their investments are made. For example, it was estimated three or four years ago that within the preceding ten years over seven hundred millions of capital had gone from the United States alone into Mexico for investment; and this capital had been followed by more than forty thousand citizens of the United States who had become resident in Mexico. This same process has been going on all over the world.

All these forms of peaceful interpenetration among the nations of the earth naturally contribute their instances of citizens justly or unjustly dissatisfied with the treatment they receive in foreign countries and calling upon their own governments for protection. In two directions the process has gone so far as to justify and receive limitation. On one hand, there has come to be a recognition of the essential difference between emigration en masse, by means of which the people of one country may virtually take possession of considerable portions of the territory of another country to the practical exclusion of its own citizens, and the ordinary travel and residence upon individual initiative to which the usual conventions relating to reciprocal rights of travel and residence relate. The occasion for considering this difference naturally depends very much upon the capacity of the emigrants for assimilation with the people of the country to which they go. The wider the differences in race, customs, traditions, and standards of living, the less is the probability of assimilation and the greater the certainty that emigration of large bodies of people will assume the character of peaceful invasion and occupation of territory. After many years of discussion China has come to recognize the existence of such a distinction in respect of Chinese emigration to North America. Japan has recognized it from the first, and there has never been any question between the Governments of Japan and the United States upon that subject.

On the other hand, the United States has itself put a limit upon the practice, which had already reached the point of serious abuse, of permitting the natives of other countries to become naturalized here for the purpose of returning to their homes or seeking a residence in third countries with the benefit of American protection.

Several years ago it was estimated that there were in Turkey seven or eight thousand natives of Turkey who had in one way and another secured naturalization in the United States and had gone home to live with the advantage over their friends and neighbors of being able to call upon the American embassy for assistance whenever they were not satisfied with the treatment they received from their own government. At the time of the troubles in Morocco, which were disposed of at the Algeciras Conference, an examination of the list of American citizens in Morocco showed that one-half of the list consisted of natives of Morocco who had been naturalized in the United States and had left this country and gone back to Morocco within three months after obtaining their naturalization papers. We have now adopted a rule, which has been embodied in a number of treaties and in the Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, for the purpose of checking this abuse. The new rule is, that when a naturalized citizen leaves this country instead of residing in it, two years' residence in the country of his origin or five years' residence in any other country creates a presumption of renunciation of the citizenship which he has acquired here, and unless that presumption is rebutted by showing some special and temporary reason for the change of residence, the obligation of protection by the United States is deemed to be ended.

I have dwelt upon the magnitude and diversity of the causes which are resulting in the presence in each civilized country of great numbers of citizens of other countries, because conditions so universal plainly must be dealt with pursuant to fixed, definite, certain, and universally recognized rules of international action.

The simplest form of protection is that exercised by strong countries whose citizens are found in parts of the earth under the jurisdiction of governments whose control is inadequate for the preservation of order. Under such circumstances in times of special disturbance it is an international custom for the countries having the power to intervene directly for the protection of their own citizens, as in the case of the Boxer rebellion in China, when substantially all the Western powers were concerned in the march to Pekin and the forcible capture of that city for the protection of the legations.

On a smaller scale, armed forces have often been landed from menof-war for the protection of the life and property of their national citizens during revolutionary disturbances, as, for example, in Central America and the West Indies. Such a course is undoubtedly often necessary, but it is always an impeachment of the effective sovereignty of the government in whose territory the armed demonstration occurs, and it can be justified only by unquestionable facts which leave no practical doubt of the incapacity of the government of the country to perform its international duty of protection. leads to many abuses, especially in the conduct of those nationals who, feeling that they are backed up by a navy, act as if they were superior to the laws of the country in which they are residing and permit their sense of immunity to betray them into arrogant and offensive disrespect.

It

Similar in principle to the method of direct protection which I have mentioned is the practice of exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, under convention arrangements, in countries whose methods of administering justice are very greatly at variance with the methods to which the people of the great body of civilized states are accustomed, such, for example, as China and Turkey.

