The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-04-23

the government Ot tue united states OF
the gross injustice done to his predecessor
by a lawless mob, as we'll as the indignity
and insult offered by IL TO a foreign state,
with which the United States are and wish
ever to remain on terms of the most re-
spectful and pacific intercourse" But
when pressed by the Spanish minister to
afford Indemnity to Spanish subjects in
jured by the mob in common with Ameri-
can citizens, Mr.. Webster declined to ac-
cede to the demand, and gave his reasons
as follows: This government supposes
that the rights of the Spanish consul, a
public officer residing here under the pro
lection of the United States government,
are quite different from those of the Span
ish subjects who have come into the coun-
try to mingle with our own citizens, and
here to pursue their private business and
objects. The former may claim special in
| demnity; the latter are entitled to such
protection as is afforded to our own cti-
| zens While, therefore, the losses OF indi-
viduals, private Spanish subjects, are
| greatly TO be regretted, yet II is under
stood that many American citizens suf-
| fered equal losses from the same cause,
and these private individuals, subjects Of
her Catholic majesty, coming voluntarily
| to reside in the United States, have GER
| tainly no cause of complaint If they are
| protected by the same laws and the same
administration of law as native born citi-
| zens of this country. They have, in fact,
some advantages over citizens of the state
| in which they happen to be, inasmuch as
| they are enabled, until they become citi-
| zens themselves, to prosecute for any in
| juries done to their persons or property
| in the courts of the United States or the
| state courts, at their election"
| il is proper, however, to add that two
years after Mr. Webster wrote the fore
| going note, congress in recognition of
| certain magnanimous conduct on the part
| Of the queen of Spain in pardons bestowed
| nm m NXh a n
vaded the island of Cuba, enacted joint
| resolution, approved by President Fill
| more, March 3, 1853, the last day of his
term, indemnifying the Spanish consul
and other Spanish subjects for the losses
sustained in the New Orleans mob Of
1851 The considerations upon which this
| resolution was passed were held not to
contravene the original position of Mr..
| Webster, shared also by President Fill
more. The right TO judicial remedy
| which Mr.. Webster assured to the Span
| ish subjects is likewise assured to the ltal-
| ian subjects. The right is specially guar
anteed in the second section of the third
article Of the constitution. And as Mr..
! Webster points out, the resident alien has
a privilege which is denied to the citizen.
| The widows and children of the citizens
who lost their lives by mob violence, may
| sue the leaders and members of the mob
| only in the courts of the state of louisiana,
| while the widows and children of the ltal-
right to sue each member of the mob, not
| only IN the state courts, but also before
| the federal tribunals for the district OF
Louisiana
Provision is made in the revised civil
code of Louisiana for redress of such
grievances as the widows and children of
the victims of the mob may plead. ]
quote;
Article 23l4-Every act whatever Of man
that causes damage TO another Obliges him by
whose fault 1t happened TO repair ii. The right
of this action shall survive in case Of death,
in favor Of the minor children and widow of
the deceased, or either Of them, and in default
of these in favor Of the surviving father or
or mother or both OF them, for the space Of
one year from the death.
Article 23lG-Every person is responsible for
the damage he occasions, not merely by his
act, but by his negligence, his imprudence or
his want of skill.
Article 2S!i-He who causes another person
to do an unlawful act or assists or encourages
in the commission of IL is answerablc In solido
with that person for the damage caused by
such act
The government of the United States
would feel justified in resting on the argu-
ment and conclusion of Mr.. Webster if the
mob of March ID, 1891, did not in some of
its characteristics differ from the mob of
1851 But it is due to entire candOr due to
this government and due to the govern
ment Of Italy to point out certain differ
ences of which the government of the
United States is honorably bound to take
notice.
In the case of the mob of 1851, Mr.. Web
ster asserts that mo personal injury was
offered to any one" that "the police and
other legal authorities did all that was
possible to preserve the peace and arrest
the rioters;p that "the mob acted in the
heat of blood and not in pursuance Of any
predetermined plan or purpose of injury
or INSULT" that "the mob was composed
of irresponsible persons, the names of none
nf WI IN ha ~
the United States, nor, so far as the gov
ernment is informed, to its officers or
agents in New Orleans"
AS promptly as possible after the Ia
metable occurrence at New Orleans, the
president directed the attorney general to
cause through his department., full in
quiry to be made into all the facts con-
nected Herewith and solicited his opinion
whether any criminal proceedings would
lie under the federal laws in the federal
courts against persons charged with the
killing of Italian subjects. He has not
yet received the official report. If it be
found that prosecution can be mail-
tanned under the statutes of the United
States the case will be presented to the
next grand jury, according, to the usual
methods of criminal administration.
But If it shall be found, as seems proba-
BILE, that criminal proceedings can only be
taken in the courts of Louisiana, the pres
ident can in this direction do no more
than urge upon the state officers the duty
OF promptly bringing the offenders to
trial. This was done in his telegram to
the governor of ouisiana as early as the
18th of March. If it shall result that the
case can be prosecuted only in the state
courts of Louisiana and the usual judicial
investigation and procedure under the
criminal law is not resorted to, it will
then be the duty of the United States to
consider whether some other form of re-
dress may be asked. 1t is understood that
the state grand jury is now investigating
the affair, and while it is possible that the
jury may fail to present indictments, the
United States cannot assume that such
will be the ease.
The United States did not by the treaty
with Italy become the insurer of the lives
or property. of Italian subjects resident
in our territory No government is able,
however high its civilization, however
vigilant its police supervision, however
severe its criminal code and however
prompt and inhexible it's criminal admin
istration, to secure its own citizens
against violence prompted by individual
malice or by sudden popular tumult. The
foreign resident must be content in such
cases to share the same redress that is Of
fered by the law to the citizens and has no
Just cause of complaint, or right to ask
the interposition of his country, If the
dress of his injuries.
The treaty in the first, second, third and
notably in the twenty-third articles,
clearly limits the rights guaranteed to the
citizens Of the contracting powers in the
UcrrICOry VI eacn 70 equal treatment ana
TO free access TO the courts of justice.
Foreign residents are not made a favored
class. IL Is not believed that Italy would
desire a more stringent construction of
her duty under the treaty. Where the in
jury inflicted upon a foreign resident Is
not the act of the government or of its
officers, but of an individual or of a mob,
IL is believed that no claim for indemnity
can justly be made, unless 1t shall be
made to appear that the public authori-