regulations and to the tenor of treaties. Total exemp tion from the local law is maintained only by the subjects of Christian States in countries outside of Christendom.

In most of the countries of Christendom foreigners are protected in their personal rights equally with the inhabitants, and, if wronged, have access to the tribunals for redress, even against injuries by the local Government itself.

Generally, indeed, it may be said, with truth, that the rights of a foreigner are better protected than those of the inhabitants of the country itself; for, in addition to the tribunals of the country where he sojourns, the foreigner has the benefit of the Minister and Consuls of his own country.

Of this favor the foreigner has occasional need, it is true; but it is a privilege susceptible of great abuse, by reason of the extravagant pretensions occasionally made by persons who may suffer any real or apparent wrong, and who are prone to elevate trivial grievances into international questions, to the annoyance of all Governments, and to the peril of the public peace. Most of such subjects of complaint are capable of being settled by the local tribunals, and ought to be. The laws of Rome lie at the foundation of the jurisprudence of all Europe and America alike; the forms of judicial administration are substantially similar in all the States of both Continents; and in many of the cases of alleged wrong to foreigners, and of call for diplomatic intervention, the affair is one which, if at home in his own country, the party

would never dream of withdrawing from the courts of law to make the alleged injury a subject of claim against his Government. And it would greatly tend to the harmony of States and the peace of the world, if treaty stipulations were entered into in order to di minish the extent and restrain the frequency of such private claims on foreign Governments.

In the present condition of things, every Government is forced by private importunity into becoming too often the mere attorney of the claims of its citizens against foreign Governments, in matters where the party aggrieved, if aggrieved, has ample means of redress before the tribunals, and where his grievance does not in the slightest degree affect the honor of his own Government.

These observations apply especially to incidents occurring in times of peace, in which times the acts of willful injury, done by any Government to foreigners sojourning under its treaty protection, are few in number compared with the injuries done to its own subjects or citizens, by any, the best administered Government either of Europe or America. On such occasions, the injured party not seldom exaggerates his case, and, by appeals to the sentiment of citizenship in his own country, seeks to force his Government to interpose in his behalf, so as to obtain for him summary redress by diplomatic means in disregard of the local law.

Meanwhile, in times of war, the resident or sojourn ing foreigner is still more solicitous to be exempt from those ordinary consequences of military operations to

which the inhabitants of the country are subject, and his solicitude is in proportion to the injuries to which he is thus exposed. This fact became conspicuous in the late war between Germany and France, and led to many complaints on the part of British subjects voluntarily residing at the seat of war, which constrained Lord Granville to disabuse them of the idea that armies in the field were to fold their arms and cease to act; lest by chance they might, in the heat of action, disturb the peace of mind, or damage the property or person, of some commorant Englishman.

Incidents of this nature are most of all frequent in. times of civil war, especially in those countries of Spanish America, where militarism prevails, and the regular march of civil institutions is interrupted by military factions headed by generals, in contention with one another, and with the constituted authorities of the Government.

For injuries thus done to its subjects, residing or sojourning in a foreign country, every Government possesses of course the right of war or of reprisals, which, in effect, is the same thing, being the adoption of force as a remedy in lieu of reason: a method of redress for private injuries, which, however common formerly, is contrary to all the prevalent notions of international justice in our day.

Hence, while it is the right and duty of every Government to interpose on proper occasion, through its Ministers or Consuls, or otherwise, on the happening of any injury to its citizens or subjects abroad, yet the recurrence to force as a means of redress is admis

sible only in very rare and exceptional cases of ag gravated wrong committed by the authorities of the foreign Government.

The Government aggrieved in the person of its subject obtains, in many cases, the redress of the particular injury by more or less earnestness of diplomatic remonstrance.

If, however, redress be delayed for some sufficient cause to excuse the delay, and cases of alleged injury are thus accumulated, indemnity for the injuries done will be procured by diplomatic negotiation, if the injured Government be patient and persistent; for, much as there may be of evil in the world, and frequently as nations depart on occasion from the rule of right, yet, after all, the sense of justice among men and the conscience of nations prevail to such extent that, in the end, in most cases, mere appeals to reason suffice to obtain voluntary reparation at the hands of the injuring Government.

Thus, without war, and without threat of war, the United States have obtained, by treaty, payment of indemnity, for injuries to citizens of the United States, from other Governments, such as France, Denmark, the Two Sicilies, Spain, with provision for the distribution of such indemnity, among our citizens, by ourselves, through the agency of commissioners appointed under Act of Congress.

USEFULNESS OF MIXED COMMISSIONS.

In other controversies of this class between the United States and foreign Governments, where agree

N

ment as to the nature of the injury or amount of the indemnity could not be arrived at, mixed commis sions have been established by treaty in numerous instances, to judge and decide the questions at issue between the two contending Governments.

On three several occasions, within a brief period, the United States and Great Britain have had recourse to the international tribunal of a mixed commission for settlement of unliquidated claims of citi zens or subjects of one country against the Government of the other, namely, by the Treaty of July 26, 1853; by that of July 1, 1863; and by the present Treaty of Washington. Other examples of this occur in our earlier history. And the United States have had treaties of a similar character with the Mexican Republic, with the Republic of New Granada, with that of the United States of Colombia, and with the Republics of Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru.

An eminent French publicist, M. Pradier Fodéré, observes:

"L'arbitrage, très-usité dans le moyen-âge, a été presque entièrement négligé dans les temps modernes;. les exemples d'arbitrage offerts et acceptés sont devenus de plus en plus rares, par l'expérience des inconvénients qui semblent être presque inséparables de ce moyen, ordinairement insuffisant par le défaut d'un pouvoir sanctionnateur. Lorsque les grandes puissances constituent un tribunal arbitral, ce n'est ordinairement que pour des objets d'intérêt secondaire."

As to the absence of any power to compel observance of the award of an international tribunal, it may