Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

the 16th of November, 1865, from which the following passage is extracted:

It is believed to be a received principle of public law that the subjects of foreign powers domiciled in a country in a state of war are not entitled to greater privileges or immunities than the other inhabitants of the insurrectionary district. If for a supposed purpose of the war one of the belligerents thinks proper to destroy neutral property, the other can not legally be regarded as accountable therefor. By voluntarily remaining in a country in a state of civil war they must be held to have been willing to accept the risks as well as the advantages of that domicile. The same rule seems to be applicable to the property of neutrals, whether that of individuals or of governments, in a belligerent country. It must be held to be liable to the fortunes of war. In this conclusion the undersigned is happy in being able to refer the Austrian Government to many precedents of recent date, one of which is a note of Prince Schwartsenberg of the 14th of April, 1850, in answer to claims put forward on behalf of British subjects who were represented to have suffered in their persons and property in the course of an insurrection in Naples and Tuscany. (Wharton, vol. 2, p. 577).

The same doctrine is laid down by another distinguished Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, in a letter to Mr. O'Connor of the 29th of October, 1885, wherein he says:

However severe may have been the claimant's injuries, it must be recollected that like injuries are committed in most cases where towns are sacked, and that aliens resident in such towns are subject to the same losses as are citizens. It has never been held, however, that aliens have for such injuries a claim on the belligerents by whom they are inflicted. On the contrary, the authorities lay down the general principle that neutral property in belligerent territory shares the liability of property belonging to the subjects of the state. (Wharton, vol. 2, p. 581.)

Again, we find Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854 using similar language, as follows:

The undersigned is not aware that the principle that foreigners domiciled in a belligerent country must share with the citizens of the country in the fortunes of war has ever been seriously controverted or departed from in practice.

And this passage is quoted with approval in a letter from the AttorneyGeneral of the United States to the Secretary of State. (Wharton, vol. 2, p. 586.)

These citations might be largely added to, but those already made are sufficient to show that the rule that aliens share the fortunes of citizens in case of loss by military force or by the irregular acts of soldiers in a civil war is firmly established.

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 the 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.

I concur.

DON M. DICKINSON.

APRIL 26, 1902.

HENRY STRONG, President.

I concur in your respect-worthy opinion.

JOSÉ ROSA PACAS.

APRIL 26, 1902.

IN ABSENCE OF TREATY STIPULATIONS, LAW OF SALVADOR GOVERNS, WHERE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, ETC.

No. 665.]

Mr. Merry to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
San José, January 4, 1902.

SIR: I am informed by Consul-General Jenkins at San Salvador that he has received from the Department of State a volume entitled "Compilations of Treaties in Force, 1899." He notes on page 547 therein that the Government of Salvador has given notice that the extradition treaty with the United States will terminate in 1904. On page 550 it is stated that the "treaty of amity, commerce, and consular privileges," ratified by the United States Senate on March 31, 1871, has been abrogated on May 30, 1893. The consul-general follows these statements with the question if, in the absence of the treaty last named, he shall be governed by Salvador laws. I have not deemed it wise to answer this question affirmatively, although it appears the sequence. I have suggested that Mr. Jenkins proceed in all consular duties precisely as if the treaty were still in operation and place upon the Salvador officials the responsibility of claiming the contrary. But meanwhile I respectfully suggest that the matter is worthy of the attention of the Department of State, unless, indeed, it has already received or is receiving due consideration. It is obvious that my instruction to Consul-General Jenkins is a temporary expedient which may become inoperative at any time, and if the Department has any suggestions to make in that connection I shall be pleased to receive and act upon them to the best of my ability.

* * *

With assurances, etc.,

No. 446.]

WILLIAM LAWRENCE MERRY.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Merry.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 22, 1902.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 665, of the 4th instant, stating that the consul-general at Salvador has asked you if, in view of the abrogation on May 30, 1893, of the treaty of amity, commerce, and consular privileges between the United States

and Salvador, he should be governed by the laws of Salvador. You report that you have suggested to the consul-general that he proceed in all consular duties precisely as if the treaty were still in force, and that he place upon the Salvadorean officials the responsibility of claiming the contrary.

