The record-union., 1891-04-06
Is MIR. BLAINE IN ERROR.


In his communication to Count I'm
peralli, Charge d'Affaires of the italian
Legation at Washington, Mr.. Blaine said
that the United States Government recog-
nizes the principle of indemnity to those
Italian subjects who may have been
wronged by violation of the rights Sc
cured to them by the treaty of 1871.
Assuming that he means by this in
demnity payable by the Federal Govern
ment, the question arises where does Mr..
Blaine find authority for his concession?
The treaty guarantees to Italian subjects
the rights secured to our own citizens. 1t
is not principle that the United States
indemnifes citizens for damage by vio-
lence by mobs, or by failure of State au-
thority to protect.
1t is not under the treaty, therefore,
that the reason for the concession is
found. If it is true that the General
Government recompenses for injuries
done in States, what is the limit to the
doctrine? Does it not compel all the peo-
pie in all parts of the Union from their
general fund to suffer for disorder in a
single State, and for which they are not
In law or in good conscience to be held
accountable?
If there is of record any instance of in
Identification by the Federal Govern
ment of either citizen or alien under
claim of right, our research of history or
Federal annals fails to discover it, and, IN
fact, we do not believe that any such rec
ord exists. In the Wyoming Chinese
case the Government paid to China a sum
of money for the families of the sufferers,
but in doing so it was distinctly and
affirmatively stated that it was not paid
as an obligation under custom, law or in
ternational usage; yet that riot took place
within territory of the Federal Govern
ment not having State organization.
We are impressed with the thought that
Mr.. Blaine has committed serious dip
lomatic error unless he means indemnity
from local jurisdiction) in conceding what
he has. In the Colorado Chinese riot
case the Federal Government fatty re-
fused TO indemnify sufferers, and said to
them, whatever the obligation upon the
State of Colorado to respond, there was
none upon the nation.
The concession of Mr.. Blaine is liable
to involve the Government in a way that
may become exceedingly annoying. Cti-
zens of States may be by 1t taught that
their local tax list will not be assessed in
damages for certain kinds of lawlessness,
since the Federal Government will re-
spond and distribute the cost over all
States. This will tend to remove re-
straint that the sensitiveness of the pock ct
nerve now imposes.
But, aside from this, it will also commit
the Federal Government to assumption of
liability not contemplated by the funda-
mental law of the Union. We cannot
find in the Constitution any line that OBJ
ligates the Government to assume any
debt, liability or penalty that may be
properly imposed upon any of the States.
Nor can we ascertain that by treaty or
sompact, by precedent or by any rule of
law, such assumption has been justified.
Foreign countries treating with the
United States, do so with the perfect
knowledge of the sovereignty of the
States, that all pursuit of justice must be
made through the State courts, or the
Federal Courts in the States where one
party is alien. Foreign Powers are
sstopped of any claim against the Federal
Government that their knowledge of the
American system binds them to take
notice is properly presentable to local
authority.
The Federal Government may indem-
Nifty, as it did in the Wyoming case; nor
viii there be any protest if it does so in
the italian case; but it is doubtful if Con-
gress, or the people. will consent TO the
admission of liability as a right that Mr..
Blaine has made