you from three Cuban landowners, American citizens, and residents of Sancti Spiritus, making inquiries concerning the protection of their property from seizure or destruction by insurgents. In particular the writers state that they have learned that the insurgents have forbidden the removal of cattle from the farms, and ask if they have the right to apply to the Spanish authorities for the protection of their property, in conducting their cattle to the nearest market, and, in case of refusal, under what circumstances and in what form they can make protest for damages.

It is a generally accepted principle of international law that a sovereign government is not ordinarily responsible to alien residents for injuries that they may receive within its territories from insurgents whose conduct it can not control. Within the limits of usual effective control law-abiding residents have a right to be protected in the ordinary affairs of life and intercourse, subject, of course, to military necessities, should their property be situated within the zone of active operations. The Spanish authorities are reported to be using strenuous endeavors to prevent the class of spoliations which the writers apprehend, and notification of any particularly apprehended danger from the insurgents would probably be followed by the adoption of special safeguards by the authorities. In the event, however, of injury, a claim would necessarily have to be founded upon averment and reasonable proof that the responsible officers of the Spanish Government, being in a position to prevent such injury, have failed to use due diligence to do so.

It is impossible to give more precise instructions upon the hypothetical case presented. Should injury be actually suffered, and the facts be fully represented, this department would be in a position to determine its duty, if anything, in the premises.

I am, etc.,

EDWIN F. UHL,
Acting Secretary.

(Ibid., 1216.)

The claim of Rosa Gelbtrunk.

In November, 1898, there was a revolution in Salvador and a revolutionary force occupied the city of Sensuntepeque, where a quantity of merchandise of the value (in silver) of $22,000 and upward, belonging to the firm of Gelbtrunk & Co., was stored. There is no dispute as to the value of these goods or as to the fact of their being the property of Gelbtrunk & Co. The soldiers of the revolutionary army possessed themselves of the goodslooted them, in short-and sold, appropriated, or destroyed them. It does not appear that this was done in carrying out the orders of any officer in authority or as an act of military necessity, but,

so far as it appears, it was an act of lawless violence on the part of the soldiery. The firm of Maurice Gelbtrunk & Co. having assigned their claim against the Republic of Salvador to the present claimant, Rosa Gelbtrunk, the wife of Isidore Gelbtrunk, Mrs. Gelbtrunk (who, following the status as regards nationality of her husband, was also an American citizen) appealed to the Government of the United States to intervene on her behalf in claiming indemnity for the property lost. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 877.)

In deciding on this case, referred to arbitration, the arbitrators, Henry Strong, chief justice of the Dominion of Canada, Don M. Dickinson, of Michigan, David Castro, chief justice of Salvador, were unanimous. The opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Strong stated:

The principle which I hold to be applicable to the present case may be thus stated: A citizen or subject of one nation who, in the pursuit of commercial enterprise, carries on trade within the territory and under the protection of the sovereignty of a nation other than his own is to be considered as having cast in his lot with the subjects or citizens of the State in which he resides and carries on business. Whilst on the one hand he enjoys the protection of that State, so far as the police regulations and other advantages are concerned, on the other hand he becomes liable to the political vicissitudes of the country in which he thus has a commercial domicile in the same manner as the subjects or citizens of that State are liable to the same. The State to which he owes national allegiance has no right to claim for him as against the nation in which he is resident any other or different treatment in case of loss by war-either foreign or civil-revolution, insurrection, or other internal disturbance caused by organized military force or by soldiers, than that which the latter country metes out to its own subjects or citizens.

This I conceive to be now the well-established doctrine of international law. The authorities on which it has been so established consist of the writings of publicists and diplomats, the decisions of arbitrators-especially those of mixed commissions and the text of writers on international law.

It is, however, not to be assumed that this rule would apply in a case of mob violence which might. if due diligence had been used, have been prevented by civil authorities alone or by such authorities aided by an available military force. In such a case of spoliation by a mob, especially where the disorder has arisen in hostility to foreigners, a different rule may prevail. It would, however, be irrelevant to the present case now to discuss such a question. It therefore appears that all we have to do now is

to inquire whether citizens of the United States, in the matter of losses incurred by military force or by irregular acts of the soldiery in the revolution of November, 1898, in Salvador, were treated less favorably or otherwise than the citizens of Salvador.

To this inquiry there can be but one answer: They were not in any way discriminated against, for the legislature of the Republic in providing indemnity for such losses applied the same as well to foreigners as to the citizens of Salvador.

For these reasons I am of opinion that we have no alternative but to reject this claim. (Ibid., pp. 877, 878.)

