lished by an exchange of declarations. By direction of the President, the minister of the United States at Florence was instructed to represent that such a declaration on the part of the United States was unnecessary, for the reason that neither the Federal Government nor that of any of the States had ever adopted forced loans or was by its constitution allowed to impose them; and that the attempt to arrange the matter by exchange of declarations would also be inconvenient, for the reason that the President would be obliged to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which would probably disallow the agreement on the ground that it was exceptional and entirely unnecessary. The Italian Government, satisfied with this statement, decreed the exemption of citizens of the United States from forced loans in case of war. It was suggested that a reciprocal exemption from forced loans might not be objected to by the Senate if it formed part of a general treaty. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to the Chevalier Cerruti, Dec. 11, 1867, MS. "Your despatch No. 200, of the 20th ult., was duly received. The explanation which it contains in regard to the Italian forced loan of 1866 confirms the previous impression of the Department, that that loan was merely an extraordinary tax occasioned by a financial emergency, and differed from an ordinary tax chiefly in being nominally reimbursable. It seems to the Department that citizens of the United States, residing in Italy, could scarcely expect with reason that they should be exempted from such tax, especially by treaty. If, however, the exemption from forced loans should not be expressly stipulated for, it might, if deemed advisable, be claimed under the article of the treaty which is intended to secure to United States citizens in Italy the same privileges which may there be granted to the citizens or subjects of other countries. There would not, however, be any occasion to claim the benefit of such a stipulation if the tax referred to should be impartially levied and no other foreigners should be free from its operation." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Italy, No. 187, Feb. 26, 1868, MS. Inst. Italy, I. 261. In the case of Messrs. Ulrich and Langstroth, in 1873, the position was taken by the Department of State that the stipulation of Article VIII. of the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1831, that the effects of the citizens of the contracting parties should not be detained for any public or private purpose whatsoever without corresponding compensation, rendered the Mexican Government liable for the repayment of forced loans. The stipulation in Article XIV. of the same treaty for the protection of the persons and property of the citizens of one party within the jurisdiction of the other was cited to the same effect. 66 Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, No. 21, Aug. 15, 1873, MS. Inst. Mexico, XIX. 18; same to same, No. 54, Dec. 16, 1873, id. 48; Mr. Cadwalader, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, Sept. 22, 1874, No. 141, id. 121. See, further, as to Ulrich and Langstroth's case, infra, § 1046. It may be conceded that by the public law foreigners in a country in a state of insurrection can not expect to be indemnified for all losses sustained from insurgents when the regular government shall have been restored. The case of a forced loan, however, is believed to be an exception. The meaning of the word loan is, that the money borrowed is to be returned. If the borrower is a sovereign, his obligation to repay the amount is as sacred as that of a private individual. If he is an insurgent, who for a time usurps the regular authority, the latter may justly be expected to make it good if the loan was an involuntary one." Mr. Cadwalader, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, No. 141, Sept. 22, 1874, MS. Inst. Mex. XIX. 121. There does not appear to be any article in the treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1831 which expressly exempts citizens of the United States in that country from forced loans, the purpose of that instrument appearing in general to have been to place citizens of the United States in Mexico on the same footing as other foreigners and as Mexicans themselves. Hence, although it is understood that the supreme court of Mexico has decided against the pretension of the Government to raise revenue in that way, yet, so long as the present Executive of the country discards that opinjon, it would seem that no beneficial result can be expected from a prolonged diplomatic discussion of the subject. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scott, consul at Chihuahua, No. 4, April See, also, Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Referring to the action of the Peruvian Government in relieving a consular agent of the United States, who seems to have been an American citizen, from the payment of a forced loan, apparently on the special ground of his consular character, the Department of State said that its position was "that of diplomatic resistance to the collection of forced loans from any American citizen located in Peru, whether in business or not, and whether a consular officer or not.;' and that, although, when the case in question arose, Art. II. of the treaty of Sept. 6, 1870, forbidding forced loans, was still in force, yet "the principle announced" could not, after the expiration of that article," cease to commend itself to either Government." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, mir. to Peru, No. 65, May 20, 1886, MS. Inst. Peru, XVII. 215. Citizens of the United States residing in Nicaragua are expressly exempt from forced loans in time of war, by the terms of Art. IX. of the treaty of 1867. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Cent. Am., No. 15, June 16, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 198; same to same, No. 117, Jan. 24, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 460. 