ased the insulting epithets above referred to; that the sheriff read the proclamation to them; that they pushed right on by him; that the crowd surged around him, striking him a terrific blow on the side of the head; that the man with a knife made a lunge at the sheriff while on his knees, and while he was in that posture the shooting began. The legal principles by which the validity of this claim is to be determined may be stated in a few propositions. No Government insures the absolute security 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 authorities of the State in whose territory they reside. They are treated the same as nationals and, like the latter, they are, in case of infraction of the penal law, prosecuted 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 intervention. The responsibility of Governments toward 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 preservation of the State, nor are foreigners entitled to a privileged position, nor are they exempt from the consequences of criminal conduct, threatened or committed, nor are they to be indemnified for damages resulting from such conduct and from the imperious necessity of watching over the public safety and welfare. This Government recognizes the international obligation to do justice, but it can not admit that in this case legal injustice has been done. Even if it were to be conceded that the sheriff and his deputies were acting wrongfully and unlawfully, still the remedy by way of diplomatic intervention can not be invoked until all remedies have been exhausted before the ordinary judicial tribunals. In this case abundant remedies are afforded for redress, if any actionable wrong has been committed; but the disposition of this claim may safely be 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. Whoever sojourns in a foreign land having a settled and pure administration of justice impliedly submits to the local jurisdiction and to the requirements of the municipal law. This Government can not tolerate a state of anarchy, either threatened or inaugurated, in communities composed either of its own citizens or of aliens who may engage in industrial or other pursuits within its territory. If they obey the precepts of the law it will protect them; if they defy the law and the constituted authorities, then, in common with all others who participate with them in such acts of lawlessness 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 a prerequisite to diplomatic intervention. There has been no denial of justice, because a careful investigation of the rulings of the court at the trial and the instructions to the jury shows that they are characterized by ability, learning, integrity, and impartiality. And if there was any degree of feeling in the community where the strike occurred it was rather creditable than otherwise. It can not be justly characterized as prejudice in the judicial sense of that term, but was rather that sentiment which is ordinarily and inevitably felt against criminal transgressions by all well-ordered and self-governed communities who make and enforce their own laws through agencies appointed by law and which depends for its enforcement upon the active and healthy public sentiment which lies at the foundation of all law aud order. It is not shown that the trial of the sheriff and his deputies was not a fair one, nor is it shown that a legal wrong was done by the sheriff and his deputies, because there was abundant evidence given at the trial, and justifying the verdict rendered, that the Austro-Hungarian subjects who were slain and wounded were aggressors and violators of the law in refusing to obey the command of the sheriff to disperse. The command was seasonably and lawfully given, and even though they may have felt that the command was an unnecessary one, yet the proper respect due to the sheriff as the conservator of the peace of the county and the desire to avoid disorders and the possible effusion of blood which might occur by reason thereof made it their duty as lawabiding citizens to obey the command. The principles of international law which support the foregoing conclusions on the facts shown are enunciated by Rivier, Fiore, and others, and 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 its own citizens, invoking its diplomatic intervention in their behalf against foreign States. These principles were enunciated by Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, in 1873, and again in 1875; by Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, in 1848; by Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, in 1851; as well as by Secretaries of State, Mr. Bayard and Mr. Marcy, and as shown in 2 Wharton's Digest, section 230. In conclusion, the Lattimer strikers were disturbers of the public peace and violators of the law. They were rapidly drifting into a state of petty war. It was the duty of the sheriff to take measures to prevent, as well as to repress, civil tumults and disorders. On previous occasions he had commanded them to disperse and they obeyed. They were perfectly familiar with his official position and the nature of the authority he exercised. If they had obeyed his lawful command no blood would have been shed; and in their lawless and aggressive conduct, challenging the embodied 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 circumstances, would be offering a premium to lawlessness and inviting renewed outbreaks and riots. This Government is therefore unable to admit the justice of the claim. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. Baron Riedl to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] IMPERIAL AND ROYAL AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN LEGATION, Washington, February 11, 1899. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, No. 263, which was delivered to me on the 9th, relative to the demand for indemnity made by the Austro-Hungarian Government on account of the killing of several of its subjects by Sheriff Martin and his posse near Lattimer, Pa., and I beg to add that I have forwarded the note to my Government, and must now await its further decision. I avail myself, etc., RIEDL. No. 60.] BELGIUM. DESECRATION OF THE NATIONAL FLAG. Mr. Sherman to Mr. Storer. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 19, 1897. SIR: I inclose herewith a copy of dispatch No. 17, of the 5th instant, from the United States consul at Antwerp, Belgium, calling attention to the desecration in that city of the flag of the United States by the defacement of representations thereof used in connection with advertisements. The particular instance of desecration to which the consul calls attention is that of the "American stables," Rue Montigny, 80-82, Antwerp, two of whose advertisements (a handbill and a poster) are herewith inclosed. There is no Federal law or State law, so far as the Department knows, prohibiting desecration of the national flag, the bills introduced into Congress last winter to that end having failed of enactment. While, therefore, we have no law applicable to our own citizens, yet you will bring the advertisements in question to the attention of the Belgian Government and ask that it prohibit such desecration of our flag in future, if any proper way be open to it so to do. Respectfully, yours, JOHN SHERMAN. [Inclosure in No. 60.] No. 17. Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Day. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a poster which has been displayed at different points about the city. My attention was attracted to this method of advertising the first time about a fortnight ago by seeing a similar placard posted on one of the street corners. Your attention is respectfully invited to this distasteful desecration of our national emblem in a foreign land, in view of the proposed legislation of Congress last winter. I am uninformed as to whether or not the bill introduced which intended to restrain a like practice in our country became a law. It is my opinion that resorting to similar means of advertising abroad not only injures the credit and reputation of individual business men, but tends to impair the dignity of American citizenship in the eyes of other peoples. It seems to me that ways may be found to promote the sale in foreign lands of the products alike of our soil and industry without resorting to a means disgraceful in the eyes of the foreigner as well as repugnant to the good sense of every patriotic citizen. I am, etc., GEO. F. LINCOLN, Consul. No. 59.] Mr. Storer to Mr. Sherman. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In obedience to your instruction No. 60, dated November 19, I at once addressed a communication to Mr. de Favereau, the minister of foreign affairs, of which, bearing in mind the probable lapse of time before an answer is to be expected, I beg to inclose a copy. The matters complained of, I am told, are not of recent origin nor has this abuse of the American flag been confined to Antwerp alone. The so-called American Circus Companies and the Wild West Indian Shows several years ago gave great notoriety and excited much comment in their efforts to give a national character to their enterprises by using the flag for advertising purposes, and, I regret to say, many tradesmen claiming to be Americans, or who deal in goods of American origin, have adopted the custom of thus using the national emblem to exploit their private business. As soon as the reply of the Belgian Government is received it will be reported to you. I have, etc., BELLAMY STOREK. [Inclosure to dispatch No. 59.] Mr. Storer to Mr. de Favereau. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Brussels, November 29, 1897. YOUR EXCELLENCY: The attention of the Government of the United States has been turned to the fact that certain persons in Belgium have been employing pictorial representations of the flag of the United States as a means of advertisement of individual trade for the purpose of private gain. In addition to what my Government is bound to consider this lack of respect for its national emblem, the persons seeking this method of obtaining notoriety for their private business have defaced the representation of the flag by printing upon and over it the sordid details of trade advertisements. For a clear understanding of the subject-matter, I beg to inclose for the inspection of your excellency and for that of any officer of the Belgian Government to whom your excellency may see fit to transmit the same two advertisements of the kind I speak of, which were recently used with wide publicity in Antwerp. I am informed the same means of advertisements are now being used in Brussels. Recognizing fully the friendly feeling always shown by the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians toward all expression of the wishes of the United States, which is fully reciprocated, I feel sure of a continuance of this disposition when I say to your excellency that, should a way be open under the constitution and laws of Belgium to prevent in the future such or similar employments of representations of the American flag which are so distasteful to the Government and people of my country, the taking of such course by the Government of His Majesty would be a gratification to the Government of the United States. BELLAMY STORER. I profit, etc., No. 75.] Mr. Storer to Mr. Sherman. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to report that I have just received the answer of the Belgian Government, transmitted through the minister of foreign affairs, to my letter of November 29, a copy of which has been transmitted to the Department with my dispatch No. 59, on the subject of the unauthorized use in Belgium of the American flag for advertising purposes. I transmit herewith a copy and translation of the letter of the minister of foreign affairs. I venture to suggest that if the various consular officers were ordered to inform all those persons in their several districts thus making use of the flag of the opinion of the Belgian minister of justice and their liability to legal proceedings in this country it might in most instances answer the practical purpose desired. I have, etc., BELLAMY STORER. [Inclosure 1 in dispatch No. 75.] M. de Favereau to Mr. Storer. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, I have not failed to bring to the attention of the minister of justice the letter that your excellency was kind enough to address me on the date of November 29 last on the subject of the use made in Belgium for advertising purposes of the American national flag. My colleague has written me that the circumstances stated by your excellency do not fall within the provisions of any of our penal laws, but that the American Government could bring before the civil courts the persons who, without its consent, have made use of the flag of the United States, to which it (the Government) has an exclusive right, and this in order to obtain damages for such occurrences in the past, as well as with the intention of having them enjoined, by the same decree, from repeating this use in the future. In placing the information above stated at the service of your excellency, I take, etc., DE FAVEREAU. Mr. Sherman to Mr. Storer. No. 104.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your dispatch No. 75, of the 5th ultimo, in further relation to the subject of the desecration, for advertising purposes, of the flag of the United States in the city of Antwerp, has been received. The Department did not anticipate that any penal law of Belgium would be found applicable to the case, and, in the absence of any law on the part of the United States prohibiting the use of the national or any foreign flag for advertising purposes, it is not seen how the question can be effectively treated either under international law or as a matter of equitable comity between the two Governments. |