Bolivia, 1900.-In December, 1900, a body of revolutionists, organized in opposition to the Bolivian Government, seized goods on board the steamship Labrea, which was sailing with goods for the Bolivian Government to places on the river Acre. The insurance company was sued in order to recover the insurance on these goods, which in the policy were "warranted free of capture, seizure, and detention piracy excepted." The court decided in 1909 that as the goods were not seized for private but in "furtherance of a political adventure" that the act was not piratical. (Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Assurance Co. (Ltd.), Law Reports, 1909, 1 Kings Bench, p. 785.)

* * *

Haiti, 1902.-A brief statement of action in time of insurrection in a case which involved a somewhat extended correspondence and considerable exercise of discretion on the part of the naval officer in command is as follows:

EMBASSY OF FRANCE, Manchester, Mass., August 7, 1902.

I received from the manager of the French Cable Co. at New York a telegram saying that the Haitian vessel Crête à Pierrot intends to cut the cables of the company. The superintendent of

the station of the French Cable Co. at Port au Prince has informed the commander of the American cruiser Machias of this danger.

Commander McCrea seems to be disposed to protect the cable which lands in Haiti, but he would be glad to receive instructions from the Navy Department at Washington on the subject. I should be very grateful to you, if you see no objection, if you would request the Navy Department to send at once, by cable, to the commander of the Machias the necessary instructions to

protect the French cable in Haiti from any attempt at destruction, all nations being equally interested in the working of this cable.

PIERRE DE MARGERIE,

Chargé d'Affaires.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 11, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that your telegram of the 7th instant was at once sent to the Navy Department, and that that department has instructed the commanding officer of the Machias to act in his discretion to prevent any destructive or injurious act against foreign interests or property in Haiti not in the line of hostilities.

Accept, etc.,

(U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 417.)

ALVEY A. ADEE,

Acting Secretary.

Colombia, 1902.-In a telegram from Acting Secretary of State in 1902 to the United States representative in Colombia it was said:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 27, 1902.

Replying to Mr. Hart's telegram of August 21, Mr. Adee states that article 8 of the treaty of 1846 stipulates equitable and sufficient indemnification; that the treaty does not stipulate when compensation shall be made, but, according to general principles of international law, private property is subject to seizure only by way of military necessity, and the military commander must cause receipts to be given which will serve owner to obtain indemnification guaranteed by treaty, unless compensation is made at the time of seizure.

(U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 310.)

United States, 1903.-The United States in 1903 rejected certain claims of British subjects for loss of property by insurgent action in the Philippines in 1899. Secretary Hay, in replying to the letter of the British ambassador, says:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 27, 1903.

MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: I have received your personal note of the 31st ultimo, with inclosure, relating to certain claims of British subjects which have been brought to this Government's attention from time to time, and which arose out of the operations during the recent War with Spain.

The department concurs in the expression contained in your note that "not the least of the calamities resulting from a state of war is the loss caused thereby to the subjects or citizens of neutral powers possessing property or engaged in business in the affected area." The losses sustained by His Majesty's subjects mentioned in the memorandum accompanying your note come within the category of cases above described, in which, as you say, “It often happens that the destruction of that property or damage to that business is a matter of military necessity to one of the belligerents.” And such destruction may sometimes be wantonly inflicted by insurgents, which, though equally deplorable, does not create liability on the part of the titular government in the circumstances existing in connection with said claims.

These claims appear to the department to be quite different in legal character from those which arose in behalf of American citizens expelled by the British authorities from South Africa, and for which His Majesty's Government graciously made compensation. However much I might be personally disposed to recommend a compensation in these cases as a matter of grace and favor, as is suggested in your note, I am persuaded that such recommendation to Congress would be fruitless, in view of the adverse report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the mentioned claim of William Hardman, and in view of the further fact that the Government of the United States would probably be reluctant to set a precedent for the making of compensation for the losses of property caused by the action of insurgents beyond the control of the military authorities of the United States, and for whose action the latter was not morally culpable. Such a precedent, if set, would doubtless be followed by the presentation of numerous other large claims for compensation for property destroyed by acts of insurgents.

The claim of Mr. J. Walter Higgin, now presented for the first time, is of the same essential legal character as those which have already been rejected by the department.

I am, etc.,

(U. S. Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 482.)

JOHN HAY.

Disturbances in Santo Domingo, 1905.-In the latter part of the year 1905 there was an active opposition to the established Government of Santo Domingo. The authorities of Santo Domingo, fearing that the revolutionists might be successful to such an extent that they would attack the customhouse, requested the American minister to ask that a ship of war be sent. Accordingly the American minister cabled for the warship and received reply: