for a refusal to interpose. Since the establishment of the Court of Claims, for instance, the Government of the United States remands all claims held abroad, as well as at home, to the action of that court, and declines to accept for its executive department cognizance of matters which by its own system it assigns to the judiciary. "4. When this Department has been appealed to for diplomatic intervention of this class, and this intervention is refused, this refusal is regarded as final unless after-discovered evidence be presented which, under the ordinary rules applied by the courts in motions for a new trial, ought to change the result, or unless fraud be shown in the concoction of the decision." 14 § 483. Redress for injuries-Wheelock's case.-While the United States will not interfere except under peculiar circumstances in the collection of debts or in matters of a purely contractual nature, yet where injuries or outrages have been committed upon American citizens, the United States has in several cases sought redress. An American citizen, John E. Wheelock, was arrested in 1879 in Venezuela by an officer who combined in himself the function of a magistrate and a police constable. The arrest was made upon the complaint of an Italian subject who charged Wheelock with having stolen a sum of money from the former's safe, but when the case came on for hearing before the district court, Wheelock was honorably acquitted, and the judge 14 Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bispham, June 24, 1885, 156 MS. Dom. Let. 88; 6 Moore Int. L. D. 716. In 6 Moore's International Law Digest, 717-740, section 996, will be found a list of instances where diplomacy was held to be the only method of redress. In some of these the United States claimed that it had the right to compel other governments to act in good faith toward American citizens, and insisted that no action should be taken depriving these citizens of their rights except in due course of law, through judicial tribunals, and that Treaties-31 they were entitled to demand a fair examination by an impartial tribunal. It was said that it was impossible to define in advance and with precision, those cases in which the national power might be exercised for the relief of American citizens, and that such intervention would rarely be necessary in countries where well-defined and established laws are in operation, but that where these elements of confidence and security do not exist, the United States is called upon to be more vigilant in watching over its citizens. declared that not even a ground of suspicion existed against him. The constable who made the arrest, it appeared, caused Wheelock's arms to be pinioned and subsequently inflicted upon him various tortures with the object of compelling him to make a confession. After the termination of the case, Wheelock attempted to make a claim against Venezuela for $50,000. The United States refrained, for the time being, from making a formal demand for reparation, but expressed the hope that the sense of justice and equity of the government of Venezuela would lead it to dispose of the question immediately and justly. The Venezuelan government declared that it did not owe any pecuniary liability to Wheelock, and that it had been determined by its judicial officers that there was no ground for continuing proceedings against the constable, nor for ordering his arrest. It stated that a new investigation had been ordered, but thought that even if a crime had been committed, the obligation of Venezuela would be discharged by his condemnation and punishment. It was admitted on the part of the United States that, as a general principle, the obligations of a government were satisfied by the condemnation and punishment of the perpetrator of a crime, but that this principle could not be applied to the proceedings against the Venezuelan constable, for there was every reason to believe that his vindication, the evidence of Wheelock not being adduced, was based solely on his own testimony and that of his subordinates, and in effect there was an absolute denial of justice. § 484. Offer of settlement.-Finally an offer of $6,000 was made by the Venezuelan Minister in settlement of the controversy, the Minister declaring that the payment was made out of pure deference to the people of the United States, and that his government was not to be understood as acknowledging the precedent that any person considering "himself injured or aggrieved by the acts of public functionaries, and still less by those of private individuals of the nation, may disregard the ordinary means of redress-i. e., the competent courts of the countryand have direct recourse to the diplomatic interference of his government as a means of securing reparation." Mr. Bayard stated that "As sovereign States, both the United States and Venezuela have the undoubted right to be satisfied, each for itself, that no wrong done to its citizens by the other passes unredressed; and neither sovereign can rightly be expected to recognize validity as attaching to the municipal enactments of the one which may assume to bar the exercise of the rights given by international law to the other." He intimated that the object which the two governments had in view was to reach a "practical adjustment" of the dispute.15 § 485. Case of William Wilson.