application of disappointed litigants, seeking for diplomatic intervention. It is not meant to say that a palpable denial of justice to citizens of one country in the courts of the other, may not in extreme cases be made the subject of international demands. But the circumstances which may sanction diplomatic intervention as a matter of right in such cases, must be very cogent in order to overcome the presumption above referred to. This Department, moreover, entertains the opinion that something of an unusual character must have occurred to warrant even the use of the good offices or mere unofficial requests of our diplomatic representatives with foreign governments in behalf of American citizens, litigants in their courts. The bare fact of an adverse decision will not warrant it, and in all cases judicial remedies must be exhausted by appeal or otherwise, before executive interference is asked. The difficulties which would exist in the way of any executive action in this country, for the correction of alleged delinquencies in the conduct of the judicial tribunals should always be borne in mind."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ryan, min. to Mexico, April 26, 1893,
MS. Inst. Mexico, XXIII. 359.

This instruction related to the complaint of a citizen of the United States
that he had been deprived of certain property by a sentence of the
Mexican courts, in consequence of their having refused to have cer-
tain documents in the English language translated into Spanish, with
the result that they were not understood and were not considered in
the rendition of the judgment. With reference to this allegation the
Department of State said: "If this be the case, it seems to be proper
that you should use your good offices with the Mexican government
to see that a proper investigation be made of this question, with a
view of ascertaining whether injustice may not have been done,
and of having it remedied, if it has been done. In using
your good offices in behalf of Mrs. Greer with the Mexican govern-
ment, you should be particular to state that you do so only in view
of the peculiar circumstances of the case, consisting, according to her
husband's statement, in her having been misled by the court itself as
to the necessity of filing translations of the Texas deeds; and in the
further fact that she appears to have taken her case to the highest
court without avail." (Ibid.)

With reference toa claim against the government of Peru for breach of contract, the Department of State said: "That the government of Peru furnishes to foreigners through her own courts the means of establishing claims asserted against her

is demonstrated by the fact that in one case you have actually recovered a judgment in a suit against that government. It has been the practice of this Department (based, it is believed, upon well settled principles of international law) to decline to press diplomatically a claim against a foreign government when that government through its tribunals affords a means of redress. It will not do to say in advance

that you can not obtain justice in the Peruvian courts. Their methods of precedure may be different from ours; the law's delay may be more tedious; their whole system of jurisprudence may appear to us to be inadequate as compared with our own system. But, so long as we recognize Peru as an international equal, we must accord to her the same rights which we ourselves would demand under similar circumstances."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hevner, June 10, 1893, 192 MS. Dom.
Let. 296.

See, also, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grace, Sept. 14, 1893, 193
MS. Dom. Let. 423.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, in which you ask, in behalf of a number of friends and citizens of the United States, who are interested in a grant of valuable properties made by the government of Honduras, what protection will be afforded them by this Department, if, after they have gone to that country and expended large sums of money, a revolution or insurrection should take place, resulting in the overthrow of the existing government, or in other words, as you require, will these American citizens be protected by the United States government in this grant which they have received from the government, there, in case there is a change of administration in that country?'

"The Department can only say in response to your inquiry that it has no reason to suppose that the interests of your clients in Honduras would be affected by a change in the administration of the country; nor can it anticipate the perils to which they might be exposed in case of insurrection or revolution. It is therefore unable to give any specific assurances in relation to those matters. This Department will at all times endeavor to secure to our citizens in foreign lands the rights to which they may be entitled under international law and our treaties with other powers. The general ground of diplomatic intervention, however, in behalf of private persons is a denial of justice, and the question whether there has been, or is likely to be, such denial is one that can be determined only on the circumstances of each particular case as it may arise."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sheehan, Aug. 25, 1894, 198 MS. Dom.
Let. 391.

See, to the same effect. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crawford,
Sept. 4, 1893, 193 MS. Dom. Let. 319.

"This government can properly intervene where an American citizen has been actually denied justice in the courts of a foreign country. The mere anticipation that an injustice may be done in judicial proceedings clearly does not afford ground for intervention."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamlin, July 16, 1896, 211 MS. Dom. Let. 372.

3. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

(1) JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE.

$914.

"In regard to the jurisdiction of the courts of independent nations over American citizens resident within their limits, it became necessary for me, on the 1st of February 1848 to address a note to Mr. Osma the minister from Peru, which also received the sanction of the President and Cabinet. From it I make the following extract. Citizens of the United States whilst residing in Peru are subject to its laws and the treaties existing between the parties, and are amenable to its courts of justice for any crimes or offences which they may commit. It is the province of the judiciary to construe and administer the laws, and if this be done promptly and impartially towards American citizens and with a just regard to their rights they have no cause of complaint. In such cases they have no right to appeal for redress to the diplomatic representative of their country, nor ought he to regard their complaints. It is only where justice has been denied or unreasonably delayed by the courts of justice of foreign countries—where these are used as instruments to oppress American citizens or to deprive them of their just rights-that they are warranted in appealing to their government to interpose.' All these are ancient and well established principles of public law; and the quotations are made merely to show that they have received the formal sanction of this government."

