The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-03-09

build mp and invigorate the digestive or gans. frf-su. cept such as conflict with the loyal, eff fective discharge of his duties as a sailor; that he assumes no risks that result rom forces wrongfully put Into operation by the culpable negligence or acts of Tor right any other citizen has to claim in- demnity for wrongs done by foreign gov ernments in time of peate:
 It Is important to remember that the relinquishment by the United States Of all liability on the part of Spain was made without consulting with or asking the consent of the claimants. This was done under the doctrine that the sover- eighty of a government over its citizens extends over the claims; that a citizen can do nothing with his own. is power less and voiceless as an individual where foreign interests are involved. and un- less hls claim is adopted by his govern out remedy.
 According to this doctrine, a claim for indemnity by a citizen against foreign government is inseparably connected with and can not be divorced from the national claim. There can be a national claim without individual interest or connection, but the individual necessarily involves the national character. The a1ront is to teal injury Is to the citizen. The amount of damages which the offended nation claims against the offending nation de. bends upon the character and extent Of the recovery itself is in the name of the nation The foreign government asks no acknowledgement, requires no acquittance from the injured citizen. The two na- tions have dealt as principals.
 But to whom does the money. when collected. really belong? There is no statutory law of general or specific ap- plication under which a citizen of the United States can demand money so col lected, and held by the Government. The moral obligation exists. however, and the citizen is as safe under its protection as If statute compelled the delivery Of the indemnity to him. The history or our Government does not disclose sin gle instance where the Government has failed or refused to give over to Its az grieved citizens all that it has collected on account of indemnity claims against foreign 'government. .,. .ootr,n, izens against the foreign govern ment are merged in the national claim is fin the case of those governments that foreign claimants. Spain has not done this, and therefore the modification can not apply in these cases. The old doc Urine remains in force. and hence any recovery, whether in money or property would constitute fund which the United States could, in the exercise of brutal power, retain in its Treasury. But the Government has always acted as faith tribption of the indemnity has always been made. not as a gratuity or bene. faction, as is claimed, but as an act Of Justice to the rightful owner.
 Can there be any difference Tn the status of a soldier citizen, in time Of peace. and mere civilian as to injuries done by q foreign government. so far as the obligation. moral or legal. is con cerned. of his own government to distrlo- ute the indemnity? That there can be none is made all the clearer to my mind by the fact that in all cases, without ex- ception, where moneys have been invol- untarily paid by one government to an other on account of injuries done to it's citizens, whether private individuals, sailors, soldiers, or official representatives abroad. or where moneys have been paid upon demand, every dollar has been paid nut by the receiving government to the private individuals. sailors. soldiers. or representatives who actually sustained the injuries.
 Counsel have discussed a number of cases bearing upon the question at issue and cited many others. but 1t is necessary In this connection to review only few of those in which indemnity has been demanded. or accepted without demand. i by the nation of the injured citizen to show that equal consideration and uni form justice have been extended to all classes of citizens without distinction. The fact that no government has ever demanded compensation or indemnity In any form for the killing of it's sailors or soldiers when they have been attacked by a declared enemy in actual war re- moves that subject from the field of dis cussion. as 1t has no bearing upon the present cases.
 The case of the Water Witch, referred to in briefs of counsel. is in point as showing that, while the indemnity was demanded and collected by the United States. the principle of trusteeship was throughout the transaction. The Govern ment sent it's naval vessel. the Water Witch. on a surveying expedition. under an agreement with the Brazilian and Argentine Governments. The ship went beyond the waters of Brazil, and after proceeding a few miles in the waters separating Argentina and Paraguay. was fired on from Paraguayan fort. The fire was returned and kept up for some minutes. Besides doing other. but slight, damage, a shot from the fort mortally wounded the helmsman of the Water Witch. Paraguay had forbidden foreign war vessels to enter its waters. fact he claimed the right to navigate the chan nel of a boundary river, even though in doing so 1t took him nearer the forbidden country. The helmsman was 'in the line of duty" and was employed at the in stant of his injury in the service of the United States Navy. but this fact did not stop the Government from demand- ing indemnity. The United States col lected from the Government of Paraguay $10,0O0 and turned 1t over to the family of the injured seaman. (See Moore on International Arbitrations, Vol 2 D. 14S7; also report Secretary of Navy, December ?. 1S59.l
 To the same effect is the Huesken case. He was assasdnated willie in the diplo- matic service of the United States in Ja- pan. The United States made two-fold demand, one being that the murders be brought to punishment and the other fo1 .pecuniary reparation. The sum of SlOOOO was paid and turned over to the mother a gratuity on the part of our Government is amply shown by the correspondence in the case. The minister of the United States, under the instructions of Secre- tary Seward. based the demand for com pensation upon the rights of the widowed mother, "who, by his death. had been de- prived of her sole means of support" The demand of the minister was expressed in this unequivocal language: That they Oapanese GovernmenO should pay her a sum sufficient for her support either in annual payments or in a sum sufficient to purchase an annuity equal in amount to the income she received from her late son." (See message and diplomatic cor. respondence for 1862, pp. S04-SO7)
 Only one other case need be noticed. that of the Baltimore, which Is of special importance and application because of it's recent occurrence and the thoroughness with which 1t was investigated and dis cussed by the authorities at the time.
 The Baltimore was at anchor in the harbor of Valparaiso and number of her sailors were on shore leave in unt- form unarmed They were in different parts of the city when they were attacked by armed men nearly simultaneously. One petty officer was killed instantly. and