Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-04-30

u. L. Il lunbldll WIS DTlblSl buDJeCI
domiciled in New Mexico, where he
was carrying on business. He was
murdered in the year 1878, and an in
vestigation by special agent of the de-
partment of justice disclosed that three
persons witnessed the murder, and that
two of the three committed it. Two of
these three were afterward killed, and
there was no knowledge that the sur
yivor had ever been brought to justice
for his completely. In 1880 Sir Edward
Thornton presented, under instruction
of his government, claim on behalf of
the father of Mr.. Tunstall for such com
pensation as, upon examination of the
injury and losses, should be found to
meet the justice of the case. The lia-
bility of the United States was not adj
mitted by Mr.. Evarts, then Secretary Of
State, nor by Mr.. Blaine, his successor,
nor by Ms. Frelinghuysen; but the last
named Secretary suggested to the British
minister in 1882 to refer the claim of
Tunstall, under the authorization of
Congress, to the court of claims or other
judicial resort. The suggestion was re-
jected by her majesty's government be-
cause the proposed adjudication would
not be based upon prior admission Of
the liability of the United States in the
premises, subject to an establishment of
the facts after judicial inquiry. Upon
a revival of the demand in April, 1855,
the position of the United States in re-
spect to such claims was fully stated by
the Secretary of State, and it will be
found at length in the volume of "For-
eign Relations" for that year. The SIM
ilarity of our institutions and laws with
those of Great Britain was stated with
numerous illustrations and the annals
of English jurisprudence were referred
to as thoroughly sustaining the position
taken on behalf of the government of
the United States.
can do no better than to transcribe
from that correspondence the following
paragraphs:
Appealing to principles acknowledged in
common in England and in the United
States, it is maintained that in countries
subject to the English common law, where
there is the opportunity given of q prompt
trial by jury of the yicinage, damages
inflicted on foreigners ON the soil of such
countries must be redressed through the
instrumentality of courts of Justice and
are not the subject of diplomatic interven-
ton of the sovereign of the injured party.
=
under consideration, there must have been
many cases in which British subjects sup
posed that they had suffered loss through
the negligence or the malice of subordin-
ate officers of the different states and terri
tories composing this Union, but no record
can be found, at least on the files of this
department, of cases in which, when re-
dress could be had by appeal to local courts
of Justice, an attempt has been made to
substitute for such redress q demand upon
the government of the United States for
pecuniary compensation. The same may
be said of the many cases in which citi-
Zens of the United States may have sllf-
fered, or claim to have suffered, injury in
Great Britain from the conduct of British
officials. When such injury was inflicted
upon the high seas, or in foreign uncivil-
lied lands, and especially if inflicted by
the armed military or naval power directly
emanating from the sovereign executive,
then it was properly regarded as the sub
ject of diplomatic Intervention; but care
ful search in the records of this depart
ment discloses no diplomatic appeal for
pecuniary compensation for injuries
claimed to have been inflicted on Ameri-
can citizens when on the soil of Great
Britain.
The practical result of this fair dealing
is even more marked in this country than
iii England, There are reported in our
books multitudes of cases III which local
officers of Justice have been sued by
foreigners in our courts for false imprison-
ment or for malicious prosecution, or for
assault and this must needs be the case in
communities like ours, in which a large
proportion of the population consists of
foreigners unfamiliar with our laws. In
not one of these cases, however, has it ever
been maintained that the foreign plaintiff
had not at least the same privileges
awarded to him as he would have had if
he had been native citizen, nor can the
most jealous scrutiny of the proceedings
show III u single case any misstatement of
law to his disfavor. The first instance, in
fact in which, instead OF an appeal to the
courts thus open, diplomatic intervention
through sovereign is urged, is that which
we now have to discuss.
TO accept the position of the British
government in this matter would, more
over, lead to utter confusion in the eonsti-
tuted arrangements of our system, which,
like that Of England, sedulously maintains
the executive, judicial, and Legislative de-
partments distinct from each other. The
claim now put forward, if allowed, would
usurp judicial functions by the executive
and legislative branches, and would sub
stitute government of will for govern
ment of law. Private loss and injury
ensue from temporary disorders and
DltaNhSo Vi Wiz hitASC uAlASl siilJ SONClu-
ment.
In 1878, 5000 loaded railway cars
were destroyed by a mob at Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania. This property must have
belonged to variety of persons, prob
ably of different nationalities, but no
one who lost his property nor the rela-
tives of any who lost his life land many
lives were lost ever pretended to hold
the United States government RESPONSE
BILE.
In March, 1884, the city of Cincinnati
was for three days the scene of arson,
pillage, and bloodshed. In the riot
forty-five persons were killed and a
greater number were wounded. The
county courthouse and the valuable
records it contained were burned, the
jail was wrecked, and government of
laws was temporarily laid PROSTATE.
That among those killed were foreigners
is well ascertained, yet no suggestion of
indemnity was ever made by foreign
government. To quote again from the
Under no aspect of the case is there any
right under our law to redress such injuries
as Mr., Tunstall suffered which is not as
open TO foreigner lawfully within the
United states as TO any one oil our own
citizens. There is no discrimination be-
tween them. y 1.-THE state" says
Sir r. Phillimore c'lnternational Law"
IL, ~ must be satisfied that its citizen has
the means OF legal redress
offered by the tribunals of the country in
which he has been injured. Ii these tri-
binals are unable or unwilling to enter
upon his grievance, tho
ground for interference is properly laid;
but it behooves the interfering state to
mission of the wrong be clearly estab-
lished; secondly, that the denial OF the
l.,nnl trihl1nnle To ln..idn Tho o,los4;.,., -