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ten Eyck, comr. to Hawaii, Aug. 28,
1848, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 1.

See, to the same effect, Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Larrabee,
March 9, 1846, 35 MS. Dom. Let. 426.

"I duly received your letter of 7th Nov. last, enclosing copies of your entire correspondence with the authorities of Cuba, in relation to the imprisonment and incommunication of Wm. H. Bush, stated by you to be 'unchanged.' The course pursued by you and zeal manifested in behalf of this unfortunate individual are highly approved.

"That the authorities of Cuba possess the right to arrest and bring to trial any individual charged with crime, committed within their jurisdiction, cannot be denied. Independently of the principles of public law by which it is sustained, it is distinctly recognized in the stipulations of our treaty with Spain of 1795. The 7th article provides that 'in cases of seizure, or offences committed by any citizen or subject of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same shall be made and prosecuted by order and authority of law. H. Doc. 551-vol 6--18

only, and according to the regular course of proceeding usual in such cases.' So far, therefore, as the arrest' and imprisonment of Bush are concerned, if conducted according to usage in such cases, no just cause of complaint would seem to exist. Very differently, however, is the case in regard to the incommunication.' The same (7th) article of the treaty, after a general provision securing to the citizens and subjects of both parties the right to employ such advocates, solicitors, agents, &c., as they may judge proper in their affairs, expressly declares that such agents shall have free access, to be present at the proceedings in such causes, and at the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be exhibited in the said trials.' With these rights secured to American citizens within the jurisdiction of Spain, the incommunication' of Bush appears to be directly in conflict and to constitute cause of serious complaint. The history of the treaty affords the evidence that they were deliberately inserted therein as safeguards to protect our citizens from oppression abroad. In communicating the treaty to his government, Mr. Pinckney, the American negotiator, specially points to this article and significantly to the object it had in view. The first part,' says he, 'is taken from the 16th of Prussia.' 'The latter I added, because I considered it a good stipulation in all situations, but particularly so in Spain.' That it applies clearly to the case of Bush, I entertain no doubt; nor of the obligation of this government promptly to insist that no portion of the rights and privileges it confers be longer withheld from him. In this spirit, and to that end, you are authorized to address yourself to the captain-general, in the expression of a full conviction, on the part of your government that the 'incommunication' of Bush will be promptly so far modified as to extend to him all the protection, privilege, and favor secured to him by the existing treaty between the United States and Spain. Such other countenance and support in his difficulties as may be proper, you will doubtless with pleasure afford him.

"You will take care, so far as may be in your power, that he shall not be treated with injustice, harshness, or cruelty. I shall expect to hear from you without delay, because should the captain-general insist upon withholding from American citizens the rights to which they are clearly entitled under the treaty, it will become necessary to make a strong appeal to the authorities at Madrid against this violation of national faith."

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, consul at Havana, Dec. 11, 1848, 10 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 497.

The refusal of a Chilean court, in 1852, on the trial for crime of an American citizen, to hear testimony on behalf of the defendant, would, if sustained by the Chilean government, be considered by the

United States as "a gross outrage to an American citizen, for which it will assuredly hold Chile responsible."

Mr. Conrad, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Peyton, chargé to Chile, Oct. 12, 1852, MS. Inst. Chile, XV. 93.

"The system of proceeding in criminal cases in the Austrian government, has, undoubtedly, as is the case in most other absolute countries, many harsh features and is deficient in many safeguards which our laws provide for the security of the accused; but it is not within the competence of one independent power to reform the jurisdiction of others, nor has it the right to regard as an injury the application of the judicial system and established modes of proceedings in foreign countries to its citizens when fairly brought under their operation. All we can ask of Austria, and this we can demand as a right, is that, in her proceedings against American citizens prosecuted for offences committed within her jurisdiction, she should give them the full and fair benefit of her system, such as it is, and deal with them as she does with her own subjects or those of other foreign powers. She can not be asked to modify her mode of proceedings to suit our views, or to extend to our citizens all the advantages which her subjects would have under our better and more humane system of criminal jurisprudence."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, chargé at Vienna, April 6, 1855,
MS. Inst. Austria, I. 105.

In the course of this instruction, Mr. Marcy said: "That feature in the
criminal law of Austria which interdicts to the accused under arrest
intercourse and free communication with his friends is certainly
revolting to our notions of justice and humane treatment, but it is
not peculiar to that government. Several other countries in Europe
have the same provision in their system of criminal law.
I
am not attempting to justify the Austrian criminal code,
.; but
condemnable as it may be, we have not the right to alter or suspend
it, nor can we convert the fair application of it to one of our citizens
when brought within its jurisdiction into an international offence."

"It would be very desirable if instructions were given to military or other officers making arrests for any cause of parties claiming to be citizens of the United States, requiring such officers to cause the nearest consular officer of the United States to be promptly notified of the arrest and of the claim of the party to American citizenship."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sickles, min. to Spain, No. 97, Oct. 27, 1870,
MS. Inst. Spain, XVI. 157.

"In his note of the 6th April to Mr. West, Lord Granville quotes with approval the following extract from a note of the 14th October, 1861, from Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons: In every case subjects of Her Majesty residing in the United States and under their protec