of contesting factions and their evanescent authority; and the protecting arm of the United States will be interposed for their security. By this it is not intended to include cases of deliberate intermeddling in local conflicts, but merely to rescue our citizens who may be caught in the eddies of local sanguinary émeutes. The defects and misfortunes of the Republic of Haiti must not be visited upon the citizens of a friendly country, who have contributed in no way to the unhappy condition of affairs with which they find themselves unexpectedly confronted. * In view, * therefore, of what I have herein fully laid before you I desire to express, under the direction of the President, his confident expectation that without delay the steamer Haytien Republic will be released by the authorities at Port au Prince and returned to the custody of her officers and crew, and that investigation may be at once commenced to ascertain the injuries inflicted upon the owners of the vessel, and also upon the captain, officers, and crew in the course of this illegal and most regrettable interference with their rights. (Ibid., p. 175.) There was much further correspondence and considerable delay. At length, on December 20, 1888, Rear Admiral Luce sent to the minister of the United States in Haiti the following communication: U. S. FLAGSHIP "GALENA," Port au Prince, Haiti, December 20, 1888. SIR: The President of the United States having decided that the seizure and detention of the American steamer Haytien Republic by the Haitian authorities "have from the beginning been irregular and wrongful," I am here to cooperate with you in obtaining her prompt restoration. As my stay at Port au Prince is very limited, I must ask that you will, at the earliest practicable moment, represent to the Haitian authorities the necessity of the immediate withdrawal of the guard from the steamer Haytien Republic, in order to avoid the possibility of a collision between it and the officer I shall shortly send to her. The guard having been withdrawn, the formalities attending the transfer of the vessel to her owners or their agents can readily be arranged. To prevent misunderstanding and the untoward results that might follow, I beg you will inform the authorities that an officer of this command will be ready to receive the Haytien Republic at 3 o'clock this p. m., by which time it is hoped the guard will have been withdrawn. As it is my intention to take the steamer to the anchorage in the outer harbor this afternoon before sunset, I doubt not that the feeling of friendship which has always so happily existed between the two countries will prompt the authorities to render every facility for carrying that intention into execution. Very respectfully, etc., S. B. LUCE, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Commanding JOHN E. W. THOMPSON, United States Minister to Haiti. (Ibid., p. 242.) A letter of December 26, 1888, to the minister, says: DEAR SIR: In our very informal conversation yesterday afternoon with President Légitime and secretary of foreign affairs, Mr. Margron, I noticed that the latter had a totally erroneous impression of the proceedings of the 20th instant in connection with the American steamer Haytien Republic. That vessel was not taken by force, as Mr. Margron seems to think. As this misconception of the whole transaction may be shared by President Légitime and his cabinet, it seems to me that no time should be lost in representing the transaction in its true character. On our arrival here it was only reasonable on our part to suppose that the Haitian Government would accept in good faith the decision of the President of the United States in the case of the steamer and be ready to restore her promptly on that decision being made known. I went in the Yantic to the inner harbor that I might be on the spot myself to see that all due and proper forms should be complied with. In my letter to you of the 20th it was stated that I was here to cooperate with you in obtaining the release of the vessel; and further on I say 66 'to prevent misunderstanding * * * I beg you will inform the authorities that an officer of this command will be ready to receive the Haytien Republic at 3 o'clock, at which time it is hoped the guard will have been withdrawn." Not a soul of the Yantic's crew was allowed to go on board the Haytien Republic until the receipt of Mr. Margron's letter to you giving up the vessel. As the Yantic had scant room to turn, a small line was attached to the cable of the Haytien Republic and another to the Norwegian bark, those two vessels being most convenient for the purpose. This was done to steady the Yantic and keep her from swinging about. The object of taking the Yantic to the inner harbor were twofold-first, that I might be on the spot to complete the arrangements and, secondly, that a ship might be there to tow the Haytien Republic out. This latter duty was saved us through the courtesy of the Haitian authorities, who placed the Grande Riviere at our service for that purpose. It was my particular care to abstain from any hasty action and to receive the vessel at the hands of the Haitian Government in accordance with the terms of the decision arrived at by the President of the United States. This places the affair in a totally different light from that represented by Mr. Margron yesterday, and it is due to all concerned that he should be set right in the matter. Respectfully, (Ibid., p. 263.) S. B. LUCE, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Later the Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of the Navy: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 3, 1889. