The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-05-04

armies OF the United states in the field
as laid down in Halleck's international Law.
is the following: Commanders. whenever
admissible, inform the enemy of their in
tention to lombard a place., so that the nom
combatants, and especially the women and
children. may be removed before the bonn
ton of the common law of war to omit
thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be
a necessity Bombardment is primarily
for the purpose OF capturing a fortified city
by destroying it's defenses or silencing it's
batteries, and if. in doing this, private prop
erty is destroyed or noncombatants killed it
must be set down to the chances of war.
There is no peculiar element of barbarism
in it.
AS to the liability of a belligerent power
for the property of aliens temporarily re-
siding in a city which is destroyed by bonn
bardment, it is we'll settled that no such
liability exists. Foreigners temporarily re-
siding or doing business in a fortified city
cannot claim the protection of their gov
ernments against the ordinary casualties
Of war. In the case of an Englishman
named Smith, temporarily residing in
France, whose property was destroyed by
German soldiers in the war of 1870. the Brit
ish government said:
Her Majesty's government do not consider
that in strict right they would be entitled
to claim compensation from the Prussian
government for the destruction Of Mr..
Smiths property, as it would seem that,
though an Englishman, he has become the
proprietor of a house and farm at st. owen
and has established his wife and family
there, by which proceeding he has so in
corporated himself into the territory OF
France as to render it unavoidable that his
family and property should be exposed like
those of native citizens of FRANCE resident
In the same district, to the evils incident
on a state Of war.
Hon. Hamilton Fish, secretary of state
during General Grants administration,
adopted this view in more than one case.
In a letter regarding an American claim for
losses in the same war he said:
When one power, in the exercise Of its
sovereign rights, deems it proper to exer-
else acts of hostility against the territory
of another power, the citizens of foreign
states, residing within the arena of war.
whose property may have been injured or
destroyed during the war, nave no right to
demand compensation. on the ground of
their being citizens Of q third power; for
losses which the necessities of war bring
upon them in common with the citizens of
the state invaded.
The same principle was asserted earlier
in a case of bombardment. In March, 1866,
two American firms doing business in Val
paraiso sustained losses by the lombard
ment Of that city by a Spanish fleet and
filed claims for PREPARATION. Attorney Cen
eral Stanbery gave an opinion on the SUBJ
ject to Secretary Seward, in which he said:
The question presented for my opinion is
whether a case is. made for the intervention
of the United States on behalf of these
citizens for indemnity against Spain or
Chile. ] do not see any ground upon which
such Intervention is allowable in respect to
ment was in the prosecution of an existing
war between Spain and Chile. Although.
under the circumstances, it was a case of
extreme severity, yet 1t cannot be said to
have been contrary to the laws of war, nor
was it unattended with the preliminary
warning to noncombatants usual in such
cases. 1t does not appear that in carrying
on the commandment any. discrimination was
made against resident foreigners or their
property. = . . All alike share in the
common disaster. The rule of international
law is well established that a foreigner who
resides in the country of a belligerent can
claim no indemnity for losses of property
occasioned by acts of war like the one in
question.
the principles are well established first, that
the bombardment of fortified cities is al
ways defensible as an act of war, and, sec
ond, thai foreigners, living in such cities,
have no claim on account of property de-
stroyed.