See, also, Watson v. United States, 25 Ct. Cl. 116; Osborne v. United A citizen of the United States stated that a, demand for $800,000 had been made on his company by the Cuban insurgents, who had threatened to destroy the company's property in Cuba unless the money was paid by a certain date. The complaint was sent to the American legation at Madrid, with instructions to request the Spanish authorities to give complete protection to the property in question against any attempt to carry out the threat of destruction. The Department of State added: "With reference to your proposed written reply to the insurgents' demand, it is not within the province of this Department to give any advice, and though earnestly desirous of affording every assistance to American citizens in their efforts to protect their properties abroad from destruction or damage, the question as to whether or not a reply should be sent to the insurgents' demand is so clearly one of business expediency, or for reference to private counsel, that I am unwilling to give any opinion thereon." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rand, Dec. 3, 1896, 214 MS. Dom. Let. 283. A claim having been made by a citizen of the United States against the Government of Peru for live stock forcibly taken from him by the Peruvian Government in 1885, that Government set up the defense that the animals were taken during the civil war as a reprisal for hostile acts of the claimant, who had " joined a party," and as a commander in the "Urban Guard" had committed outrages, and extortions of a criminal character against the Government. The claimant, when called on by the United States to answer this charge, presented a statement showing the nature of the so-called "Urban Guard" and his connection with it. "From this statement," said the Department of State, it appears that the power and efficiency of the Peruvian Government to protect life and property were completely paralyzed in the locality where Mr. Backus resided; that the Indians and other lawless inhabitants of the community were murdering and robbing without any restraint or any effort on the part of the constituted authorities to protect either natives or foreigners. In such an emergency every man became under the law of nature his own protector, and the foreign residents in the unprotected localities were compelled to unite for self-protection, forming what was called the Urban Guard,' a temporary committee of safety which confined its efforts to safeguarding life and property, and avoiding taking either side in the civil strife which then divided the republic. If his statement is true, it would seem that Mr. Backus's conduct during this period of anarchy was in no way reprehensible or hostile to the Government of Peru. He and the foreigners associated with him simply undertook for the time to perform as voluntary agents for the Government of Peru important police functions which that Government was unable at the time to perform for itself by its regular officers. The inauguration and action of the Urban Guard' was simply in the interest of law and order, and not in support of any faction." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Neill, chargé, No. 209, Dec. 22, 1896, MS. 3. DISCRETION AS TO TIME AND MANNER OF PRESSURE. § 978. Where a government takes up the claim of one of its citizens. against another government it necessarily possesses and exercises the power to decide for itself when and to what extent it will press the claim, as well as the means which it will employ for that purpose. A claim against the United States, which the claimant has elected to present to Congress, will not, while before Congress, be entertained by the Department of State. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schlözer, German min., Sept. 14, 1874, MS. "It is understood to be customary to at least suspend the prosecution of any claim on a foreign government when either House of Congress shall have called for the papers with a view to consideration of the subject." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Bartley et al., Sept. 26, 1871, For. Rel. 1887, 594. When one department of the government has lawfully assumed jurisdiction of a particular case, any other coordinate department should decline to interfere with or assume to control its legitimate action. Hence when the courts have acquired jurisdiction of a case of maritime capture, the political department of the government should postpone the consideration of questions concerning reclamation and indemnities until the judiciary has finally performed its functions in those cases. Bates, At. Gen., 1864, 11 Op. 117. "Much delay (consequent upon accusations of fraud in some of the awards) has occurred in respect to the distribution of the limited amounts received from Venezuela under the treaty of April 25, 1866, applicable to the awards of the joint commission created by that treaty. So long as these matters are pending in Congress the Executive can not assume either to pass upon the questions presented, or to distribute the fund received. It is eminently desirable that definite legislative action should be taken, either affirming the awards to be final, or providing some method for re-examination of the claims." President Hayes, annual message, 1877, For. Rel. 1877, xiii. III. CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION. 1. CITIZENSHIP, AS A RULE, ESSENTIAL. § 979. As to the special case of seamen, see supra, § 484; and as to protection in oriental countries, see supra, § § 287–290 Where a person requested the interposition of the United States in respect of outrages upon him alleged to have been committed in Mexico, the Department of State said: "The fact which you state, that, although long a resident of this country, you have not been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, is an insuperable bar to any interference of this Government in your behalf." