National Republican., 1883-06-25


except such political rights as pertain OK.
clusively to citizens and subjects. And it Is
scarcely necessary to add that the rights thus
acquire on land 60 with him and his property
on tho high seas
IL is therefore manifest that thore was at
the time these losses accrued class of aliens
capable Of bearing "true allegiance to the
United States" in the sense in which congress
probably used that phrase, and who were at
the same time entitled TO the protection Of
the United States" Adopting this construc-
tion, the court is able TO give force and mean
ing to both Of the foregoing restrictive clauses
without violence to the language used in
complete harmony with the obvious purposes
of the law. And no other construction is
suggested which harmonizes with the peculiar
phraseology of the clause entitled 10 tho pro-
lection of the United States in the premises"
clearly indicating that it was intended by
congress to be applied to persons other than
citizens.
The right Of alien residents in tho United
States, in common with citizens, to appear as
claimants under the act of June %, 1S74,was
affirmed by tho former court in numerous do
csions, rs we'll as in at least one elaborate
written opinion, which decisions have boon
uniformally followed by this court there be-
ing nothing in the subsequent act of June B,
1882, changing the provisions of the former
act on that point.
Tho former court, in tho case Of Benjamin
Worth vs. The United States (No. 81, Daviss
report, PIP. 35 to 42) maintained with great
force and clearnoss tho right and duty of the
United States to protect aliens within her ju-
risdiction on land and sea, in peace and war,
in all their natural rights Of person aud prop
erty, against all assailauts even that of their
own sovereign. Following Vattcl, tho court
asserts:
That every sovereign who has given an asylum
to foreigner considers himself no less offended
by an injury done to the latter than he would be
by an act OF violence committed on his own sub
ject.
Citing numerous English authorities, tho
court says:
The English courts have decided again and
again that not only Is foreigner resident In Eng
land entitled to the protection OF her laws TO his
person and property, but even In case Of an alien
enemy. II he quietly and peacefully obeys her laws
and performsthe duties required OF him, he is on.
titled to this protection oven as against the land
Of his nativity as long as he remains ON
the soil or the deck Of ship of the British gov
ernment he may ightfully claim British pro-
lection.
Citing Kent's commentaries, tho court says {:
Alien enemies resident in the county may sue
and be sued as In time OF peace for protection 10
their person and property. The lawful residence
does pro hac vice, relieve the alien from the
character of an enemy and entities his person
aud property TO protection.
Other citations equally pertinent follow,
and then the court proceeds in It's own Ian
guage thus:
If this right OF foreigner inures TO him In time
OF war between his native and his adopted
country, how much more consistently may II not
seem TO belong to him in time of peace Ifhe
may rightfully claim this protection when merely
residing or soourning here in the pursuit OF his
dence may he appeal to 1t when he has brayed
the, perlls Of the deep and embarked his hopes
ensign OF the nations power and glory?
But after presenting this mastery argu-
ment in defence of the right of aliens losid-
ing in the United States and sailing on tho
high seas, under tho protection of our flag, TO
recover indemnity for these losses, in common
with native born and naturalzed citizens, the
former court nevertheless decided, in the
opinion hereinbeforc cited, that such resident
aliens, being subjects of Great Britain, should
be excluded.
Entertaining the greatest respect for the
| character, learning, and judicial acumen of
the members of the court as then constituted,
this court is unable, after the most careful
consideration, to follow their reasoning to
that conclusion.
The former court and this court seem to
agree:
l. That the act of June %, 1874, makes no
distinction between resident aliens, per Sc,
aud citizens, as TO the right to recover in this
court. fH.i .if
q That the right of each such class,
whether citizens or resident aliens depends
States and their loyalty during the rebellion
g. That no distinction is made by tho
| standard writers on international law or by
the courts of England and the United States
between resident aliens and citizens, as to
their lawful claim to protection in the en-
joyment of the natural right of person and
property, under the flag of the country of
their residence, even as against the country
OF their birth, in time of war as well as in
timo of peace, so long as they shall, with its
consent, remain within its jurisdiction.
And it may be properly added in this con-
nection that this right Of a resident alien,
under the principles of international law, as
recognized by all the civilized nations, is 80
absolute and imperial as to cover refugees
from justice, guilty of the highest crimes,
even treason against their own sovereign,
A demand for their extradition can be right
fully made only under special treaty regula-
| tions, and not under the recognized principles
of international law.
And this court is unable to find anything
in the act of June 23 1874, or the act Of June
5, 1882, nor in the text writers on interna.
tional law, nor in the decisions of the courts
OF this or any country, nor in the provisions
Of any existing treaty stipulation, which
makes the subjects Of Great Britain excep-
tional in this respect. No such distinction is
found in the treaty of Washington authoriz-
ing the organization of the Geneva tribunal
of arbitrators, and nothing in the language
of the award ITSELF as communicated TO the
two governments which suggests it, And
there was nothing in the then existing rela-
tions between Great Britaia and the United
States on which such distinction could be
founded. The relations of the two govern
ments were peaceful. But if they had
been otherwise, if hagrant war between them
had been then raging, we have seen that the
United States would have been equally bound
to protect subjects of Great Britain, so long
as they remained quietly under our flag,
against damage on the part OF Great Britain
herself
The only authority found by this court, or
which has beon called to its attention by
learned counsel in argument justifying the
proposed discrimination against suhjects of
Great Britain, as set forth in the second
specification Of the demurrer, is the opinion
Of the former court, hereinbefore cited. And
all that is found in that opinion of facts,
law, and reasoning which bears on the ques-
tion is contained in three paragraphs ON pages
Al and AZ, Daviss report
The first and second of said paragraphs
may be summarized as follows:
The United States charged Great Britain with a
cupabe failure TO fulfil her neutral obligations to
the United states In neglected 70 inforco her
municipal regulations on that subject
Great Britain admitted her negligence In tho
premises but never did admit that she had COM
mitted wrong against the United States or It's
citizens under the law Of nations;
The Geneva tribunal Of arbitrators having Rd-
judged Great Britain guilty Of oulpable negligence,
ana awarded SUN of money 10 be paid by Great
Britain 10 cover the resultant damage, II Is not
probable that she supposed that any part of this
money was demanded by the United States for iu-
jury suffered by British subjects on account of her
negligence 10 enforce her municipal regulations,
as she could properly insist that that was her own