attack against the peaceable and law-abiding citizens of the community. The Chinese Minister, in asking that the federal government should extend protection to the Chinese at Denver, and to see that those guilty of the crime should be arrested and punished, also stated that "it would seem to be just that the owners of property wantonly destroyed shall in some way be compensated for their losses.

§ 512. Views of Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State.-Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, while assuring the Chinese Minister that the protection of the government would be fully given to Chinese residents in the country to the same extent as it is afforded to her own citizens, declared: "As to the arrest and punishment of the guilty persons who composed the mob at Denver, I need only remind you that the powers of direct intervention on the part of this Government are limited by the Constitution of the United States. Under the limitations of that instrument, the Government of the Federal Union cannot interfere in regard to the administration or execution of the municipal laws of a State of the Union, except under circumstances expressly provided for in the Constitution. Such instances are confined to the case of a State whose power is found inadequate to the enforcement of its municipal laws and the maintenance of its sovereign authority; and even then the Federal authority can only be brought into operation in the particular state in response to a formal request from the proper political authority of the State. It will thus be perceived that so far as the arrest and punishment of the guilty parties may be concerned, it is a matter which in the present aspect of the case belongs exclusively to the government and authorities of the State of Colorado." 45

§ 513. Compensation to owners of property.-Mr. Evarts declared, that frequently lawless persons banded together and made. up a force sufficient in power and numerical strength to defy temporarily the power of the local authorities, and stated that such incidents are peculiar to no country. In the case under

* For. Rel. 1881, 319. Mr. Evarts also called attention to the fact that the first care of the authorities and

citizens of Denver was the protection and safety of the Chinese residents.

consideration, it appeared, he said, that the local authorities brought into requisition all the means at their command for the suppression of the mob, and that these means proved so effective that within a short time regular and lawful authority had been restored and the mob subdued. Referring to the demand for compensation, we can best give his views in his own language: "Under circumstances of this nature when the Government has put forth every legitimate effort to suppress a mob that threatens or attacks alike the safety and security of its own citizens and the foreign residents within its borders, I know of no principle of national obligation, and there certainly is none arising from treaty stipulation which renders it incumbent on the Government of the United States to make indemnity to the Chinese residents of Denver, who in common with citizens of the United States, at the time residents in that city, suffered losses from the operations of the mob. Whatever remedies may be afforded to the citizens of Colorado or to the citizens of the United States from other States of the Union resident in Colorado for losses resulting from that occurrence, are equally open to the Chinese residents of Denver who may have suffered from the lawlessness of the mob. This is all that the principles of international law and the usages of national comity demand."

Mr. Evarts said that the view just expressed proceeded upon the proposition that Chinese residents were to receive the same measure of protection and vindication under judicial and political administration of their rights as citizens of this country. and hence it was not necessary to discuss the extent or true meaning of the treaty obligations on the part of the Government to Chinese residents.46

§ 514. Attack on Chinese at Rock Springs.-A mob, numbering approximately one hundred and fifty persons, attacked, on

46 For. Rel. 1881, 319. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in a letter addressed on June 1, 1885, to Mr. West, British Minister, stated the proposition that when the courts of justice are open to a foreigner in a State, the Federal Executor will not take cognizance of his complaint,

was maintained by Mr. Evarts and by Mr. Blaine on December 30th, 1880, and March 25, 1881, when declining to accept for the Executive jurisdiction over a claim for damages to certain Chinese inflicted by a mob in Colorado in November, 1880." For. Rel. 1885, 150, 456.

September 2, 1885, the Chinese settlement at Rock Springs, Wyoming, ordered them to leave their homes, and before they were given an opportunity to do so opened fire upon them, killed twenty-eight and wounded fifteen more or less severely. Some of these were shot while they were still in their houses, or while they were attempting to run away from the rioters, who set fire to the houses, and in consequence the entire Chinese village was burned to the ground. The amount of property destroyed or appropriated by the rioters was placed at $147,748.74. United States troops were sent to the scene after the massacre, thus probably preventing a further loss of life and property. The Chinese Minister, in his letter of complaint, stated that the attack was unprovoked; that the civil authorities did not attempt to prevent or suppress the riot; that the inquest held by them was a burlesque; and that there was no probability that any of the offenders would ever be brought to punishment by the local authorities. He asked for the punishment of the guilty, indemnity for all losses and injuries sustained, and the adoption of suitable measures for the protection from similar attacks of Chinese residing in Wyoming and elsewhere in the United States.

§ 515. Case of territory.-He referred to the doubts expressed by Mr. Evarts and Mr. Blaine as to the obligation of the United States to make pecuniary indemnity to the Chinese sufferers by the mob at Denver, and claimed that the reasons advanced why the federal government should not be liable when the acts occurred within a state did not apply in the case of a territory, but declared that there was a broader view, and called attention to the fact that in 1858 the Chinese provincial and local authorities had, upon the intervention of the diplomatic and consular representatives of the United States, indemnified American citizens in many cases for losses occasioned by riots and violence, and that in that year a convention was agreed upon under which, "in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens," the Chinese government paid over to the United States the sum of $735,258.97, which, it afterward transpired, was greater than the amount of the claims, and the balance unexpended was returned to China by the United States. This settlement included claims for losses sustained by mob violence, robbery and other lawless acts of individual Chinese subjects.

§ 516. American demands on China.-The Chinese Minister also adverted to the fact that since this settlement, the American diplomatic and consular representatives, acting under their instructions, had constantly and uniformly intervened with the Chinese Imperial and local authorities in all cases, coming to their notice, of losses or injuries suffered by American citizens from mob violence, and that the Chinese authorities were requested to punish the offenders and also to make proper indemnity to the American citizens for all their losses. The Chinese Government. he said, had in such cases, either acting directly, or through the local authorities, paid all losses caused by the burning or destruction of houses by mobs, and in some cases had compelled the local authorities to rebuild or repair the houses injured or destroyed. His government had also, he continued, made indemnity for petty thefts where those guilty were not known or could not be arrested, and had, in many other cases, caused the return of money or the payment of indemnity. He also referred to the action taken by the United States in the case of the riots at New Orleans and Key West in 1850, when Congress authorized the indemnification of Spanish subjects for losses sustained, and, while he admitted that this was done as a voluntary act of goodwill, he claimed that it went to show the existence of high principles of equity and national comity which rose above the narrow limits of statutory law and which controlled the actions of nations; and suggested that if in the past a way had been found by which the obstructions referred to by Secretaries Evarts and Blaine had been overcome as to the subjects of other nations, he did not doubt that a method equally efficacious would be devised for the relief of the subjects of China.47

For. Rel. 1886, 101. He cited instances where reparation had been made, in one of which the United States government had sent its consuls and warships to demand the trial of rioters where a single American had suffered loss amounting to less than five hundred dollars, and had required the punishment of the guilty in the presence of the representatives of the American government, and the giving of bonds

by the rioters to insure the future security of American citizens. To secure the return of sums as small as seventy-three dollars stolen from American citizens, the Minister plenipotentiary of the United States had intervened with the imperial government, and representatives of our government had asked for the destruction of points in the interior districts which were apt to incite mob violence; the destruction

§ 517. Views of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, denied emphatically all liability to indemnify individuals of any race or country for loss growing out of public law, and he declared, with equal emphasis, "that just and ample opportunity is given to all who suffer wrong and seek reparation through the channels of justice as conducted by the judicial branch of our Government." "The system of government," he said, "prevailing in the United States and known to China creates several departments, and where an act has not been committed under official authority, in pursuance of governmental orders, the question of reparation for losses to individuals must be determined by the judicial branch." He added that while all liability was disclaimed, and solely from a senti ment of generosity, it might reasonably be a subject for the benevolent consideration of Congress, with the distinct understanding that no precedent should be created to grant pecuniary aid to the sufferers to extent of the value of the property of which they were deprived.48

§ 518. Incident devoid of national character.-Mr. Bayard said, that on neither side was there any representative of the government of China, or of the United States or of the territory of Wyoming, and therefore the incident was devoid of both official and national character. He referred to the attempt of the Chinese Minister to show by argument and analogy that there rested upon the United States a singular and exceptional obligation toward China reciprocal with the contractual obligations of China with respect to citizens of the United States resorting thither, and stated that before weighing this ad hominem argument, it was necessary to know where the conventional argument actually places us, and proceeded:

"The several treaties of 1844, 1858, 1868, and 1880 are acts in pari materia, and no subsequent one of them abrogates those

of block type and the punishment of those having it in possession. These acts of intervention, he said, bad been independent of any treaty stipulations to that effect, and that it could not be believed in so doing that the United States had required of China what it would not expect

from a European or American state under the rules of the equitable code regulating the intercourse of civilized nations.

48 For Rel. 1886, 158; H. Ex. Doc. 102, 49 Cong. 1 Sess.; Moore's Int. Law Dig. 833.