-William Wilson, a citizen of the United States, was shot without provocation by the acting governor of Roma, Norberto Arguello, at Bluefields, Nicaragua, in March, 1894. One of the policemen of the acting governor participated in the murder. It appeared from the evidence that Wilson had received severe treatment from his assailants. Promises were made by the superior agents of Nicaragua that the murderer would be arrested and punished, but these promises were not fulfilled. The United States demanded of the government of Nicaragua that it should show its disapproval of the action of its officers; that an immediate trial of Arguello should be had; that Governor Torres, who was his protector, should be discharged from office; that the accomplice of the murderer should receive proper punishment, and that such measures should be taken by the government of Nicaragua as should clearly show its purpose and ability to protect the lives and interests of American citizens living in the reservation, and should manifest its intent to punish crimes committed against citizens of the United States. The arrest of Arguello was effected, but he escaped, and the government of Nicaragua promised that all efforts would be made to secure his recapture. A demand was also made that one Lacayo, a commissioner to the Mosquito reservation, should be removed from office, as he was considered even more deserving of blame than Torres. The Nicaraguan government removed. Torres, but alleged that Lacayo had performed his full duty, and asked that the demand for his removal be withdrawn, and asserted that efforts would be made for the recapture of Arguello, 15 Mr. Soteldo to Mr. Bayard, April 2, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 930; Same to same, June 29, 1885, Id. 933; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Soteldo, July 7, 1885, Id. 934; 6 Moore's Int. L. D., sec. 1001. and that it had been ordered that the policeman who was his accomplice should be placed on trial.16 § 486. Zambrano's case.-The employer of a Mexican named Zambrano charged him with having stolen and pawned a fowlingpiece, and while they were proceeding on their way to the pawnshop they met one McKenzie, a ranger, whom the employer requested to accompany them with a view of the probable arrest of the Mexican. The latter confessed the theft while at the pawnshop but subsequently sought to flee, and when he had proceeded as far as six or eight paces the ranger fired at him three shots, one of which entered his shoulder and another his neck. The wounded man was taken to the prison, where the city physician cared for him. He made a confession at his trial, but received only five days' imprisonment, the court taking into consideration his former misfortune and detention. Allegations were made that the ranger had no lawful right to fire, and that the firing was not necessary to effect his capture, but the grand jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded to return no indictment, and in the ranger's behalf it was asserted that he was partially lame and at considerable disadvantage in attempting to apprehend an escaping prisoner. Complaint was officially made by the Mexican government of the treatment of Zambrano and an indemnity was demanded. The United States, placing its action on the ground that the authorities had failed to try and punish the ranger for the unlawful shooting of the Mexican, offered to the Mexican government an indemnity of $500. This offer the Mexican government accepted.17 § 487. Case of Dr. Shipley.-A member of the Turkish police in August, 1903, at Smyrna, attacked, wounded and robbed Dr. Shipley, a citizen of the United States, who was visiting that place, and during the commission of the outrage another member of the police force looked on but rendered no assistance. The attention of the Turkish government was called to the occurrence, and finally the commandant of the police at Smyrna made a full and formal apology to the American consul and also 16 Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, to Mr. Baker, Minister to Nicaragua, May 12, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 468; For. Rel. 1894, 470, 475-477; 6 17 For. Rel. 1904, 473, 482. to Dr. Shipley, whose claim for the property of which he was robbed was paid in full. Upon this being done, the United States declared the incident to be closed.18 § 488. Grounds for interference.-The United States, in its diplomatic policy, proceeds upon the principle that a nation ought not to interfere in the causes or controversies of its citizens brought before foreign tribunals, except in case of a denial of justice or in a case of palpable injustice.19 As stated by Mr. Jefferson when Secretary of State, "A foreigner, before he applies for extraordinary interposition, should use his best endeavors to obtain the justice he claims from the ordinary tribu-. nals of the country." 20 Or, in the language of Mr. McLane, Secretary of State: "Although a government is bound to protect its citizens, and see that their injuries are redressed, where justice is plainly refused them by a foreign nation, yet this obligation always presupposes a resort, in the first instance, to the ordinary means of defence, or reparation, which are afforded by the laws of the country in which their rights are infringed, to which laws they have voluntarily subjected themselves, by entering within the sphere of their operation, and by which they must consent to abide. It would be an unreasonable and oppressive burden upon the intercourse between nations, that they should be compelled to investigate and determine, in the first instance, every personal offence committed by the citizens of the one against those of the other.'' 21 "In international law, justice may be denied," says Sir Traver Twiss, (1) By the refusal of a nation either to entertain the complaint at all, or to allow the right to be established before its tribunals; (2) or by studied delays and impediments, for which no good reason can be given, and which are in effect equivalent to a refusal; or (3) by an evidently unjust and partial decision.'' 22 18 For. Rel. 1903, 733; 6 Moore Int. L. D. 747. Bradford, 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 53. To the British Minister, April 18, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 88. 21 To Mr. Shain, May 28, 1834, 26 MS. Dom. Let. 263. Law of Nations, pt. 1, p. 36. |