You submit the matter to the Department's attention.

Notice of the termination of the treaty of amity, commerce, and consular privileges was given in a note of May 30, 1892, from Señor Gallegos, minister of foreign affairs of Salvador, to take effect one year from that date. Acknowledgment of the notice of termination having been duly made by the United States, the treaty terminated May 30, 1893. (See Foreign Relations, 1892, pp. 44, 45.)

In the absence of treaty stipulations, the law of Salvador would govern where it is not inconsistent with international law or usage or the principles of natural right and justice.

Your suggestion to Consul-General Jenkins was therefore erroneous. I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

TREATY BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICAN STATES PROVIDING FOR THE ARBITRATION OF DIFFERENCES.

Mr. Merry to Mr. Hay.

No. 686.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
San José, February 9, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to forward herewith printed copy and translation of the treaty entered into by the executives of the republics of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, at Corinto, on January 20, 1902, relating to obligatory arbitration, etc. I am informed by President Iglesias, who has just arrived here, that the president of Guatemala has also agreed to sign it and that a fifth copy will be sent him for that purpose. If this convention is duly ratified by the legislative branches of the respective Governments, of which I have no doubt, it will tend to the peace of Central America.

With assurances, etc.,

WILLIAM LAWRENCE MERRY.

[Inciosure. From El Comercio, Managua, Nicaragua, January 30, 1902.-Translation.]

Central American treaty of peace.

The Governments of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, desirous of contributing by all the means in their power to the maintenance of the peace and good harmony that exists and should exist among them, have agreed to celebrate a convention of peace and obligatory arbitration, and to that effect have named as their respective plenipotentiaries:

The Government of Nicaragua, his excellency Señor Doctor Don Fernando Sanchez, minister of foreign relations;

The Government of Salvador, his excellency Señor Doctor Don Salvador Rodriguez, subsecretary of foreign relations;

The Government of Honduras, his excellency Señor Doctor Don Cesar Bonilla, minister of foreign relations;

The Government of Costa Rica, his excellency Señor Don Leonidas Pacheco, minister of foreign relations;

FR 1902, PT 1- -56

Who, after having presented their credentials and the same being found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following covenant:

ARTICLE 1. It is declared that the present convention has for object the incorporation in form of public treaty the conclusions to which have arrived their excellencies, the Presidents, General Don J. Santos Zelaya, General Don Tomas Regalado, General Don Terencio Sierra, and Don Rafael Iglesias, in the several conferences that have been held in this port with the sole object of maintaining and assuring, by all possible means, the peace of Central America.

ARTICLE 2. The contracting Governments establish the principle of obligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or question that might present itself between the contracting parties, binding themselves in consequence to submit them to a tribunal of Central American arbitrators.

ARTICLE 3. Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator and a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the arbitrators shall be for one year, counting from their acceptance, and then they may be reelected.

ARTICLE 4. The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the disagreement shall not form part of the tribunal for the consideration of the concrete case, this remaining entirely with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the remaining states.

ARTICLE 5. If, through pairing, there should be no decision, the tribunal shall select a third among the substitutes. The third should necessarily adhere to one of the views given out.

ARTICLE 6. As soon as a difficulty or question presents itself between two or more states, their respective Governments shall advise the remaining signers of the present convention.

ARTICLE 7. The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or conjointly, their good offices to the Governments of the states that are in disagreement, even without previous acceptation by them, and though they should not have notified them of the difficulty or question pending.

ARTICLE 8. The friendly offices exhausted without satisfactory result, the government or governments that would have exercised them shall notify the others, declaring at the proper time arbitration proceedings. This declaration shall be communicated with the greatest possible brevity to the member of the tribunal corresponding to the president of same, with the object that within a period not exceeding fifteen days the tribunal that is to know and decide the case comes together. The installation of the tribunal shall be communicated by telegraph to the signing governments, demanding from the contending parties the presentation of their claims within the fifteen days following.

