§ 522. President Cleveland's special message.-President Cleveland, in a special message on March 2, 1886, transmitted to Congress the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Chinese Minister, and asked that body, in its high discre the United States in pardoning certain American citizens who had participated in a hostile invasion of Cuba, and had incurred the condemnation of the authorities of that country. Recognizing the merciful action of the Queen of Spain in this regard, and as a responsive act of generosity and friendship tending toward good relationship, the President, while expressly denying the principle of national liability, recommended to Congress the appropriation of certain moneys to be paid to private individuals on account of the damages caused by riots at New Orleans and Key West, and to the Spanish consul at New Orleans a special indemnity as an official of Spain. "In one thing, however, the Spanish riots of 1850 and the Rock Springs massacre of 1885 are simi lar. Both grew out of alien animosities transplanted to our shores. . . . . Put this has no bearing on the question of the indemnity accorded to Spain, which was, as you indeed candidly admit in your note, 'a voluntary act of goodwill above and beyond the strict authorization of domestic law,' and, I may add, of international law also. "A measure of international obligation rests on the United States under the third article of the treaty of 1880, which, in the event that Chinese laborers or others in the United States, 'meet with ill-treatment at the hands of other persons,' requires the Government of United States to 'exert all its power' to devise measures for their protec the tion and to secure to them the same 'rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.' "That the power of the National Government is promptly and efficiently exercised whenever occasion unhappily arises therefor you have justly acknowledged, and it has been abundantly shown. The conditions under which this power may be applied are not always clear and are sometimes very difficult. Causes growing out of the peculiar characteristics and habits of the Chinese immigrants have induced them to segregate themselves from the rest of the residents and citizens of the United States, and to refuse to mingle with the mass of population as do the members of other nationalities. As a consequence race prejudice has been more excited against them, notably among aliens of other nationalities, who are more directly brought into competition with the Chinese in those ruder fields of merely manual toil wherein our skilled native labor finds it unprofitable to engage. ... Moreover, the Chinese laborers voluntarily carry this principle of isolation and segregation into remote regions where law and authority are well known to be feeblest, and where conflicts of labor and prejudices of race may be precipitated on the slightest pretext and carried without check to limits beyond those possible where the powers of law may be better organized. tion, to direct the bounty of the government "in aid of innocent and peaceful strangers whose maltreatment has brought discredit upon the country; with the distinct understanding that such ac "No measures can be devised to meet the problem which do not take this state of things into account, nor can they be effective if they do not contemplate the exercise of authority where it is competent to afford protection, for these measures have only for their object to secure to the Chinese the same rights as other foreigners of the most favored nation enjoy, not superior or special rights. For Chinese labor is not alone repugnant to the local communities; from many quarters of the land comes the same cry-the conflict of different alien laborers and the oppression of the weaker by the stronger. There can and should be no discrimination in applying punitive measures to all infractions of law. And so, too, with preventive measures. What will protect a Hungarian or Italian contract laborer in Pennsylvania or a Swedish non-union' man in Ohio is equally applicable to a Chinaman on the Pacific Coast. "Reverting, however, to your appeal of November 30, which I understand to be a direct application to the sense of equity and justice of the United States for relief for the unfortunate victims of the carnage and excesses of the mob at Rock Springs, I am compelled to state most distinctly that I should fail in my duty as representing the well-founded principles upon which rests the relation of this Government to its citizens, as well as to those who are not its citizens and yet are permitted to come and go freely within its jurisdiction, did I not deny emphatically all liability to indemnify individuals, of whatever race or country, for loss growing out of violations of our public law; and declare 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. "Yet I am frank to say that the circumstances of the case now under consideration contain features which I am disposed to believe may induce the President to recommend to the Congress, not as under obligation of treaty or principle or international law, but solely from a sentiment of generosity and pity to an innocent and unfortunate body of men, subjects of a friendly power, who, being peaceably employed within our jurisdiction, were so shockingly outraged; tuat in view of the gross and shameful failure of the police authorities at Rock Springs, in Wyoming Territory, to keep the peace, or even to attempt to keep the peace, or to make proper efforts to uphold the law, or punish the criminals, or make compensation for the loss of property pillaged or destroyed, it may reasonably be a subject for the benevolent consideration of Congress whether, with the distinct understanding that no precedent is thereby created, or liability for want of proper enforcement of police jurisdiction in the Territories, they will not, ex gratia grant pecuniary relief to the sufferers in the case now before us to the extent of the value of the property of which they were so outrageously deprived, to the grave discredit of republican institutions. For. Rel. 1886, 158; H. Ex. Doc. 102, 49 Cong. 1 Sess. tion is no wise to be held as a precedent, is wholly gratuitous, and is resorted to in a spirit of pure generosity toward those who are otherwise helpless." Congress, without making in the act any question of liability, appropriated $147,748.47 to be paid to the Chinese government for the losses sustained, to be distributed among the sufferers and their legal representatives, in the discretion of the Chinese government.52 The Chinese legation subsequently returned $480.75, which sum represented duplicated claims of losses.53 § 523. Views of Senator Edmunds.