government would expressly exclude Chiapas and Soconusco. On this basis the preliminaries of a treaty of settlement were signed at New Nork on August Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Montúfar, Guatemalan min., June 5, 1882, For. Rel. 1882, 326; Mr. Montúfar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. June 15, 1882, id. 328; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montúfar, June 27, 1882, id. 330; Mr. Montúfar to Mr. Frelinghuysen, July 21, 1882, id 330; Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montúfar, July 24, 1882, id. 331; Mr. Romero, Mex. min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Aug. 14, 1882, id. 437; Mr. Cruz, Guatemalan min., to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Oct. 14, 1882, id. 332. "ART. XXII. The United States will aid by their good offices, if desired, in securing the union of the five Central American republics under one representative government, and the reorganization of the said republics in one nationality being accomplished, the Central American republics shall have the same rights and bear the same obligations as Nicaragua has and bears by virtue of this treaty. Frelinghuysen-Zavala Treaty, Dec. 1, 1884, between the United States The consular agent of the United States at Johannesburg was directed to render to John Hays Hammond and other American citizens arrested by the Boers on charges of rebellion in connection with the Jameson raid "all possible aid and protection." Simultaneously, the American ambassador in London was instructed to apply to the foreign office, with a view to obtain the good offices of the British representatives in South Africa. In compliance with this request the British high commissioner was instructed to see that the persons in question received all proper protection and assistance. Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Catchings, M. C., Jan. 25, 1896, 207 MS. "By way of friendly good offices, you will inform British minister for foreign affairs that I am to-day in receipt of a telegram from the United States consul at Pretoria reporting that the government. of the two African republics request the President's intervention with a view to cessation of hostilities, and that a similar request is made to the representatives of European powers. In communicating this request I am directed by the President to express his earnest hope that a way to bring about peace may be found and to say that he would be glad to aid in any friendly manner to promote so happy a result." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, chargé, tel., March 10, 1900, MS. The British government replied that it could not accept the "interven- See, as to this incident, S. Doc. 222, 56 Cong. 1 sess. II. NONPOLITICAL INTERVENTION. 1. PROTECTION OF CITIZENS. § 912. The most usual, indeed it may be said that the ordinary, ground of intervention is that of the protection of the citizens of a country against wrong or injustice in another land. Such wrong or injustice. may result either from the positive action of a government or from the omission to extend such protection as is due under the circumstances. Formal intervention is extended by a government in such cases only in behalf of its own citizens, and in respect of acts which occurred while they held the relation of citizens. The wrong done to a government in the person of its citizen is not transferred to another government by his naturalization as a citizen of the latter. "Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand. the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Of this there can be no doubt, nor that the right depends upon his character as a citizen of the United States. All rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations, are dependent upon citizenship of the United States and not citizenship of a State." Miller, J., Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79, 80. "If his property was captured by the United States, under circumstances which entitled him to require its restoration, the law of nations gave him the right to prosecute his claim through his own government for the loss he sustained. That right was not taken from him by the abandoned and captured property act. It was open to him from the first moment of the capture. All he had to do was to induce his government to assume the responsibility of making his claim, and then the matter would be prosecuted as one nation proceeds against another, not by suit in the courts as matter of right, but by diplomatic representations, or, if need be, by war.' In such cases it rests with the sovereign against whom the demand is made to determine for himself what he will do with it. He may pay or reject. it; he may submit to arbitration, open his own courts to suit, or consent to be tried in the courts of another nation. All depends upon himself.' United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520.” Young. United States (1877), 97 U. S. 39, 67. "When a diplomatic representative is satisfied that an applicant for protection has a right to his intervention, he should interest himself in his behalf, examining carefully into his grievances. If he finds that the complaints are well founded, he should interpose firmly, but with courtesy and moderation, with the authorities in his behalf and report the case to the Department of State for its further action, if any be required." Printed Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), § 170. "It is the wish of the