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Champly, April 15, 1837, 29 MS. Dom. See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Selding, March 3, 1856, 45 MS. L. F. Foucher, Marquis de Circé, a citizen of France, owned a plantation in Louisiana, which was occupied in 1862 by the Federal troops. An award of compensation was made to him by a military commission, but the claim was not paid, and he died in 1869, leaving his widow as universal legatee. In 1877 the widow died, leaving as joint universal legatees her nephews and nieces. Both estates were settled up, but no money was received on the war claim and no mention was made of it in the distribution. When the mixed commission was installed under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880, the claim was revived. The successions of Mr. and Mrs. Foucher were opened, and a representative, named Denis, was appointed, who filed a memorial with the commission, in which he presented the claim in the right of L. F. Foucher, deceased, and joined with him all parties interested in both successions. All these parties were American citizens except two, who were citizens of France and who subsequently filed a separate memorial in person. The commission awarded on the claim presented by Denis a lump sum, with interest. Of this sum the two French lega tees claimed the whole. The supreme court of Louisiana, Fenner, J., dissenting, held that the money should be distributed among all the legatees without regard to their nationality. This judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that, independently of the provisions of the treaty, which provided for the adjudication of the claims of the citizens of the one country against the government of the other, an award could not be held to inure to the benefit of citizens of the United States. Burthe v. Denis (1890), 133 U. S. 514, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335, reversing See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1154, for a discussion, in this relation, Where, in a French spoliation case, neither the American registry of the vessel nor the American citizenship of the owners is established, the claim can not be allowed. The Vandeput (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 396. The register of an American vessel in the eighteenth century was conclusive evidence in French prize courts of her American character and of the nationality of her owners. (The Conrad, 37 Ct. Cl. 459.) Jean Prevot, a citizen of France, had a claim against the United States for cotton taken from him during the civil war, and the United States admitted its liability to him to the amount of $2,425.15. Subsequently Prevot died, leaving a widow and three children. His widow qualified as administratrix, and as such prosecuted the claim before the mixed commission under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880. The commission allowed $2,020.94, with interest. This sum, as the commission stated, was for the value of the cotton, less one-sixth, which represented the interest of a child, a Mrs. Bodemüller, whose husband had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The commission disallowed her interest on the ground that the nationality of the wife followed that of the husband. Subsequently, Mrs. Bodemüller, having become a widow, brought suit against the United States under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 505), providing for suits against the Government in certain cases. The court expressed the opinion that the deduction made by the commission was improper, but dismissed the suit on technical grounds. Bodemüller v. United States (1889), 39 Fed. Rep. 437. I am advised by counsel that a suit subsequently instituted against the See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1150. In the case of the claim against the Dominican Republic, growing out of transactions with the French firm of J. Sala & Co., the widow of one of the claimants sought, in the character of a citizen of the United States, the good offices of that Government. Her request was granted, the Department of State saying: "While, in the opinion of the Department, a citizen of the United States is not entitled to invoke the assistance of this Government in respect of a claim against another Government acquired from a foreigner by marriage and assignment (by partnership arrangement or otherwise), yet it is believed that where such claim comes to the wife by succession, upon the death of her husband, as in this case, the offices of this Government should be extended to her." Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Brothers, June 9, 1900, 245 MS. Dom. Let. 484. By the convention between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, signed at Washington Nov. 7, 1899, for the submission to the King of Sweden and Norway, as arbitrator, of any claims of the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties growing out of alleged unwarranted military action of American, German, or British officers in Samoa between Jan. 1, 1899, and May 13, 1899, it was agreed that either government might, with the consent of the others, submit to the arbitrator similar claims of other persons (not Samoan natives) who were under its "protection." For. Rel. 1899, 671. See, as to the protection of seamen, supra, § 484. As to special rules of protection under extraterritorial jurisdiction, see supra, Chap. VII. With reference to a request for the protection of an American missionary in Turkey, in which mention was made of the fact that several native instructors and students in a school kept by him had been imprisoned, the Department of State said: "It is not clear whether you mean that the protection of the United States should be extended to the imprisoned persons or to Mr. Christie. If the former, I have to inform you that they are all understood to be Ottoinan subjects, and to remind you that the mere fact of their connection with an American school does not exempt them from Turkish jurisdiction or from liability for violation of Turkish law. Our min |