"This Government does not mean to insist that citizens of the United States have an absolute right to display the national flag over their buildings and ships in Nicaragua, and on steamers navigating merely inland waters of that country. But the undersigned is now informed that the American Transit Company has heretofore, with the full consent and approval of the Government of Nicaragua, habitually kept the flag of the United States flying over such buildings and vessels as the buildings and waters aforenamed. It seems to the undersigned that if for any reason the Government of Nicaragua had thought it desirable that this indulgence should cease, comity would require in that case that this should have been made known to the Government of the United States or at least its representatives residing in Nicaragua, to the end that the now offending flag might be voluntarily withdrawn. "The forcible and violent removal of the flag, at so many points, without any previous notice, seems to imply a readiness to offend the just sensibilities of this country, and indeed the allegation is distinctly made that the flag was removed in each case with marked indignity and in a specially insulting manner." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, Sept. 28, 1863, MS. Notes to In April, 1899, certain citizens of the United States at Bluefields, whose merchandise had been seized in the custom-house by order of Colonel Torres, the "executive delegate," on account of their refusal to pay to the Nicaraguan Government the amount of customs duties which they had previously paid to a de facto revolutionary government which held possession of the town from the 3d to the 25th of the preceding February, closed their stores and hoisted over them the American flag. Señor Sanson, the Nicaraguan minister of foreign affairs, orally requested Mr. Merry, the minister of the United States to Nicaragua, to direct that the flags be hauled down. Mr. Merry, on consideration, replied that in his opinion "such a request to American citizens would only increase the ill feeling which has resulted from the seizure of their property," and added: "The occasional use of the national ensign on the domicile or place of business in foreign countries is a courtesy allowed by all civilized governments, especially among the Republics of the American continent. It can not be properly claimed as a right except over legations and consulates, but long usage has sanctioned the practice. If I make no such request, the incident will attract no attention and will be forgotten in a short time." The Department of State instructed Mr. Merry as follows: "The display of the flag, not as denoting extraterritorial jurisdiction, but as indicating the foreign ownership of the property cov ered thereby, has become so far a usage in countries liable to domestic disturbances as to warrant its convenient continuance. In this view of the matter your action in declining to order the owners to remove the flags is approved by the Department." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Merry, min. to Nicaragua, May 8, 1899, See, also, For. Rel. 1899, 571-572. It appearing that there was no penal law in Belgium prohibiting the use of national flags for advertising purposes, and there being no similar Federal statute in the United States, the opinion was expressed that the question of such use of the United States flag in Belgium (in the particular case to advertise "American stables" at Antwerp) could not be "effectively treated either under international law or as a matter of equitable comity between the two Governments; " nor was it deemed advisable to attempt, as the Belgian Government suggested, a civil suit for damages against the persons so using the flag, there being no precedent for such an action. Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, Feb. 7, 1893, In the course of the instruction Mr. Sherman said: "A line of steamers The Belgian constitution of 1831, art. 125, says: "The Belgian nation adopts the colors red, yellow, and black." The Belgian law of July 30, 1831, art. 2, provides: “Whoever shall have maliciously and publicly attacked the obligation of the law (la force obligation des lois), or shall have directly incited disobedience to the law, shall be punished by imprisonment of from six months to three years." On the ground that "the flag represents the country, and the country means the land and the constitutional and legal institutions which govern it, and which form and organize our social life and our nationality,” the Belgian tribunals in 1898 convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment two Socialists, who, as a part of their political campaign, publicly burnt the Belgian flag at Charleroi and treated the fragments with indignity. (For. Rel. 1898, 161.) In reply to an inquiry whether in case of "trouble" in Caracas Cubans might hoist the United States flag for protection, the Department of State said: "Flag should only be shown by citizens. You may notify authorities of any menaced Cuban property and use good offices for them." Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Russell, chargé at Caracas, tel., The action of the United States vice-consul at Colon, in Colombia, in refusing to permit Greek subjects to hoist the United States flag over their places of business as a means of protection, was approved. (Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec of State, to Mr. Cobbs, vice-consul at Colon, Dec. 1, 1900, 175 MS. Inst. Consuls, 302.) With reference to a complaint of the Haytian Government, in 1903, that many aliens usurped the privilege reserved to the diplomatic corps of flying the national flag, with the result that the flag was often abused to cover seditious persons and depots of arms, the chargé d'affaires ad interim of the United States, in a communication to the Haytian Government, stated that it had for many years been the custom of foreigners in times of political disturbance to display their national flag over or before their residences or places of business as a protection of themselves and their property against lawless acts which, although not sanctioned by the Government, it might not for the moment be able to check; that, in no instance known to him during a period of service of twenty-two years, had dwellings or places of business covered by a foreign flag been violated by a mob; and that, as a result of the protective use of foreign flags, the Haytian Government has been saved from many diplomatic complications and claims. In conclusion, he declared that the United States would never sanction the abusive use of its flag, and expressed confidence. that the Haytian Government would never have cause to complain that an American citizen had used the flag for any purpose other than that of the protection of life and property. These representations were approved by the United States. For. Rel. 1903, 596–597. In May, 1903, the American minister at Rio de Janeiro brought to the notice of the Brazilian Government the fact that a Brazilian line of sailing vessels was using a house flag resembling one of the forms of the national ensign of the United States. The complaint was referred to the navy department of Brazil, and the American minister was subsequently informed that the Brazilian firm owning the ships in question had ordered another flag to be substituted for that which had been in use. For. Rel. 1904, 101-103. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 19th ultimo, in the matter of the complaint of Mr. Auguste Lelang or Leland, a French resident of Jeannette, Westmoreland County, Pa., against a policeman of that borough, for having torn down and maltreated two French flags which Mr. Lelang had hoisted from the second story of his residence. "I at once brought the subject to the attention of his excellency Robert E. Pattison, governor of that State, for his information and report, and I have now before me the sworn testimony of the witnesses on both sides of the controversy, which has been furnished by the district attorney of Westmoreland County to Governor Pattison, by whom it has been transmitted to this Department. "This testimony shows that on the morning of May 30, 1892, in the borough of West Jeannette, Pa., Mr. Auguste Leland (or Lelang), having in his possession two French flags about 4 feet square which he had brought from France, and having purchased an American flag the largest he could buy, but considerably smaller than the others placed the three flags in the second story window of his house, intending evidently no disrespect to the American flag, which he placed in the middle, though probably for some reason lower than the others. Certain neighbors of his, deeming that the arrangement of the flags was disrespectful to the United States, prevailed on a policeman, T. A. Spires, to take them down. It does not appear that Mr. Spires injured the flag, but that later some persons unknown and certain children did tear the flag more with a design to preserve (each) a piece than for worse motive. "To-day I telegraphed Governor Pattison urging his earnest and hearty coöperation to prevent any hostile demonstration against the flag of France or her citizens on the 14th instant-the French national holiday-should they in honor thereof fly the flag. "It affords me pleasure to say that I have received a reply this afternoon from Governor Pattison saying that he had telegraphed Joseph A. McCurdy, esq., district attorney of Westmoreland County, in the sense of my telegram, adding as follows: “I want to impress upon you (Mr. McCurdy) the importance of giving this matter your prompt personal attention; confer with the local authorities at Jeannette and see that provisions are made to prevent any hostile manifestations against the flag or the French residents. Communicate with me [Governor Pattison] in regard to your action. "The occurrence is deeply regretted by myself and the governor of Pennsylvania, and was entirely without the sanction of the authorities thereof, as you can readily understand. In a letter which I have addressed to Governor Pattison I have adverted to the fact that although the flag is only a national emblem when displayed by a competent authority, it is also private property which should under no circumstances be wantonly maltreated by a police officer or by any other person in time of peace. I alluded to the time-honored friendship which had so long existed between the Government of the United States and that of France, and to our natural desire that friendly and peaceable relations should at all times prevail between the citizens of this country and those of a friendly foreign power residing within our jurisdiction. These reasons strongly suggested to my mind, as I doubt not they will to Governor Pattison, that all undue manifestations that tend to engender ill feeling or bitter resentment should be avoided or suppressed. "In this connection it is pleasant to note that Governor Pattison's telegram herein referred to gives assurance that he intended to do everything that is possible to promote good feeling at Jeannette. "The occurrence of May 30 last can not in anywise be regarded as an insult to the flag of France as a national emblem, since it is possible for like incidents to occur in any country under similar circumstances, and, as I have shown, there was an entire absence of design to offer an insult to the citizens of France or the flag as a national emblem. It was the personal act of a police officer, in which certain other persons, including children of the town of Jeannette, participated, and without the sanction or knowledge of the Pennsylvania. State authorities. I have, however, suggested to the governor that some measure of punishment should, if possible, be meted out to the policeman, Thomas A. Spires, and entertain no doubt that he will give the question his further attention to that end." Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Patenôtre, French min,, July 13, 1892, Mr. Patenôtre's note of June 19 is printed in the same volume, at p. 172. Aug. 16, 1892, Mr. Foster wrote personally to Mr. Patenôtre that the delay in dealing with the case of the policeman was due to the fact that he was elected by the people and was under the jurisdiction of the court of quarter sessions. Aug. 26 Mr. Foster stated that he had been dismissed. Sept. 27, 1892, the French legation expressed the French Government's appreciation of the "satisfaction accorded it in this case by the Federal Government, at the request of Mr. Patenôtre." (For. Rel. 1892, 176.) July 21, 1897, the Portuguese minister at Washington brought to the attention of the Department of State an alleged insult to the Portuguese flag at Monterey, Cal. It appeared that one Ortins, a naturalized citizen of the United States of Portuguese origin, desiring to celebrate the 4th of July, raised the Portuguese and the American flag on separate poles, upwards of 20 feet apart. During the day the Portuguese flag was hauled down by a boy at the instigation of a certain Captain Seeley, a drillmaster of the Monterey Cadets. Ortins raised the flag again, but in the evening it was cut down by a small boy at the instance of one Harry Morton, and was burned. |