The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-12-26

There can be question tina. vast Of property
OF foreign residents has been destroyed in the recent
be nbard ment OF Canton by the British forces, but
il believed that no principle will be found TO sustain
Claim upon the British government for indemnity If the
foreign merchants who have suffered by this attack
Csuton sha be indmniIed by Great Britain, will fur
rish ereeedent-the frs that be fonndo counte
nance The appeal to this government made in behalf o.
those who represent themselves TO have been foreign
traders al Grcyown when bpmbardei. Tho
referred TO fully warrant the conclusion OF the President
on the question raised by the application of the French
traders presented through the Count de Sartges The
TACT That they nconsderatey placed their property in the
custody o. these who dd not protect and are unable 70
sortngto any other Power for indemnify The principle
which seems to be invoked to sustain the reclamation in
this case were adopted rule OF International Law
would be most dangerous to the tranquility OF the world
very brief illustration OF its effects will justify this
II exists as n rule OF international law 4. Is most
strkingy applicable 10 the which have been refer
red TO- particularly 10 the destruction Of the property Of
neu,ras at Copenhagen and Canton Under such rule
all uatioDs whose subjects citizens sustained
losses by the bombardnert Of these cities could apply
for redress to the Power which they might regard the
Offending party, and, necessary consequence, these
would have the right and be bound BY the Obligations OF
duty towards their subjects to discuss and pass judgment
upon the corauct Of the bclgerents order TO deter
mine the question Of responsibility The party which,
upon such an inqusve Investigation. shoad be found
most in the wroig, would be required to indemnify the
sufferers Claims depending upon such issue would
never be admitted nor could they be enforced w:hou,
an inquon into The conduct Of Seiseents by Powers
not parties il The original controversy could not fail 10 be
fruitful source Of International complications.
The undersigned has thus far considered the as II
would stand II the claimants what they represented
themselves TO be-merey foreign residents OF Greytcwn
and II Grey. Town then in fact what the note OF the
Count de Sarges have been-s sovereign
State He speaks Of the difficulty between that place and
the U-ned States as difference originating between
two sovereign States Taking this view Of the establish
men at Greytown-though 1t IS rot one in which the
government Of the United States inclined to concurt
which the app!ican. had With il in the character
Of sovereign State If it should be made
Greyto~n community and not foreign resident traders
will be impossible TO ud any sounoa.on for their claims
against the Uned States 1t ia admitted that the people
Of Gfeyown assumed to be an independent Stae-they
have constitucn and government, with executive, e-
eislaye ard judicial departments and this political or
gani2ation practical operation when Greytown
honbarde residence conferred the right of suf
rage These who took any part in organizing that govern
cnt who subsequently held office under it, or exercised
the right Of suffrage be allowed to deny its exist
cnce as ponsble government object to being dealt
with as members of that political society Their former
ct.ze. hip merged IL that which they acquired by
tbs lew political association; and while this association
lasted sno while they remained in H. they would not be
citizens subjects Of any other State They owed allie
glance to the government Of Greyown and not to any
other country and the duty o., protecting them deyoived
upou that government alone they could yhtsuy look to
no other power for security or indemnity nor could they
reasonably expect that any other would voluntarily inter
pose in Their behalf il their proper guardians failed in
dry TO them. Their relation TO the country Of their
birth while AT Grey0wn under these circumstances
NOT lac distinguished from that which resaeat Of foreign
birt1 bears to this country who has become regularly
pauralized citizen Of the United States Having become
Sch citizen, the duty of protection, if he needs and
belongs this country aud that Of h,
nativity
The names or the persons who made reclamation for
losses at Gfeyown In the assumed character OF French
subjects resident there are not given in the note OF the
Count de Satges but they have been obtained from other
sources, and their political relation to what they regarded
and still regard as the government Of Greytown well
ascertaned Almost every one OF them was member OF
the political organization established al that place they
enjoyed the franchises OF citizens had the right of voting
elections, and exercised IT. and several Of them held
Offices
persons could be found there who had taken more active
part public affairs. or we're moro directly responsible
for the conduct Of that political community towards the
United States, than most OF those who now seek re-
canaton IN the character Of French subjects They
tanly cannot expect To be indemniied by this govern
mcrt FOR the losses resulting from the just chasement
brought upon themselves BY the community OF which
they were members is II believed that they
enlist in their behalf the sympathy of the country of their
birth by attempting their actual citizenship,
and recover that which they had cast off on be.
