honorable the Secretary of the Interior. That officer is understood to have recognized the honorable Mr. Pomeroy as an agent for persons belonging to the specified classes, to aid and direct them in the choice. of their locations and establishing their settlements. The general instructions which were given to him by the Secretary of the Interior expressly inhibited Mr. Pomeroy from attempting to make such location and settlement in any country whatever, without first having obtained the consent of the government of such country to protect. the proposed settlement of such persons there with all the rights and privileges of freemen. "About the time when those instructions were in course of preparation, his excellency Señor Antonio José de Yrisarri, minister plenipotentiary of the republics of Guatemala and Salvador near the United States, gave notice to this Department that those two states were averse to receiving any such settlements; and for that reason the instructions of the Secretary of the Interior to Mr. Pomeroy were modified. He was informed that the President accepted Mr. Yrisarri's communication as a definitive declination of the two governments which he represented to receive and protect a colony of the class proposed in their respective countries. Whereupon Mr. Pomeroy was expressly directed not to proceed with such colony to any part of the territories of either of the said republics of Guatemala and Salvador. "In your note, which is now under consideration, you protest, in behalf of the republics of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras, against the introduction of any colony of the kind proposed within the territory of either of those republics. You also inform this Department that a portion of the region called Chiriqui, which is claimed by Mr. Ambrose W. Thompson, and which he offers as a site for such a colony, lies unquestionably within the territory of Costa Rica, while another portion lies within the unquestioned territory of New Granada, and still a third part is in dispute between the government of Costa Rica and New Granada; and you extend your protest so as to make it cover not only the unquestioned territory of Costa Rica, but also that portion of Chiriqui which is claimed by Costa Rica. "I have now to inform your excellency that the acts of Congress, under which the colonization in question is proposed to be made, do not warrant the attempt to establish such a colony in any country without the previous consent of the government thereof, and that your protest is accepted by the President as a denial of such consent on the part of the three states you so worthily represent." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Molina, min. of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras, Sept. 24, 1862, Dip. Cor. 1862, 903. The transport of paupers from Cuba to the United States is in violation of United States laws and of international comity. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bernabé, Span. min., May 16, 1872, MS. It having been reported that the authorities of the Swiss Canton of Zug had granted the release of a prisoner named Binzegger, a confirmed incendiary, on condition of his emigrating to the United States, the Department of State approved the action of the American. minister at Berne in protesting against their action, and expressed the hope that the Swiss Federal Government would "prevent the consummation of the design to land this criminal on our shores, as a violation of the comity which should obtain between the two Governments." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switzerland, Dec. Mr. Frelinghuysen referred to instruction to Mr. Cramer, No. 16, of As to instructions given to American consuls in India to cooperate with April 25, 1887, the British minister at Washington inquired whether under the existing law Irish emigrants sent out at the public cost, and having friends in the United States "able to help and support them," would be allowed to land. In reply, Mr. Bayard, May 7, 1887, referred to section 2 of the act of August 31, 1882, prohibiting the landing of any person "unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." The duty of ascertaining the facts was committed to the immigration officers at the various ports, and therefore no general assurance in advance could be given. But, going further, Mr. Bayard, adverting to previous discussions in regard to immigration, said that the Government of the United States, in view if its policy and its laws, could not fail "to look with disfavor and concern upon the sending to this country, by foreign governmental agencies and at the public cost, of persons not only unlikely to develop qualities of thrift and self-support, but sent here because it is assumed that they have 'friends' in this country able to help and support' them." The exportation of such persons to the United States by a foreign government, in order to get rid of the burden of their support, could, he declared, "scarcely be regarded as a friendly act, or in harmony with existing laws." May 17, 1887, the British minister stated that he had learned that the intending emigrants were not paupers, but crofters, whose passages were only partly paid from public funds, and he inquired whether this would in any way affect the tenor of the reply previously given. Mr. Bayard, May 20, replied: "For the reasons stated in my note of the 7th instant, the Department is unable to give any assurances that any particular class of immigrants will be permitted to land. The provisions of the law look to the actual condition of each person, and are impartial in their operation." Sir L. West, British min., to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, April 25, 1887; VI. DUTY TO RESTRAIN INJURIOUS AGENCIES. 