-When this bill appropriating money for the relief of Chinese residents was before the Senate, the views expressed by Mr. Bayard as to the nonliability of the government for these outrages were not universally concurred in. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 30 to 10, and Senator Edmunds, who voted with the majority, contended that between nations there can be negligence on the part of governments, and said: "One nation as between itself and another is not bound by the internal autonomy of that state, but it looks to the body of the nation to carry out its obligations, and if they have not the judicial means to do it, for one reason or another, the nation that is injured is not bound by the failure of the nation whose people committed the injury." 54 § 524. Other allowances for injuries to Chinese residents.-In addition to the losses suffered at Rock Springs, injuries and losses had been inflicted on Chinese residents in the territories of Washington, Montana, Alaska and the state of California, and by article V of the immigration treaty between the United States and China, which was signed at Washington, March 12, 1888, the sum of $276,619.75 was agreed to be paid to the Chinese Minister at Washington by the United States as full indemnity for the losses so inflicted. This treaty, however, was never ratified, but Congress provided by the act of October 19, 1888, for the payment of the sum mentioned in the treaty as full indemnity for all losses and injuries sustained by Chinese subjects within the United States, stat 52 Act of February 24, 1887, 24 Stats. 418; Message of President Cleveland, March 2, 1886, H. Ex. Doc. 102, 49 Cong. 1 Sess. Treaties-33 53 For. Rel. 1887, 243, 244. 5186. Cong. Record, vol. 17, pt. 5, p. ing that it was done "out of humane consideration and without reference to the question of liability therefor." 55 § 525. Explanation of treaty.-Mr. Bayard, in his report to the President in which he explained the terms of the treaty, stated that the liability of the government was not to be admitted, as the article of the treaty referred to recited, yet conceded that "it is competent for this Government, in humane consideration of those occurrences, so discreditable to the community, in which they have taken place, and outside of the punitive powers of the National Government, to make voluntary and generous provisions for those, who have been made the innocent victims of lawless violence within our borders, and to that end, following the dictates of humanity, and, it may be added, the example of the Chinese Government in sundry cases, where American citizens who were the subjects of mob violence in China, have been indemnified by the Government, the present treaty provides for the payment of a sum of money. He stated, also, that this payment would reflect beneficially upon the welfare of American residents in China, and in a measure would remove the reproach to our civilization caused by the crimes to which he referred.56 Article V of the proposed treaty, which, as we have said, was not ratified by the Senate, declared that the money to be paid by the United States was "without reference to the question of liability therefor, which as a legal obligation it denies. 9957 § 526. Mafia riots and lynching at New Orleans.—The chief of police of New Orleans, D. C. Hennessy, was murdered, it was supposed, through the action of a secret Italian society known as the Mafia. On March 14, 1891, eleven Italians charged with his murder were killed by a mob, and the Italian consul reported the affair immediately to the Italian Minister at Washington. The latter was instructed by the Italian Minister of Foreign Af fairs to request protection for the Italians in New Orleans and to demand the punishment of those concerned in the attack. The Italian Minister, in pursuance of these instructions, brought the 55 25 Stats. 565, 566; For. Rel. 1889, 116-118. 56 For. Rel. 1888, I, 396-400; Id. 359-395; S. Ex. Doc. 272, 50 Cong. 1 Sess.; 25 U. S. Stats. 565, 566; For. Rel. 1889, 116-118; 6 Moore's Law Dig., sec. 1025. 57 For. Rel. 1881, I, 396-400. affair to the attention of the Secretary of State, Mr. Blaine, who telegraphed to the governor of Louisiana that the treaty between the United States and Italy guaranteed to the subjects of the latter country constant protection and security for their persons and property, and that the President hoped the governor would co-operate with him in maintaining the obligations of the United States toward the Italian subjects in his state, to the end that further violence might be prevented. § 527. Demands of the Italian government.-The Italian government asked not only the official assurance by the United States that the guilty parties should be brought to trial, but also that it should be recognized in principle that an indemnity was due to the relatives of the victims. As our government refused to make any promise of reparation, Italy recalled its Minister. Considerable correspondence passed between the two governments and some misunderstanding arose as to the meaning of certain language used by our government as conveying an admission that an indemnity was due, and finally, to correct any impression to that effect, Mr. Blaine stated that the question whether there was or was not a violation of the treaty was a question upon which the President, with sufficient facts before him, had taken ample time for decision, and declared that the position taken by our government was that if it should appear that "among those killed by the mob at New Orleans there were some Italian subjects who were resident or domiciled in that city, agreeably to our treaty with Italy, and not in violation of our immigration laws and who were abiding in the peace of the United States and obeying the laws thereof and of the State of Louisiana, and that the public officers charged with the duty of protecting life and property in that city connived at the work of the mob, or, upon proper notice or information of the threatened danger, failed to take any steps for the preservation of the public peace and afterward to bring the guilty to trial, the President would, under such circumstances, feel that a case was established that should be submitted to the consideration of Congress, with a view to the relief of the families of the Italian subjects who had lost their lives by lawless violence." 58 58 For. Rel. 1891, 665-667, 671, 672, 674, 712. |