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 31st ultimo, and of a copy of a communication from Admiral Luce of the 21st ultimo, in which he conveys a clear and conclusive report of his action in executing the duty assigned him of receiving the steamer Haytien Republic from her captors at Port au Prince and restoring her to the possession of her owners or their agents. The vigor, tempered with high and intelligent discretion, which has characterized the action of Admiral Luce in the execution of this national duty to American citizens wrongfully deprived of their property in the turmoil of political disorder in foreign waters is most satisfactory to this department, and it is now hoped that the presence of our national vessels in Haitian waters may soon be rendered unnecessary. I have, etc., The SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. (Ibid., p. 249.) T. F. BAYARD. Brazil, 1894.-In 1894, during the insurrection in Brazil, American commerce in the harbor of Rio de Janeiro was interrupted and lives and property were endangered. Admiral Benham notified the insurgents that he proposed, while not interfering with legitimate military operations, to protect by force, if necessary, American interests. Minister Thompson reported: The insurgents are denied the right to search neutral vessels or to seize any part of their cargoes, even though such cargoes should comprise such articles as would in the case of war between two independent governments come within the class of merchandise defined as contraband of war. The insurgents in their present status would commit an act of piracy by forcibly seizing such merchandise. He adds that to the best of his information all the foreign commanders agree with Admiral Benham and that the effective action of last Monday has restored complete tranquillity, broken the attempted blockade of commerce and trade, and placed everything in even motion. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 117.) To this Secretary Gresham replied, February 1, 1894: Mr. Gresham states that Admiral Benham has acted within his instructions, and that it is therefore hoped that Mr. Thompson, whose telegram is satisfactory, is in accord with the admiral. (Ibid., p. 117.) The letter of Admiral Benham to Admiral da Gama on January 30, 1894, assumes a more extreme position in the second paragraph than that which is now assumed in regard to insurgents. U. S. FLAGSHIP "SAN FRANCISCO " (SECOND RATE), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, January 30, 1894. SIR: In reply to your communication of yesterday, which I had the honor to receive, asking if my action of the 29th "means positive interference in our domestic trouble, or if it only refers to the protection of commerce under the American flag," permit me to say that a careful perusal of the letters which I have had the honor of addressing you would, I think, make this question unnecessary, as they all refer to acts of violence and interference committed by your orders against American vessels, and of my intention to protect these vessels. However, that there may be no misunderstanding, I have to say, that in no case have I interfered in the slightest way with the military operations of either side in the contest now going on, nor is it my intention to do so. That is not my mission. My duty is to protect Americans and American commerce, and this I intend to do to the fullest extent. American vessels must not be interfered with in any way in their movements in going to the wharves or about the harbor; it being understood, however, that they must take the consequences of getting in the line of fire where legitimate hostilities are actually in progress. I am not laying down any new principle of action. My course rests upon well-established principles of international law. There is another point which it may be well to speak of now: Until belligerent rights are accorded you, you have no right to exercise any authority whatever over American ships or property of any kind. You can not search neutral vessels or seize any portion of their cargoes, even though they be within the class which may be clearly defined as contraband of war during hostilities between two independent Governments. The forcible seizure of any such articles by those under your command would be, in your present status, an act of piracy. Regretting that I am forced to speak thus plainly, I have, etc., A. E. K. BENHAM, Commanding United States Naval Force (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 122.) Cuban insurrections.-In 1895 three naturalized citizens of the United States residing in and doing business in Cuba requested information as to the protection of their property. They addressed the following letter to the American consul general at Habana. SANCTI SPIRITUS, June 13, 1895. SIR: We, the undersigned American citizens and property holders in several municipal districts of this island, having received intelligence that the insurgents have forbidden the extraction of cattle from the farms; and, furthermore, seeing through the newspapers the wanton destruction of property throughout the island, with marked tendencies to anarchy, apply to you for information on the following points, viz: Have we the right to apply to the Spanish authorities for such forces as would be required to safely conduct our cattle to the nearest market? Should the Spanish authorities deny our request, what shall we do? In what form are we to protest, and under what circumstances can we make good our claims to damages? We furthermore understand that in certain cases the insurgents have threatened to destroy property unless a certain bounty is paid. What are we to do in case such a threat is made to us? We would be thankful for full information, if possible, through the Department of State, on these subjects, and with much respect, etc., (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1895, JOSE RAFAEL REYES Y GARCIA. ANTONIO M. YzNAGA. EDUARDO ALVAREZ CERICE. Part. II, p. 1215.) The Acting Secretary of State made the following reply: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your dispatch, No. 2517, of the 19th instant, has been received. You therewith forward copy of a letter received by |