The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-07
PROTECTION TO FOREIGN RESI-
DENTS.

Senator Dolph. of Oregon, the other day
introduced bill for the protection of
foreign residents, which we assume en-
powers the federal courts to try cases Of
criminal offenses against the subjects of
foreign governments domiciled in the
United States when involving the con-
sideration of international questions, and
defines such power and judicial process as
will enable the government of the United
States to use its constitutional power to
punish crimes against treaty rights con-
ferred upon foreigners. This bill of Sem
ator Dolph was called out by that portion
of the presidents message which referred
dent Of the lynching at New Orleans of
eleven men of Italian nativity"
The design of Senator Dolph's bill, we
assume, is to give the subjects of foreign
power with whose government the United
States has reciprocal relations the same
protection that is afforded our own citi-
zens. and for this purpose it is necessary
to give the courts of the United States
jurisdiction in such cases instead of leav-
ing the matter TO the courts of the respect
i've states. As 1t is today, the federal
officers and courts have no power in the
case of offenses against the treaty rights
of foreigners domiciled in the United
Estates. to interfere either for the protec-
ton of foreign citizen or for the punish
ment of his slayer. Suppose. for example,
that an outrage upon party of foreigners
was inflicted by mob in New York city
and the New York grand jury refused to
indict, so that the injured foreigners had
no remedy in the state courts because the
judicial machinery of the state had refused
to act in their behalf, surely that situation
is one that demands legislation that would
give the federal courts power to take
notice of and punish offenses against
treaty rights
The New Orleans mob violated the
treaty rights of certain domiciled Italian
subjects; the local police courts are par
alyzed by fear of the mob or in full svm-
pathy with it, and Italy has no remedy
against the state of Louisiana nor against
the government of the United States for
her violated treaty rights, for our govern
ment at present contends that it can guar
antee only such protection to the subjects
of a foreign government. domiciled here,
rs is gwen TO its own citizens, but
President Harrison in his message
fairly argues that in cases of of
enses involving international questions
the government ought not TO be
as it now is. helpless 10 protect
those TO whom il has accorded treaty
rights. Suppose mob in New York city
had stormed the Tombs and massacret
some British subjects, and the courts had
treated this massacre as the courts OF
New Orleans treated the murder of tn.
Italian prisoners, does anybody suppos.
Lord Salisbury would be content with al
expression of regret on the part of our
federal government that we could not iu
dicially protect the treaty rights OF Brit
ish subjects because the machinery of tn,
local courts in New York had refused iu
dicial investigation and vindication OF
these violated treaty rights?
Suppose Italy had been as powerful a,
England and said TO the authoritie, Of
New Orleans: you have slammed tn,
door of your police court and grand iur,
room in our faces; We will force you L
open your courts and give US Justice or W,
will send tieet that will burn your citv
courthouse and all" In that event III,
state of Louisiana would have appealed 4
the federal government for help 10 repe
the invader. and II the federal government
4. obliged TO defend Louisiana from III,
consequences of her violation and MULTI
cation of treaty rights, why should not thu
federal courts be authorized TO protec
and enforce those treaty rights which tn
local courts OF New Orleans treated will
oontemptF If the federal govern men
ultimately must endure the consequence
OF the violation and notification of treat,
rights by the states why should not tn
federal courts be clothed with judicia
powers TO protect and enforce the treat,
rights of foreignersf
One OF the most Embarrassing thing, /,
the settlement of the Chilean controvers,
was the fact that If the local courts a
Chile had treated the Valparaiso ou,rar