coming constituents Of the Grcytown government II
Is confidently believed tina, when the actual relation
Of these claimants TO the political community Of Greyosn
is fully disclosed TO the French government, II VIII
consider them entitled 10 Us friendly interpos
ton II Il should be found, on further examination that
there we're few persons-aad any, the numbers must
be very srnalwho could be fairly regarded domiced
French subjects Greytown at the time Of the lombard
ment, aud Who sustained losses by that act, Is very
clearly established by the views herein presented that
they have nc claim against the United States They
deliberately placed Themselves and their property under
the protection Of the community Of Greytown. BY
ceivrg and subecng them to rs jurisdiction, that CON-
muniy assumed the duty OF protection and the conduct
viewed them ID losses TO these protectors and 20 them
only, they look for redress The practice Of nations
has settled this doctrine aud different rule would
cure. 10 prosecuting hostlitcs encmy's country
distinction between citizens and domcled foreigners
which could never be made and IN the practice OF naons
has never been attempted The Undersigned s not aware
that the principle that foreigners domced in belgerent
country must share with the citizens Of that country IN
the fortunes Of their has ever been seriously contro
verified departed from in practice No Power assailng
an enemy's country : required to discriminate
foreigners domciled therein, can the lat
ter, with any better right than the former,
indcnufy ia any case except from the country under
whose jurisdiction they have placed themselves.
POSSIBLE that applicants to this government for in
dcmny on account OF losses occaoned by the bombard
may attempt 10 avoid the concusy.ness Of the OBJ
jecllCus herein presented by considering Greytown ~
mere municipality under the sovereignty Of tribe OF In
dians. called the Mosquitoes Nothing favorable 10 the
prctension OF the claimants would be gained By such
Hypothesis II be assumed that this tribe had sovereign
authority over territory including Greytown the argu
which has been presented to day, that the United
States l. not responsible FOR the property destroyed by
the honhardmrni, siA lose none 90 i force Applicant
lily by the transfer 81 The sovereignty OF that place W The
Mosquitoes Those who part OF participated In
the municipal government Of Greytown can hardly be al
lowed 70 The character Of foreign residents and II
they or others could invest themselves with that charac
ter their condition claimants against the United states
wosd not be improved They were under the protection
81 the sovereign power Of The country and Il that power
appcrallcd 10 the lrpc a Mosquito Indians and not 10
tie son at Greyovn, a. before assumed they could
eny look 70 tie Mosquitoes Tor the redress o wrongs
from which the government Of the country wherein
they voluntarily placed themselves was bound 70
Eh Ci4 them. international law opens 70 tncm
no other source OF reclamation. The obligation
20 protect the event Of failure 10 indemnify, would
dcyuyc upon GrcytOwn IN one case and upon the Mos
quito lnd aus IN the other Regarding the Mosqntoes
possessing the sovereignty Greyiown Il was for
theta 10 complain ~ the proceedings Of the United states
towards the people ~ that place and to make rccilmaon
n ans was due, Tor injuries foreigners whom they
had received within their jurisdiction AND whom they
consequently under obligation 70 protect The Mos
autac~ seem 10 10 well satisfied with the treatment
tcvcd by from the United States Tor they have
not complained 81 N. asked any indemnity for either
hy
the bombardmen n the sovereign power 81 country
auesces aud apparently approves Of Chassement by
foreign Power OF those under rs protection, certain
~ pll be contended that the sufferers by that chas
tseneh entitled 10 indemnity from that foreign Power
Tor ossos thereby sustained The strength OF the position
the claimants might be turned over for redress TO feeble
Power II should be recollected that in this instance Il
was TO such Power, without anything In the rharaccr
composition 81 justify confidence, that the applicants
committed their property, and they cannot reasonably
ask have well settled principle o. International law
cha q nrdct meet the eNInencN Of their