1. REPRESSION OF CRIMINAL OR HOSTILE ACTS. § 221. The right to accord hospitality to political refugees is well established, and is exercised by all free governments. Among the cases in which such hospitality has been extended by the United States, that of Kossuth and his compatriots is one of the most conspicuous." The right of hospitality is formally recognized in the rule, which, if not expressly affirmed or expressly denied, is implied in all extradition treaties, namely, that a nation is not bound to deliver up political offenders. Such persons share, however, the general duty of obedience to the laws, and are subject to such measures as the government may lawfully adopt to prevent the national territory from being used by any persons as a base for criminal or hostile enterprises. a Supra, § 72. “PHILADELPHIA, November 23, 1795. "MY DEAR SIR: Inclosed are letters for Mr. de la Fayette and his tutor. I leave them open for your perusal; and notwithstanding the request in my letter of the 18th, I shall cheerfully acquiesce in any measures respecting them which you (and others with whom you may be disposed to consult) may deem most eligible. "As there can be no doubt that the feelings of both are alive to everything which may have the semblance of neglect or slight, and, indeed, expectant as they must have been (without adverting perhaps to the impediments) of an invitation to fly to me without delay, and distressing and forlorn as the situation of one of them is, it is necessary that every assurance and consolation should be administered to them. For these reasons I pray you to send my letters to them by express, the expense of which I will repay with thankfulness. It "The doubt which you have expressed of the propriety of an open and avowed conduct in me towards the son of Mr. de la Fayette, and the subject it might afford to malignancy to misinterpret the cause, has so much weight that I am distrustful of my own judgment in deciding on this business lest my feelings should carry me further than] prudence (while I am a public character) will warrant. has, however, like many other things in which I have been involved, two edges, neither of which can be avoided without falling on the other. On one side, I may be charged with countenancing those who have been denounced the enemies of France; on the other, with not countenancing the son of a man who is dear to America. "When I wrote to you last I had resolved to take both the pupil and tutor into my own family, supposing it would be most agreeable to the young gentleman, and congenial with friendship-at the same time that it would have given me more command over him-been more convenient and less expensive to myself than to board them out. But now, as I have intimated before, I confide the matter entirely to your decision, after seeing and conversing with them. "Mr. Adet has been indirectly sounded on the coming over of the family of Fayette generally, but not as to the exact point. His answer was, that as France did not make war upon women and children he did not suppose that their emigration could excite any notice. The case, however. might be different, if one of them (with his tutor, whose character, conduct, and principles may, for aught I know to the contrary, be very obnoxious) was brought into my family, and, of course, into the company that visited it. But as all these things will be taken into consideration by you I shall not dwell upon them, and only add that "With esteem, regard, and sincere affection, I am ever yours, "Go. WASHINGTON. "P. S.-I have no doubt but that young Fayette and his tutor might be boarded at Germantown, or in the vicinity of this city, and would be at hand to receive assistance and advice as occasion might require although he might not be a resident under my roof. "Colonel HAMILTON." 4 Hamilton MSS., Dept. of State. See also Washington to Hamilton, May 6, 1794, 10 Washington's Writings (Sparks's ed.), 411. As all official intercourse between a State and foreign nations is prevented by the Constitution and exclusive authority for that purpose given to the United States, the National Government is responsible to foreign nations for all violations by the United States of their international obligations, and for this reason Congress is expressly authorized "to define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations." United States v. Arjona (1887), 120 U. S. 479, 483. See for a fuller statement of this case, supra, § 23, p. 66. Field, in his International Code, says that " one who uses his asylum for promoting hostilities against a foreign country, may be proceeded against under the law of the nation of his asylum, or may be surrendered to the nation aggrieved." Field, Int. Code, § 207, p. 86. In saying that the person may be surrendered to the nation aggrieved," Bluntschli (§ 398) states that, where the refugee abuses his asylum, 627-630.) In 1803 Jean Peltier, a French refugee, was prosecuted for a libel on Napoleon Bonaparte, then first consul of the French Republic. He was convicted, but no judgment was entered in consequence of the breaking out of war. (State Trials (Howell), Vol. XXVIII. 530–619.) "A nation has a right to harbor political refugees, and will do so, unless weakness or political sympathy lead it to a contrary course. But such persons may not, consistently with the obligation of friendship between states, be allowed to plot against the person of the sovereign, or against the institutions of their native country. Such acts are crimes, for the trial and punishment of which the laws of the land ought to provide, but do not require that the accused be remanded for trial to his native country." (Woolsey, § 79. See also Wildman's International Law, 59; Law Lib., Vol. LII. 42.) |