it is difficult to avoid giving offense to one or the other party. To such unavoidable causes of offense, due to the performance of national duty, there must not be added any avoidable causes. It is always unfortunate to bring Old-World antipathies and jealousies into our life, or by speech or conduct to excite anger and resentment toward our nation in friendly foreign lands; but in a government employee, whose official position makes him in some sense the representative of the people, the mischief of such actions is greatly increased. strong and self-confident nation should be peculiarly careful not only of the rights but of the susceptibilities of its neighbors; and nowadays all the nations of the world are neighbors one to the other. Courtesy, moderation, and self-restraint should mark international, no less than private, intercourse." Executive order, March 10, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 185. A See, also, Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, min. to China, No. 862, In April, 1904, the commandant of the Mare Island Navy-Yard transmitted to the Secretary of the Navy copies of circulars, received in an envelope from the consulate-general of Japan at New York City, addressed "To the Japanese Serving in the United States Navy," soliciting subscriptions to Japanese bonds and contributions to the relief fund for Japanese soldiers and sailors and to the Red Cross Society of Japan. In view of the President's proclamation of neutrality, the Secretary of the Navy asked whether the circulars should be forwarded. It was held by the Department of State that, while Japanese in the United States doubtless had a right to make such subscriptions and contributions as were referred to, it was undesirable that they should be solicited through American official channels, and the commandant of the Mare Island Navy-Yard was instructed not to forward any of the circulars to Japanese in the United States. The legation of Japan was so notified. For. Rel. 1904, 427. In 1898, during the war between the United States and Spain, the Spanish consul at Singapore, acting upon reports published in the press, brought to the notice of the governor of the Straits Settlements the alleged action of Mr. Spencer Pratt, American consul-general at Singapore, in negotiating for the cooperation of Aguinaldo, the late head of the insurrection against Spain in the Philippines, with Admiral Dewey, when the latter was at Hongkong. The matter was laid before the British Government and was presented to the Government of the United States through the British embassy at Washington. The embassy stated that while the action of Mr. Pratt, as described in the press, may have fallen short of a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, it was clearly in contravention of the spirit of Her Britannic Majesty's proclamation of neutrality and had given reasonable ground of complaint to the Spanish Government, and that Her Majesty's Government was therefore constrained to address a remonstrance to the United States on the subject of Mr. Pratt's proceedings and his public avowal of them, as reported in a speech published in the Straits Times of June 9, 1898, of which a copy was enclosed. The Department of State replied that the subject was one to which the Government of the United States had already given careful attention. As the result of its inquiries it had received the most ample assurances that Mr. Pratt formed with Aguinaldo no engagement whatever. It appeared that the Philippine insurgent leader was brought to Mr. Pratt by a British subject named Bray, after which two interviews between Mr. Pratt and Aguinaldo took place. Mr. Pratt then merely inquired of Admiral Dewey whether he wished the insurgent leader to accompany him to the Philippines. Admiral Dewey answered in the affirmative, and Aguinaldo then departed for Hongkong wholly on his own responsibility. The report of Mr. Pratt's speech, said the Department of State, appeared to be inaccurate, a circumstance which might in a measure be explained by the fact that Mr. Pratt was said to have spoken in French, while the published version was in English. In conclusion the Department of State observed that the Government of the United States regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have any cause to think that any representative of the United States had been wanting, within Her Majesty's dominions, in the observance of that course of conduct which it was incumbent upon him to maintain, and that the Government of the United States had previously given to all its consular officers the most stringent instructions to abstain from any act likely to compromise the neutrality of Her Majesty's Government, and that in the present instance it was believed that inaccurate publications had afforded the only ground for remonstrance against the conduct of the American consul-general at Singapore. Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, No. 1171, Sept. 2, 1898, MS. Notes to British Leg. XXIV. 311. When the Congressionalist man-of-war Blanco Encalada was fired on by the forts at Valparaiso on January 16, 1891, and six persons on board were killed and six wounded, Captain St. Clair of the British man-of-war Champion, later in the day, at the request of the captain of the Blanco Encalada, and with the concurrence of the intendente of the town, removed the killed and wounded from the ship to the shore. Parl. Paper, Chile, No. 1 (1892), 48. For a denial of the report that the British cruiser Talbot had on two occasions during the blockade of Havana by the United States forces brought away Spanish officials, see For. Rel. 1898, 1000-1001. In the spring of 1891, the Chilean Government requested, through the American minister at Santiago, that the United States would permit one of its men-of-war to convey from Valparaiso to Montevideo a quantity of bar silver which it desired to export for the purpose of paying the interest on the national debt abroad. The American minister, having received no reply, subsequently stated that the English Government had placed the British war ship Espiègle at the service of the Chilean Government to convey the bar silver to England. Mr. Egan, min. to Chile, to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, No. 183, July 28, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, 148. In October, 1899, the American minister at Caracas, Venezuela, inquired, confidentially, whether an American man-of-war might, if requested, be used for a conference between the President of Venezuela and the leader of the revolution then pending. The Department of State saw no objection to the suggested conference, as there had recently been several precedents for such action. The Secretary of the Navy, accordingly, authorized the commander of the U. S. S. Detroit to permit such a conference, if so requested. Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Act. Sec. of Navy, Oct. 9, 1899, 240 MS. It was stated that the Ecuadorean Government had suspended the Ecuadorean consul-general at New York from the performance of his official functions till he should prove himself innocent of certain charges brought against him in connection with the transfer, during the war between China and Japan, of the Chilean man-of-war Esmeralda to Japan in an Ecuadorean port and under the Ecuadorean flag. Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to the governor of New York, Feb. 5, 1895, 200 MS. Dom. Let. 475. 4. CONDUCT OF PRIVATE PERSONS. § 1290. A claim was sought to be made, on behalf of the owners and crew of the bark Georgiana, against the Spanish Government on account of its alleged illegal proceedings at the Island of Contoy, in 1850. The Georgiana was condemned by the Spanish admiralty court of first instance at that place as lawful prize of war in consequence of H. Doc. 551-vol 7-56 her having been engaged in transporting one of the Lopez expeditions and its munitions, designed for the invasion of Cuba. The Department of State declined to present the claim, saying that if the judgment of the court was erroneous a remedy should have been sought by the owners of the Georgiana through appeal to the court of last resort, where it was to be presumed that the error, if any, would have been corrected. "If it were admissible now to discuss the propriety of its judgment, this Government is not," said the Department of State, "in possession of such information as would enable it to show the condemnation of the vessel to have been unwarranted. It is not sufficient that the owners, and even the master, were ignorant of the destination and purpose of the criminal expedition in which the vessel was employed. The question,' it was said by Judge Betts, delivering the judgment of the district court for the southern district of New York, condemning the schooner Napoleon, 'is as to the innocency or guilt of the vessel, as if the transaction in which she was implicated was one of personal volition on her part." He further remarks that the most distinguished and unblemished reputation on the part of a shipowner will not protect his vessel from confiscation when it is engaged, through untrustworthy agents and without his knowledge, and against his prohibition, in illicit employments, in infractions of revenue and fiscal laws and preeminently in violating the laws of war.' There is nothing to show that this doctrine, of which this Government has availed itself during the late rebellion, was not legitimately applied to the case of the Georgiana." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, March 30, 1869, 80 MS. Dom. See, to a similar effect, Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. King, Feb. 27. See, as to the case of the Susan Loud, which was associated with that of See, further, as to the cases of the Georgiana and Susan Loud and the A citizen of the United States in Bolivia having inquired whether he was at liberty to accept a mission to other countries on behalf of that republic, Mr. Fish said: "A citizen of the United States is at full liberty to accept any employment abroad under a government which is at peace with all others. Bolivia is technically and nominally at war with Spain. Under these circumstances your acceptance of a commission from the government of that Republic, such as the one to which you refer, might be regarded as contrary to the spirit at least of the act of Congress of the 20th of April, 1818. While, therefore, there may be no obligation for you to ask the permission referred to, it is conceived no express sanction to your acceptance of the trust can with propriety be given." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Caldwell, Sept. 4, 1869, MS. Inst. Bolivia, The person to whom this mission was offered was Mr. Caldwell, who had "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 13th instant and to note the inquiries therein contained. "Whether the bank or its officers could be criminally prosecuted under the neutrality laws of the United States because the bank had knowingly made itself a depository of funds contributed by sympathizers in the United States in support of the present Cuban insurrection, is a question as to which opinions may differ, and which can be satisfactorily settled only by the adjudication of the proper court. Should a bank engage in such a transaction, and, as you suggest, publish its acceptance of such a trust to the world, it would be my duty to call upon the Department of Justice to test the question whether or not the proceeding was a crime against the United States. "It might also be my duty to suggest whether a bank holding a United States charter does not abuse its franchises and furnish ground for their forfeiture by acts in aid of hostilities against a nation with which the United States is at peace. I do not anticipate, however, that anything done by your bank or its officers is likely to promote the solution of the interesting legal questions your letter presents. You ask me not merely as to your technical legal liability but also as to your moral obligations, adding 'for we are all too loyal to our own country to seek to overthrow in any sense her laws.' I heartily commend the sentiment of the quotation, and am in a position to say that your moral duty in the premises does not admit of the least question. It has been expounded by no less an authority than the Supreme Court of the United States in the following language: "The intercourse of this country with foreign nations, and its policy in regard to them, are placed by the Constitution of the United States in the hands of the Government, and its decisions upon these subjects are obligatory upon every citizen of the Union. He is bound to be at war with the nation against which the war-making power has declared war, and equally bound to commit no act of hostility against a nation with which the Government is in amity and friendship. "This principle is universally acknowledged by the laws of nations. It lies at the foundation of all government, as there could be no social order or peaceful relations between the citizens of differ |