As between countries which maintain effective government for the maintenance of order within their territories, the protection of one country for its nationals in foreign territory can be exercised only by calling upon the government of the other country for the performance of its international duty, and the measure of one country's international obligation is the measure of the other country's right. The rule of obligation is perfectly distinct and settled. Each country is bound to give to the nationals of another country in its territory the benefit of the same laws, the same administration, the same protection, and the same redress for injury which it gives to its own citizens, and neither more nor less: provided the protection which the country gives to its own citizens conforms to the established standard of civilization.

There is a standard of justice, very simple, very fundamental, and of such general acceptance by all civilized countries as to form a part of the international law of the world. The condition upon

which any country is entitled to measure the justice due from it to an alien by the justice which it accords to its own citizens is that its system of law and administration shall conform to this general standard. If any country's system of law and administration does not conform to that standard, although the people of the country may be content or compelled to live under it, no other country can be compelled to accept it as furnishing a satisfactory measure of treatment to its citizens. In the famous Don Pacifico case, Lord Palmerston said, in the House of Commons:

If our subjects abroad have complaints against individuals, or against the government of a foreign country, if the courts of law of that country can afford them redress, then, no doubt, to those courts of justice the British subject ought in the first instance to apply; and it is only on a denial of justice, or upon decisions manifestly unjust, that the British Government should be called upon to interfere. But there may be cases in which no confidence can be placed in the tribunals, those tribunals being, from their composition and nature, not of a character to inspire any hope of obtaining justice from them. It has been said: "We do not apply this rule to countries whose governments are arbitrary or despotic, because there the tribunals are under the control of the government, and justice can not be had; and, moreover, it is not meant to be applied to nominally constitutional governments, where the tribunals are corrupt."

I say, then, that our doctrine is, that, in the first instance, redress should be sought from the law courts of the country; but that in cases where redress can not be so had and those cases are many to confine a British subject to that remedy only, would be to deprive him of the protection which he is entitled to receive.

** * *

We shall be told, perhaps, as we have already been told, that if the people of the country are liable to have heavy stones placed upon their breasts, and police officers to dance upon them; if they are liable to have their heads tied to their knees, and to be left for hours in that state; or to be swung like a pendulum, and to be bastinadoed as they swing, foreigners have no right to be better treated than the natives, and have no business to complain if the same things are practiced upon them. We may be told this, but that is not my opinion, nor do I believe it is the opinion of any reasonable man.

Nations to which such observations apply must be content to stand in an intermediate position between those incapable of maintaining order, and those which conform fully to the international standard. With this understanding there are no exceptions to the rule and no

variations from it. There may be circumstances at particular times and places such that the application of the rule calls for action regarding foreign citizens quite unlike the action ordinarily taken for the benefit of native citizens, but it is always action which would be equally required in case a native citizen were placed under the same circumstances of exigency. It is plain that no other rule is practicable. Upon any other basis every country would be obliged to have two systems of law and administration and police regulations, and the existence of great numbers of foreigners in a country would be an intolerable burden. The standard to which the rule appeals is a standard of right, and not necessarily of actual performance. The foreigner is entitled to have the protection and redress which the citizen is entitled to have, and the fact that the citizen may not have insisted upon his rights, and may be content with lax administration which fails to secure them to him, furnishes no reason why the foreigner should not insist upon them and no excuse for denying them to him. It is a practical standard and has regard always to the possibilities of government under existing conditions. The rights of the foreigner vary as the rights of the citizen vary between ordinary and peaceful times and times of disturbance and tumult; between settled and ordinary communities and frontier regions and mining camps.

The diplomatic history of this country presents a long and painful series of outrages on foreigners by mob violence. These have uniformly been the subject of diplomatic claims and long-continued discussion, and ultimately of the payment of indemnity. An examination of these discussions will show that in every case the indemnity was in fact paid because the United States had not done in the particular case what it would have done for its own citizens if our laws had been administered as our citizens were entitled to have them administered. Of course, no government can guarantee all the inhabitants of its terrritory against injury inflicted by individual crime, and no government can guarantee the certain punishment of crime; but every citizen is entitled to have police protection accorded to him commensurate with the exigency under which he may be placed. If he is able to give notice to the government of