¹ Scott, : The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Vol. II, p. 357.Google Scholar

² Ibid, p. 357.

³ Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, held at Washington, D. C, April 19 and 20, 1907, p. 121.

⁴ Le Droit des Gens, book 1, Chap. 2, Sec. 17.

⁵ Ibid, Chap. 2, See. 81.

⁶ Le Droit des Gens, book 2, Chap. 8, Sec. 107.

⁷ Hall, Int. Law, p. 291, Sec. 87.

⁸ Vattel, ibid, book 2, Chap. 8, Sec. 104; Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit Int. Pub., Vol. 1, p. 349, Sec. 204; Hall, Int. Law/ 4th ed., Chap. 7, Sec. 87, p. 291.

⁹ Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed., Sec. 87, p. 291.

¹⁰ Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, Wharton’s Int. Law Dig., Sec. 232, p. 661.

¹¹ Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Muller, 1871, Moore, Int. Law Dig., Vol. 6, p. 710.

¹² Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, 1868, Moore, ibid, 710.

¹³ Mr. J. Q. Adams, Secretary of State, 1823, Moore, ibid, 708; Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, 1885, Moore, ibid, 716; Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, 1890, Moore, ibid, 717.

¹⁴ Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bispham, 1885, Moore, ibid, 716. It is evident from the contents of a later dispatch from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Scott of June 23, 1887, cited in Moore, ibid, 725, that the claims referred to are purely contractual and based on no injected element of tort.

¹⁵ In view of Lord Palmerston’s circular of 1848, addressed to the British representatives in foreign states, to the effect that it is not a question of international right whether or not the British Government should make the claims of British holders of unpaid bonds and public securities of foreign states the subject of diplomatic negotiations, which was reaffirmed by Lord Salisbury as late as 1880, it would seem that Mr. Bayard’s contention is open to challenge. (See Hall, ibid, Sec. 87, p. 294.)

¹⁶ Moore, ibid, 725. Semble, Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, to Mr. Gana, Chilean Minister, 1895. Moore, ibid, p. 729. See also Mr. Caas, Secretary of State, 1858, Moore, ibid, p. 723; Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, 1887, Moore, ibid, p. 725.

¹⁷ Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, book 2, Chap. 6, Sec. 71.

¹⁸ It is not known whether or not this proposition has ever been directly announced by this government, but the following statement would seem in point: After stating that the United States will intervene to protect its citizens in Nicaragua for injuries resulting from tortious proceedings, Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, in instructions sent to Mr. Lamar in 1858, said: “But there is yet another consideration which calls for the attention of this government. These contracts with their citizens have a national importance. They affect not ordinary interests, merely, but questions of great value, political, commercial and social, and the United States are fully justified by the considerations already adverted to in taking care that they are not wantonly violated, and the safe establishment of an inter-oceanic communication put to hazard, or indefinitely postponed. * * * (Moore, ibid, 723.)

¹⁹ In the case of the Antioquia, cited by El Salvador in El Triunfo ease, the following grounds against intervention are stated by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, citing the case of the Bango Nacional del Peru : “* * * that the existing interest of the American shareholders was reduced to an equitable right to their distributive shares of the funds of the corporation; that the rights of the corporation were involved and not the individual rights of the shareholders, and that even if all the individual members of the corporation were duly qualified American citizens they could not present their complaint in their individual names as owners, but must present them as belonging to the corporation as owner.” (Moore, ibid, p. 646.) This reasoning was characterized by Judge Penfietd, then Solicitor for the Department of State, in his report to Secretary Hay, as academic. (Moore, ibid, p. 651.)