President that you should make use of your official interposition upon those occasions only when, after a careful examination of the complaint, you shall be satisfied that wrong has been done in contravention either of the treaty or of public law. By carefully restricting your applications for redress to cases of this disposition, by abstaining from interference in all doubtful cases, the probability of your obtaining prompt and ample justice will be much increased. You will also inculcate upon your countrymen the necessity of a proper respect from the established laws, decrees, and usages, the stipulation of Brazil in the treaty to protect citizens of the United States, being subject to that condition. Naval officers can not expect to be exempted from the operation of this rule, and they should conform to all the Brazilian fiscal and sanitary regulations. In regard to diplomatic agents, the twenty-seventh article of the treaty declares that those of the United States in Brazil can claim such immunities only as that Empire may choose to extend to the representatives of other powers." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, chargé d'affaires to Brazil, "The proposition that those who resort to foreign countries are bound to submit to their laws as expounded by the judicial tribunals is not disputed. The exception to this rule, however, is that when palpable injustice, that is to say, such as would be obvious to all the world, is committed by that authority towards a foreigner for alleged infractions of municipal law, of treaties, or of the law of nations, the government of the country whereof the foreigner is a citizen or subject has a clear right to hold the country whose authorities have been guilty of the wrong, accountable therefor. This right is not weakened because the judicial may be independent of the executive or both of the legislative power. Complaint is made to the executive by the foreign government because that is the only proper medium and organ of communication, and not because it may be supposed to be within the competency of that department to redress the grievance. Undoubtedly the interest and duty of every nation admonish extreme caution in applications of this sort which should never be made unless there is a well-grounded persuasion that, even after the complaint shall have been inquired into by the aggressor, the case will be found to lie within the limits above marked out. Governments should be especially slow to interfere in cases arising from imputed breaches of municipal law only. "It is conceived that the case of the Morris is embraced by these principles. The vessel and that part of the cargo which was American property were acquitted by the court of admiralty at Puerto Cabello. Under all the circumstances, the establishment of the special court of appeal for the trial of the case, can not but be viewed as a most unwarrantable act. The article of the Colombian constitution which is quoted in justification of it does not touch the case in a single point. That article was intended solely to confer upon the President extraordinary powers in the event of internal revolt or foreign invasion during the recess of Congress. The Morris was a vessel of the United States, with a cargo principally belonging to our citizens. She was bound to Gibraltar and, when within sight of her destination, was captured by a Colombian privateer upon the pretext that she had on board a few articles the property of subjects of His Catholic Majesty. It requires no argument to expose the absurdity of attempting to apply the article of the Colombian constitution in question to such a case as this." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Semple, chargé d'affaires to New "I have received the letter of the 27th, signed by you as chairman. of a meeting of gentlemen at New York on the evening of the 6th instant, accompanied by a statement' and 'resolutions' adopted by that meeting, relative to the protection of citizens of the United States abroad in their rights of conscience, public worship, and sepulture. In reply I have to inform you that this subject has hitherto received and shall continue to receive all proper attention from the Government. The rights adverted to have been secured in whole or in part by the 11th article of our treaty with Colombia of 1824; by the 13th of our treaties with Central America and Brazil of 1825 and 1828, respectively; by the 15th of our treaty with Mexico of 1831; by the 11th of our treaty with Chile of 1832; by the 14th of our treaty with Venezuela of 1836; by the 10th of our treaty with the Peru-Bolivian Confederation of the same year, and by the 14th of our treaty with Ecuador of 1839. Within a year or two past, also, pursuant to an appropriation by Congress, a lot of land for a cemetery has been purchased and prepared near the City of Mexico to which the remains of those who were killed in battle or who died in that quarter during the late war, have been transferred and where in future all citizens of the United States who may die in the vicinity may be buried." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wood, Jan. 31, 1854, 42 MS. Dom. Let. 184. The British minister at Washington having communicated to the Department of State a copy of an instruction sent by Lord Clarendon to the diplomatic agents of Great Britain in certain Central and South American states, expressing the dissent of the British government from the position said to have been taken by some of those |