6. DAMAGES FOR WANTON OR UNLAWFUL ACTS. § 1037. "According to the laws and usages of nations, a state is not obliged to make compensation for damages done to its citizens by an enemy, or wantonly or unauthorized by its own troops." Report of Mr. Hamilton, Sec. of Treas., Nov. 19, 1792; Am. State Papers, Class IX. vol. i, of claims; adopted in report of March 26, 1874, on war claims, House Rep. 262, 43d Cong. 1st sess. 32. The correspondence with Great Britain as to the bombardment of the fortress of Omoa, Honduras, by the British ship of war Niobe, on Aug. 19 and 20, 1873, is given in 67 Brit. and For. State Papers, 955. "If a nation, during a war, conducts itself contrary to the law of nations, and no notice is taken of such conduct in the treaty of peace, it is thereby so far considered lawful, as never afterward to be revivied, or to be a subject of complaint.” Ware . Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 230. "We do not, at the present day, often hear, when a town is carried by assault, that the garrison is put to the sword in cold blood, on the plea that they have no right to quarter. Such things are no longer approved or countenanced by civilized nations. But we sometimes hear of a captured town being sacked, and the houses of the inhabitants being plundered, on the plea that it was impossible for the general to restrain his soldiery in the confusion and excitement of storming the place; and under that softer name of plunder it has sometimes been attempted to veil all crimes which man, in his worst excesses, can commit; horrors so atrocious that their very atrocity preserves them from our full execration, because it makes it impossible to describe them.' It is true that soldiers sometimes commit excesses which their officers can not prevent; but, in general, a commanding officer is responsible for the acts of those under his orders. Unless he can control his soldiers, he is unfit to command them. The most atrocious crimes in war, however, are usually committed by militia and volunteers suddenly raised from the population of large cities, and sent into the field before the general has time or opportunity to reduce them to order and discipline. In such cases the responsibility of their crimes rests upon the state which employs them, rather than upon the general who is, perhaps, unwillingly, obliged to use them." Halleck's International Law and Laws of War (San Francisco, 1861, § 22, p. 442), citing Kent's Commentaries, Vattel's Droit de Gens, and other authorities. Cited with approval in Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, infra, p. 920. "As civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms;" and that "the principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.” Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the A belligerent is responsible to neutrals for capricious and wanton injury inflicted on their persons or property. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, Mar. 13, 1863, MS. Inst. France, XVI. 345; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, June 7, 1883, min. to Chile, June 7, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, 107. A claim was made on behalf of certain Italian subjects for indemnity on account of losses suffered at the capture and pillaging of Bagdad, Mexico, on the morning of January 15, 1866. The town when captured was held by the French. It was taken by a force under the immediate command of R. Clay Crawford, a citizen of the United States, who was acting under General Escobedo, general in chief of the Mexican Republican forces in the north. The attacking force embraced a number of negro soldiers, belonging to the United States Army, who were inveigled from Brownsville, Texas, to take part in the affair. These soldiers were absent from their command without leave and were afterwards subjected to discipline and punishment for their absence. No officer of the United States, military or civil, was in any way connected or identified with the transaction. It was therefore held that the United States was not liable for what took place, and this position was afterwards sustained by the mixed commission under the treaty between the United States and Mexico of July 4, 1868. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Count Corti, Italian min., Dec. 9, 1872, MS. Citizens of the United States have a right to engage in the military service of foreign powers, Christian or non-Christian, and in such cases, while the Government of the United States will not take cognizance of their death in battle, it "will expect that no unusual or inhuman punishment be inflicted upon any of its citizens who may be taken prisoners, but that they shall be treated according to the accepted rules of civilized warfare." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Williams, min. to China, July 29, 1874, For. On January 7, 1885, Mr. Dawson, American consul at Barranquilla, Colombia, reported that the country was in a state of revolution; that various river steamers, including one owned by citizens of the United States, had been seized by the insurgents, and that the Government authorities had also seized a river steamer similarly owned for the purpose of transporting troops. Mr. Frelinghuysen, in acknowledg ing the receipt of this report, said that "while the question of accountability for the spoliation of insurgents may remain open, yet there can be no doubt as to the responsibility of the Government de jure for all spoliations it may resort to for its own protection.” Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scruggs, min. to Colombia, No. 22, Feb. 25, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 207. "It is not disputed that a neutral person domiciled in a belligerent country can not claim from the opposing belligerent redress for injury inflicted by the latter in due course of war. The present case, however, is taken out of this rule by evidence herewith forwarded, showing that the injuries in question were not inflicted in due course of war, but were in violation of the rules of civilized warfare. For such violations of international duty the sovereign of the injured neutral has a right to call for redress." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, May 27, 1886, MS. Inst. Cent. Am. The memorialist claimed compensation for a quantity of cotton and other articles of personal property valued at $4,000, which were shown to have been destroyed by fire set by United States soldiers. There was evidence tending to show that the property in question was at the time of its destruction situated in the theater of war, in |