« ПретходнаНастави »
aware of what will happen in Great Britain. The co-operation of the United States and the Dominions will enable the United Kingdom to save so many millions on her naval and military estimates that she can henceforth proceed to train her whole youth for the serious business of life. With every British boy and girl fully prepared to take part in the work of manhood or womanhood, it will be impossible for Continental Europe to compete in international commerce, unless it ceases to turn its cities into barracks. It will have to stop the mad proceeding of letting those of its workmen who least need physical improvement get stale through long years of military service. All nations must instead embrace a far more sensible fashion. Military disarmament will follow naval disarmament. The international competition will be transferred to the fruitful field of education.
In Great Britain vast sums will immediately be available. The withdrawal from the Mediterranean and the Pacific, where the British flag would be sufficiently represented by the navies of Australia and New Zealand, together with an adequate contribution from Canada and possibly South Africa, would make it possible to cut down the naval estimates of the United Kingdom by something like nine million pounds sterling. Yet a fleet of one hundred dreadnoughts and the necessary number of small crafts could be kept in the Atlantic. This could and ought to be done without any of those sensational parliamentary outbursts which of late have embittered international relations, because the simplicity and thoroughness of the Anglo-Saxon combine makes it possible to adhere to a simple standard of strength implying a fixed yearly shipbuilding program. Another nine million pounds would be at the disposal of the national exchequer if the antiquated and unnecessarily costly organization of the British army were overhauled. Thus some eighteen millions could be made free for educational purposes, and it may be asserted that no other European nation would under present financial conditions be able to find anything like this amount without cutting down its naval or military expenditure.
The savings of the United States would in the beginning not be quite so large. For some years they would still have to lay down two battleships a year. This program would give them a fleet which if concentrated in the Pacific would make it impossible for Japan ever to hope to do something with her navy which is already grinding her taxpayers to starvation. Yet the economies to be effected on coastal defences and smaller craft, and which would immediately come into play, amount to many millions of dollars.
Thus the peaceful import of the Anglo-Saxon combine will at once be translatable into figures felt by their own citizens and evident to the whole world. The foreign policy of the British and American peoples will rest on the only secure foundation the ingenuity of man will ever discover. It will be to the advantage of the whole of humanity. Seeking no mean advantages from any nation, requiring no alliances with peoples who have not yet been able to attain self-government, neither the United States nor the British peoples need to pander to monarchical or oligarchical interests. True to their own principles both in internal and external policy, the statesmen of the Anglo-Saxon world can carry high the torch of liberty. Hidden by no protective screen, its vigorous light will soon illuminate the darkest corners of our globe. Self-government will everywhere come to its right. The idea that a self-governing community should wish to interfere with another will become as obsolete a conception as it is an illogical thought. The ethics which regulate the relations of the different communities will be the same as those which serve between man and man. The new freedom will be complete. The State will become the servant of the individual. It efforts will be exclusively directed toward preventing interference with liberty, not toward organizing its destruction.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS
“The only government of this country, which other nations recognize or treat with, is the Government of the Union; and the only American flag known throughout the world is the flag of the United States." 1 The Government of the Union, as the only internationally recognized agent of the state, bears the responsibility for any violations of the rights which it owes to aliens, whether these rights are the result of treaty obligations or of international law.
Aside from particular obligations arising under treaties, a state is obliged to secure to aliens which it has admitted within its territory not merely the same extent of protection of the person and of vested property rights as the native ordinarily receives, but the extent of protection to which the native is legally entitled. However, in the United States the central government, which bears the responsibility for the fulfillment of the international obligations of the state, has not the power under the Constitution to enforce by direct action on the individual respect for these obligations. Furthermore, the various branches of the Federal Government itself may disagree and block the necessary action.
The first important case of the inability of the Federal Government to carry out its obligations was that of McLeod in 1841.3 McLeod was arrested by the police of New York and charged with the murder of those killed in the destruction of the Caroline. Although Great Britain took up the destruction of the Caroline as an act of state and demanded McLeod's release, the Federal Government was unable to free him because the case was pending in the State court. This situation was made
Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149 U. S. 698; see p. 711. C. H. Butler, Treaty Making Power of the United States (1902), Vol. 1, p. 141, note.
2 Elihu Root, “The Basis of Protection to Citizens Residing Abroad,” this Journal, Vol. IV (1910), pp. 521-523.
* Moore, Digest, VI, 261. Butler, Treaty Making Power of the United States, Vol. I, p. 143.
thenceforth impossible by the extension by Congress of the Habeas Corpus Act to cover such cases. 4
A similar case the following year was that of the Northeast Boundary. “Besides the serious difference in the point of view of the two nations concerning some of the questions involved, a special obstacle to agreement lay in the fact that there were really four parties to be consulted instead of two; in addition to Webster and Ashburton, commissioners from the interested states of Massachusetts and of Maine also took part. The legislature of Maine had passed a resolution refusing to regard the acknowledgment of her claim to any portion of the disputed territory as an equivalent for the surrender of the rest.” 5 The Federal Government finally satisfied these two New England States with various considerations, including $150,000 each.
The affair at New Orleans in 1891, in which several Italians were lynched with the connivance of the police, is of more importance today as it is of likely occurrence at almost any time. The United States was unable to agree to the Italian demand for the punishment of the offenders. The question of punishment has come up in other cases, the most notable being those of John H. Tunstall's murderer 7 and of the antiChinese rioters 8 at Rock Springs, Wyoming, Denver, Colorado, and elsewhere.
Twice within the past decade the United States has had disputes with Japan over the treatment of the Japanese in the State of California. In 1906 President Roosevelt and in the present year President Wilson have had to face the Empire of Japan on the one hand and the State of California on the other.
The United States has never denied its obligations in such matters.
* Revised Statutes, sec. 753; C. H. Butler, Treaty Making Power of the United States, I, p. 148, note.
5 Garrison, "Westward Extension” (Am. Nat. Series, Vol. XVII), pp. 81-82.
6 Blaine to Porter, 29 March, 1891, 1891 For. Rel. 675; Blaine to Marquis Imperiali, 1 April, 1891, 1891 For. Rel. 676.
7 Evarts to Thornton, 7 March, 1881; Moore, Digest, VI, 663.
8 Evarts to Chen Lan Pin, 30 Dec., 1880; 1881, For. Rel. 319; Moore, Digest, VI, 820-822; Charles H. Burr, “The Treaty Making Power of the United States and the Methods of its Enforcement as Affecting the Police Powers of the States," Proceedings of the Amer. Philosophical Society, Vol. LI, No. 206 (Aug. Sept. 1912),
urr, “The Treffecting the Police Pow206 (Aug.–S
Its attitude has been that the central government is responsible for the punishment of offenders, etc., but that this responsibility, in cases where the central authority cannot control prosecutions, may be satisfied by means of a money indemnity; in other words, the United States maintains the right, whenever it is impossible to give specific performance because of the political structure of the government, to pay damages for non-performance.
The United States is not alone among the nations a government without power to enforce internally its external obligations. “These questions are of interest not only to American publicists, but also to Englishmen, for they are questions which may in a different, but, perhaps, not less serious, form arise out of the anomalous position in which Britain now stands to her great self-governing colonies.”.9 The case of the Montijo against Colombia in 1871 touched on this question of internal relations. 10 Secretary Fish in 1875 argued the responsibility of Brazil for the acts of the authorities of a province.11 Mr. Finley, the umpire in the United States and Venezuelan Claims Commission under the convention of 5 December, 1885, was called upon to declare the responsibility of the Government of Venezuela for the acts of one of the “independent” States composing Venezuela. 12
In the United States all cases in which an alien is a party may be reached by the Federal courts. The second section of Article 3 of the Constitution opens to aliens the Federal courts. In spite of the fact that the United States has taken in general the stand that so far as the external responsibilities of the state are concerned an alien domiciled here is not to be considered a foreign subject, 13 our courts have held that so far as concerns the right of an alien to sue in the Federal as well as in the State courts his status is not changed by domicil, or even by a formal declaration of intention.14 For instance, in the recent (1893)
• James Bryce, “Legal and Constitutional Aspects of the Lynching at New Orleans," Littell's Living Age, Vol. 189:579.
10 Moore, Arbitrations, pp. 1421-1446.
13 For instance, 1898, For. Rel. 97–109; Moore, Digest, III, 757–795; 1885, For. Rel. 450-459; 1898, For. Rel. 529.
14 Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413-432. Tucker, The Const. of the U. 8. (1899), II, 797; on verification, Tucker'e references seem insufficient.