The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-22
The DE Rojas Cause.-The Questsss q
Fall and Incipient Cisiseushtp.

The De RoJas Case-The Qsesssss OF
Fall and Incipient Cssis~ashtp.
While we do not impugn the Judgment
of Baron Lederer, the Austrian Minister. and
the arbitrator in the case Of Perfecto de Rojas
before the United States and Spanish Mixed
Commission, and are willing 10 ooncede the
Baron gave an honest decision. il must have
Deem matter Of qualification TO this SUCCESSOR
OF Chevalier Hulsemann 10 BE- able thus vir-
tuaiiy 70 reverse the principle cnunciated by
secretary Marcy against the Austrian govern
ment in the case Of Martin KosxtA. Though
the nature of the claims Of Rojas and Ko~zsa
for protection and redress from the United
States is different the question of citizenship
involved in both Ii the same. Indeed. the
decision in each case turned upon that ques-
ton.
We will state briefly the case Of Rojas. This
gentleman claims indemnity from spain A
citizen Of the United States for injuries done
to his property in Cuba, he having. az his
memorial shows, become q resident Of this
country, forsworn allegiance TO Spain and
taken the oath Of allegiance 10 the United
States, in his declaration 10 become citizen.
on the 2Sth of September. 1870. This claim
was referred to the United States and Spanish
Mixed Commission, provided for by an
agreement between the two nations, dated
February IL, 1871. This agreement il entitled
q "Memorandum of an arbitration for the SET
Element of the claims of citizens Of the United
States, or of their heirs, against the govern
ment of Spain, for wrongs and injuries COM
mitted against their persons and property, or
against the persons and property (of thosc) Of
whom the said heirs are the legal representa-
tives by the authorities of Spain, in the island
of Cuba, or within the maritime jurisdiction
thereof since the commencement of the
present insurrection." The arbitrators OF
this Commission were-Judge Otto on the part
of the United States, Mr.. Potestad on the part
of Spain, and Baron Lederer, the Austrian
Minister.
The argument on the Spanish side was that
Rojas was not citizen Of the United States
according to international law and the true
meaning Of the agreement between Spain
and the United States for the settlement OF
claims Of course legal technicalities and
precedents were furnished to sustain this
view Of the matter, which it is unnecessary to
quote here. They can be cited to sustain
anything, however illogical. On the other
side the American arbitrator maintained that
the declaration to become q citizen Of the
United States, which involved the renuncia-
ton Of allegiance to any other government
and oath Of allegiance to the United States, in
vested the declarant with American citizen
full exercise Of municipal or political priv
leges might not have been performed. The
famous letter of Secretary Marcy in the
Koszta case was cited in support Of this view.
AS this has been considered the American
doctrine on the question, and as the govern
ment proceeded to the extreme of armed inter-
vention to sustain it in that case, we will re-
cite Mr.. Marcy's language as quoted by the
American arbitrator. 1t is as follows:-
The conclusions at which the President has
arri0ed after full examination OF the transaction
at Smyrna, and respectful consideration OF the
views OF the Austrian government thereon, as pre-
sented in Mr.. Husemann's note, are that Koszta,
the nationality Of the United States, and they
had, therefore. the right II they chose to exer-
III,
from international law-the only law which can be
rightiuy appealed to for rules OF action in this
case-Austria could derive no authority to obstruct
or interfere with the United States in the exercise
OF this right in Erecting the liberation OF Koszta
and that Captain 1ngranam's interpretation for his
release was under the peculiar and extraordinary
circumstances OF the case, right and proper.
Koszta was precisely in the same position as
Rojas. He had forsworn allegiance to Aus
tria and declared his intention to become a
citizen of the United States. There is even
this difference in favor of Rojas, that he con-
tinued to reside in the United States, while
Koszta was on foreign soil.
The argument of the American arbitrator,
Judge Otto, seems to us unanswerable both in
an international point of view and as princi-
pie established by our government He says:-
1.-The claimant has, in due form of law, de-
clared his intention to become citizen Of the
United States and to renounce allegiance to his
former sovereign. He is now subject to no
Power but that of the United States, and owes
allegiance to the nationality Of the United
States only. The true question before us
is not to what extent or in what degree
he is citizen, for that is municipal ques-
ton with which, as an international tribunal,
the Commission is not TO deal. The petitioner
is presented here by the government of the
United States as citizen whose rights the
government asserts and such assertion should
be conclusive of his jus standi in j,0dicio"
Judge Otto then goes on to show that the law
of nations on this subject was clearly and con-
clusively expounded by Secretary Marcy in the
Koszta case.
Baron Lederer, being the third arbitrator and
the umpire on these conflicting views Of the
Spanish and American arbitrators, decided
against Rojas thus, in effect, taking the Span
ish view Of the question, 1t does not appear
that any other issue than that of citizenship