April 10, 1896, Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, addressed a note to the Spanish minister at Washington, concerning the case of Mr. José M. Delgado and his father, José G. Delgado, both American citizens. It was alleged that the father and son were the lessees of a sugar plantation near Bainoa, in the province of Havana, where a fight took place between the Cuban insurgents, under Gen. Maceo, and the Spanish forces. After a short contest Maceo withdrew, and a squad of Spanish troops then rode into the house and took the claimant, José M. Delgado, and seven laborers to a point near by, where they awaited the coming of the Spanish general Melguizo. On the latter's arrival the claimant exhibited his citizenship papers and assured the general that he had been strictly neutral. On hearing that he was a citizen of the United States Gen. Melguizo struck him three times with his hands, saying, "Just as I will shoot you, so would I shoot the American consul. I care nothing for all those papers of American citizenship." The claimant and the seven laborers were then ordered to be shot. They were fired upon, and the claimant was wounded twice with bullets and then with a machete, and was left for dead. Six out of the seven laborers were killed. The claimant was later found alive and was taken in charge by his father, who, on learning that the Spanish troops were searching with intent to kill all persons who might be able to give testimony concerning the crime, took his son to a distant place and hid him in a cane field, where they remained four and a half days without medical aid. In consequence of the intervention of the United States consul at Havana, the claimant was brought to that city. The expectation was expressed by the United States that the "Government of Spain would disavow the act of Gen. Melguizo, punish him and his accomplices in this crime, and pay the claimant a suitable indemnity for the injuries inflicted upon him.”

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Taylor, min. to Spain, May 11, 1896, For.
Rel. 1896, 586-588.

Gen. Melguizo and other Spanish officers who were present, as well as
certain employees on the estate, made declarations entirely denying
the allegations that the claimant had disclosed his American citizen-
ship, and that words were uttered offensive to the consul of the
United States. They alleged, on the other hand, that the Spanish
troops, after arresting the claimant and the seven laborers, were
compelled to abandon them and retreat, and that in the confusion
they were wounded or killed by the bullets and machetes of the
insurgents. (Duke of Tetuan, min. of State, to Mr. Taylor, Am. min.,
June 30, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 600–614.)

The minister of the United States at Madrid replied that none of the depositions stated as a fact that the claimant was wounded by the insurgents, while they all admitted that he was shot on the day in question, and that he and the other persons were, as Gen. Melguizo confessed, ordered to the rear; nor did Gen. Melguizo pretend that he was ignorant of the claimant's citizenship. (For. Rel. 1896, 615618.)

The Department of State subsequently sent to the minister of the United
States at Madrid a letter from the attorney of the claimant, in rela-
tion to a claim which J. M. Delgado had made for $200,000. (For.
Rel. 1896, 618.)

The case was further discussed at Madrid, and on October 7, 1896, Mr.
Olney wrote to Mr. Taylor that further instructions were necessarily
deferred till the return of the Spanish minister at Washington, when
he expected to have a conference with him in regard to the case.
(For. Rel. 1896, 622-631.)

On the evening of January 31, 1899, Frank Pears, a citizen of the United States, was shot and killed by a sentinel near Pears's case. the office of the Pittsburg & Honduras Timber Company, in San Pedro, Honduras, while passing between his office and his house. The commander of the troops immediately organized a court of inquiry, which found that the sentry was not guilty of any crime, and released him from custody. A day or two afterwards, however, he was discharged from the army. February 16, 1899, Mr. C. Fiallos, minister of justice, and Mr. Allison, United States consul at Tegucigalpa, sitting as a commission to investigate the case, took the testimony of several witnesses. It appears that Mr. Pears when killed was on a spot where he had a right to be; that he was not accompanied, nor engaged in the act of flight; that he was standing in the full light of a street lamp, and that he was shot only a few seconds after he was first challenged. Article 41 of the Military Regulations of Honduras requires a sentry to challenge when a person is at a distance of from 40 to 50 paces; Mr. Pears when shot was at a distance of more than 63 paces. If the person challenged gives the wrong reply or fails to answer, the sentry is required to repeat the challenge three times, and then, if the same thing occurs, to call the guard to arrest the person. Only in case of flight is he authorized to shoot. Mr. Pears when shot was advancing toward the sentry. The United States declared that under the circumstances his killing could be regarded as nothing but the "cruel murder of a defenceless man innocently passing from his office to his house." The United States therefore demanded the arrest and punishment of the sentry and payment of an indemnity of $10,000 in gold for the relatives of Pears." The Government of Honduras suggested arbitration, but the United States pressed for an immediate settlement of the claim."

The Government of Honduras denied its liability, maintaining that the death of Mr. Pears "was due merely to a misfortune greatly to be lamented;" that the sentry "could and ought to have acted with more prudence, and therefore ought to be tried in conformity with the

a Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, min. to Honduras, March 16, 1899, For. Rel. 1900, 674.

b For. Rel. 1900, 676-678.

law;" that the act could not justify a diplomatic claim, since the investigation was being conducted in accordance with the laws, and that it was not possible to allege a denial of justice, since no one had appeared as an interested party accusing the author of the death of Mr. Pears or asking an indemnity. These contentions were supported by a report of Mr. Fiallos, minister of justice."