ARTICLE 9. The tribunal shall give its judgment within five days following the expiration of the term which has been spoken of.

ARTICLE 10. The difficulties that may arise through questions of pending limits, or through interpretation, or execution of treaties of limits, shall be submitted by the governments interested to the knowledge and decision of a foreign arbitrator of American nationality.

ARTICLE 11. The Governments of the states in dispute solemnly agree not to execute any hostile act, warlike preparations, or mobilization of forces, with the object of not impeding the arrangement of the difficulty or question through the means established by the present agreement.

ARTICLE 12. The presidency of the arbitration tribunal shall be held alternately for annual periods by each one of the members, following the alphabetical order of the states represented, the first year corresponding to the Costa Rican arbitrator, the second to that of Salvador, and so on.

When, in the event foreseen in article 4, the member filling the presidency of the tribunal shall be prohibited from acting, the temporary presidency for the case in question shall be filled by the arbitrator that may be available according to precedence established in the foregoing paragraph. The tribunal shall be held in the capital of the state to which the arbitrator belongs, who should preside.

ARTICLE 13. The arbitration tribunal shall dictate all those rational dispositions that it considers necessary to fully carry out the high mission which is conferred upon it by this treaty.

ARTICLE 14. With the object of preventing those abuses that might be committed in a state by political emigrants from another against the public peace and tranquillity of this, the contracting Governments agree to send to the frontier those emigrants with respect to whom a petition should be made by the Governments interested. ARTICLE 15. With the object of harmonizing as much as possible the ideas and tendencies of the Governments of the states signing, in all that relates to the maintenance and strengthening the bonds of Central American friendship and good under

standing among them, while for such ends there are not established permanent legations among the contracting States, the nomination of consuls-general is recommended from each one in the other States, who shall have at the same time the character of confidential agents from their respective Governments.

ARTICLE 16. The present convention shall be submitted to the ratification of the respective congresses as soon as possible and once ratified by them all will enter into force thirty days after without the need of exchange.

ARTICLE 17. For the installation of the arbitration tribunal established by this agreement, the 15th of September of the current year, anniversary of the independence of Central America, is named.

ARTICLE 18. In the desire that the present convention may unite all the States of the Central American family, the signing Governments shall invite, jointly or separately, the Government of the Republic of Guatemala to adhere to its stipulations if it shall be possible.

In witness whereof we sign four copies of the same tenor in the port of Corinto, Republic of Nicaragua, the 20th day of January, 1902.

FERNANDO SANCHEZ.
SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ.
CESAR BONILLA.
LEONIDAS PACHECO.

The present treaty being drawn up in accordance with instructions to that effect, the president of the Republic resolves to give it his approval.

National Palace, Managua, January 28, 1902.
SANCHEZ, Minister of Foreign Relations.

ZELAYA.

No. 694.]

*

*

Mr. Merry to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
San José, March 1, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to advise the return to San Salvador on February 16 of President Regalado after a brief visit to Guatemala City. * I am also informed from Managua that the President of Guatemala has joined in the arbitration treaty signed at the Corinto conference on January 20, 1902, by the Presidents of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Salvador, and Honduras, in accordance with his promise to President Iglesias. * * %% The peace of Central America now appears assured in the near future.

With assurances, etc.,

* * *

WILLIAM LAWRENCE MERRY.

PROTECTION OF CUBAN INTERESTS BY UNITED STATES CON

SULAR OFFICIALS.

Mr. Merry to Mr. Hay.

No. 726.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
San José, May 31, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your cablegram" dated May 24.

In accordance therewith I have addressed the Governments named, requesting reply by telegraph from Nicaragua and Salvador. I have pleasure in advising that I have received an official note from the Hon. Leonidas Pacheco, minister of foreign relations of Costa Rica, dated the 28th instant, courteously granting the permission requested. In

a Printed, p. 6.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »