Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-02-09
ALIENS MUST OBEY THE LAW OR
SUFFER THE PENALTY.
NO INDEMNITY FOR THE HUNS
CLAIMS OF HAzELTON STRIKERS
WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZED.
State Department Establishes Pre-
cedent by Taking a Stand Against y
Request of Austr0-HunEary
Regarding Men Killed
at Haxelton.

WASHINGTON, Feb. S.-The state de-
partment. after mature coEsid Grafton. has
declined to recognize the claim Of the Aus
tro-Hungarian government for indemnity
on account of the Hungarian strikers killed
by Sheriff's Martins posse at Hazelton,
Pa. September 10. 1897.
The claim has been pending for many
months upon the basis of a report filed
with the state department by Robert D.
Coke. the representative OF the Austro-
Hungarian government. The departments
action is based upon a special opinion pre-
pared by Solicitor T. l.. Penfield covering
the entire field of national responsibility
in such cases of mob violence or rioting,
which probably will form the basis of future
decisions in that line.
In his opinion Solicitor .Penfield goes over
so much Of the evidence produced upon the
trial Of Sheriff Martin as seemed to be
necessary to establish the facts briefly. and
then concludes with the following state
ment of the principles by which the de-
partment of state Is bound:
No government inSureS the absolute Sc
curity. of all foreigners who may happen
to be within its territory. Aliens as well
as nationals are bound to respect the laws.
the institutions and the constituted author
ity of the state in whose territory they re-
side. They are treated the same as ma
tionals. and like the latter, they are, in
case of infraction of the penal law prose-
cuted and punished. In particular, if they
take part in an insurrection or in a civil
war, the treatment to which they expose
themselves in such lawless actions affords
no legitimate ground for diplomatic inter-
vention.
"The responsibility Of governments to-
ward foreigners is not more extensive than
that of the foreign sovereign toward his
own subjects. The duties of hospitality do
not prevent the entire exercise Of the right
which belongs to sovereignty to employ
the legal means to provide for the preser-
vation of the state, nor are foreigners en-
titled to a privileged position, nor are they
exempted from the consequences of GRIM
inal conduct, threatened or committed nor
are they to be indemnified for damages re-
sulting from such conduct and from the
imperious necessity of watching over the
safety of the public veal.
This government recognizes the interna-
tional obligation to do justice, but 1t can
not admit that in this case legal injustice
has been done. Even If 1t were to be con-
ceded that the sheriff and his deputies were
acting wrongfully and unlawfully, still the
remedy by way Of diplomatic intervention
cannot be invoked until all remedies have
cial tribunals. In this case abundant rem
edies are afforded for redress. If any action
able wrong has been committed: but the
ulSpOSltlOH OF CElS claim may safely DE
rested on higher grounds-on the ground
that aliens are subject to the same rules
of law and order, of peace and justice,
which bind the citizens of the United
States.
This government cannot tolerate a state
of anarchy, either threatened or inaug-
urated. in communities composed either of
its own citizens or of aliens who may en-
gage in industrial or other pursuits with
in its territory. If they obey the precepts
of the law, 1t will protect them; if they
ity. then. in common with all others who
participate with them in such acts of law
lessless and violence, they must be deemed
to accept the consequences of the conflict
which they invite.
There has in this case been no denial
of justice, which should be shown as pre-
REQUISITE to diplomatic intervention. There
careful investigation of the rulings of the
court at the trial and the instructions to
lied by ability, learning. integrity and i'm
Partially. And If there was any degree
Of feeling in the community where the
than otherwise.
TT is not that the trial of the sheriff
and his deputies was not a fair one, nor
by the sheriff and his deputies because
there was abundant evidence given at the
trial and justifying the verdict rendered,
were slain or wounded were aggressors and
violators of the law in refusing to obey
the Command of the sheriff to diSperSe.
THE command was seaSonablS and law
fully given: and even though they may
have felt that the command was an un-
to the sheriff as the conservator of the
peace of the country and the desire to avoid
disorder and the possible effusion of blood
which might occur by reason thereof, made
II their duty as law-abiding citizens to obey
the command.
,"The principles of International law
which support the foregoing conclusions on
the facts shown accord with the uniform
practice and precedents Of this government,
not only in controversies in which claims
for indemnity have been made by citizens
or subjects of foreign states against this
government, but also where such claims
have been made by it's own citizens, in
behalf against foreign states.
I'm conclusion the Lattimer strikers were
disturbers of the public peace and violat-
ors of the law. They were rapidly drift
ing into a state of petty war. 1t was the
duty of the sheriff to take measures to pre-
vent as well as to repress civil tumults and
disorders. On previous occasions he had
commanded them to dlsperse and they
obeyed. They were perfectly familiar with
authority he exercised. If they had obey
ed his lawful command no blood would
have been shed; and in their lawless and
aggressive conduct, challenging the em-
bodied force of the. state. they placed
themselves beyond the protecting pale OF
the law: To reward the wounded living
and the heirs of those slain under such cir
lawlessness and inviting renewed outbreaks
and riots. This government is, therefore,
unable to admit the Justice of the claim"