Late in February or early in March, 1899, the sentry was arrested and brought before a special military court on a charge of manslaughter. The trial began March 7, 1899, and was concluded on the 24th or 25th of the following month. This court decided that Pears was killed unintentionally and without gross negligence, and that the act of shooting was under all the circumstances lawful and innocent. The court therefore discharged him. The Government of the United States held that, considering the manner of the prosecution before the military court, in which the prosecuting attorney argued in defense of the sentry, it was "impossible to confide in its finding of facts or in its conclusions;" that it was more reasonable to accept the view of the minister of justice who conceded that the sentinel ought to have acted with greater prudence, although the military court had exonerated him; that, if there was any doubt of the liability of the Government of Honduras in the first instance, that doubt was dispelled by the subsequent action of the military authorities. The conclusion of the United States was expressed as follows: "That Pears was wantonly shot through the sentinel's gross ignorance of his duty and through the gross ignorance or negligence of the officers of the guard and of the post in failing properly to instruct him, can not be doubted. Either this is true, or the alternative conclusion is inevitable, that he was intentionally shot. In either case it was done in violation of the military ordinance. And there has appeared no serious purpose on the part of the Honduran Government to punish either the sentinel or his superiors. Under all the circumstances the Government of Honduras ought in equity to pay the indemnity demanded." The United States therefore insisted on the payment of the sum previously demanded."

In a later instruction the United States said: "The Department is not disposed to require the punishment of the sentinel who killed Pears. His punishment was not mentioned in instruction No. 236, of March 20 last. But delay in responding to the demand for indemnity should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.” c

The President of Honduras submitted the claim to a commission of three jurists, who reported that the demand originally made by

a For Rel. 1900, 678–685.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, min. to Honduras, March 20, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 685–689.

c Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunter, min. to Honduras, July 22, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 691.

the United States for the punishment of the sentry was inadmissible as he had already been acquitted by the courts. This view, as has been seen, was accepted by the United States, and the only remaining question was that of the indemnity. On this question the commission of jurists found that as the sentry had been tried and acquitted in accordance with the laws of the Republic, there was lacking a legal foundation for the claim for indemnity. They suggested, however, that on grounds of good will, the Government might seek an amicable settlement with the United States in order to put an end to the controversy, and for that purpose might offer to pay a smaller sum than that which had been demanded, especially as four of the relations of the deceased had placed in hands of the President of the Republic a letter addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States, in which they declined to accept the share which might be apportionable to them out of the sum demanded."

The United States insisted upon the prompt payment of the $10,000 in gold. The Government of Honduras decided to pay the sum demanded. November 2, 1900, the President of the Republic issued a decree declaring that the case was settled, in order to "avoid difficulties of a more serious character," and that although the Government had been unsuccessful in its efforts to reduce the amount of the indemnity it had obtained an abandonment of the demand for the punishment of the sentry, which was "the most dangerous portion of the claim," in this way "the honor of the country remaining untouched.c

In April, 1899, Bernard Campbell, a citizen of the United States, made a contract in New York for service as an engineer on a steamer in the West Indies. He supposed that his service was to be on board of a merchant vessel, and, with this understanding, he and certain other persons under similar contracts took passage for the West Indies on the steamer Clyde. When the Clyde arrived at Cape Haitien, April 17, 1889, Admiral Cooper and Captain Compton, of the Haytian navy, boarded the vessel and informed Campbell that he was expected to serve on a Haytian man-of-war that lay nearby. He refused; was threatened with death; but still refused. The next day, while waiting on the wharf for passage to Montecristi, in Santo Domingo, he was beaten by Haytian soldiers and thrown into the He finally got back to New York, permanently injured in health. The presumption was strong that the cause of the assault

sea.

a For. Rel. 1900, 692–695.

For. Rel. 1900, 696. The Department of State had brought to the attention of the four members of the Pears family the letter purporting to be signed by them, and had received from them denials that they had renounced their claim. For. Rel. 1900, 701-702,

upon him was his refusal to serve in the Haytian navy. The United States maintained that he was entitled to a "substantial indemnity." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, Jan. 31, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 811.

The claim was settled in April, 1898, by the Government of Hayti agreeing to pay to the United States the sum of $10,000 in gold. (For. Rel. 1898, 397–398; President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898.)

For correspondence, see H. Doe 305, 54 Cong. 1 sess.

A suit brought by Campbell in New York against certain alleged Haytian agents, related to a matter entirely separate and distinct from the injury on which his diplomatic claim was based. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smythe, min. to Hayti, No. 136. March 20, 1896, MS. Inst. Hayti, III. 479.)

On June 6, 1904, Lewis L. Etzel, an American war correspondent, was killed by Chinese soldiers at Niuchwang. The killing was not premeditated or intentional and the soldiers were at most only guilty of criminal carelessness. The Chinese authorities sentenced the corporal, who was in charge of the men and commanded them to fire, to five years' imprisonment, cashiered the commandant of the district who was responsible for the discipline which made the commission of such a crime possible, and offered to the family of the deceased in a spirit of friendliness the sum of $25,000 Mexican. This was accepted as a settlement of the case.

For. Rel. 1904, 168–176.

The executors of the deceased asked that the sum of $60,000 in gold be demanded, but the American minister at Peking considered this sum exorbitant, and his opinion was concurred in by the Department of State. (For. Rel. 1904, 173-174.)

VI. ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

1. INDEMNITY NOT DEMANDED WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE REGULAR.

§ 1010.

With reference to the case of Dr. Peck, a citizen of the United States, who, while in Cuba for his health, was, as it was alleged, arrested and thrown into prison without accusation of crime, the Department of State said: "The United States ask no immunity for their own citizens when offenders, but they can not quietly submit to see them arrested and thrown into prison and there detained without any charge against them."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cueto, Span. min., unofficial, April 17, 1855, MS. Notes to Span. Leg. VII. 56.

There is no provision in the laws of the United States to indemnify a person who has been imprisoned after a trial, and who is