amongst the families of the victims; the letter offering this indemnity disclaimed any liability on the part of the United States government, as appears by the following extract: "While the injury was not inflicted directly by the United States, the President, nevertheless, feels that it is the solemn duty, as well as the great pleasure, of the national government to pay a satisfactory indemnity. Moreover the President's instructions carry with them the hope that the transaction of to-day may efface all memory of the unhappy tragedy; that the old and friendly relations of the United States and Italy may be restored; and that nothing unsignified only that prosecution ought to be commenced, in order that the individuals recognized as guilty should not escape punishment. "Far above all astute arguments remains the fact that henceforth the Federal Government declares itself conscious of what we have constantly asked, and yet it does not grant our legitimate demands. "Mr. Blaine is right when he makes the payment of indemnity to the families of the victims dependent upon proof of the violation of the treaty; but we shrink from thinking that he considers that the fact of such violation still needs proof. Italian subjects acquitted by American juries were massacred in prisons of the State without measures being taken to defend them. "What other proof does the Federal Government expect of a violation of a treaty wherein constant protection and security of subjects of the contracting parties is expressly stipulated? "We have placed on evidence that we have never asked anything else but the opening of regular proceedings. In regard to this, Baron Fava's first note, dated March 15, contained even the formula of the telegram addressed on the same day by Mr. Blaine, under the order of President Harrison, to the governor of Louisiana. Now, however, in the note of April 14, Mr. Blaine is silent on the subject which is, for us, the main point of controversy. "We are under the sad necessity of concluding that what to every other government would be the accomplishment of simple duty is impossible to the Federal Government. It is time to break off the bootless controversy. Public opinion, the sovereign judge, will know how to indicate an equitable solution of this grave problem. "We have affirmed, and we again affirm, our right. Let the Federal Government reflect upon its side if it is expedient to leave to the mercy of each State of the Union, irresponsible to foreign countries, the efficiency of treaties pledging its faith and honor to entire nations. "The present dispatch is addressed to you exclusively, not to the Federal Government. "Your duties henceforth are solely restricted to dealing with current business." (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1891, p. 712.) toward may ever again occur to disturb their harmonious friendship." The Marquis Imperiali replied, accepting the indemnity and declaring that the diplomatic relations between Italy and the United States were, from that moment, fully reestablished. Thus ended one of those unfortunate occurrences which are possible even in the most civilized countries and which, unless they are settled diplomatically by both sides making concessions, may result in strained relations between governments, which oftentimes are, unhappily, only terminated by war.1 I congratulate you that the difficulty existing between the United States and Italy growing out of the lamentable massacre at New Orleans in March of last year is about to be terminated. President, feeling that for such an injury there should be ample indemnity, instructs me to tender to you 125,000 francs. The The Italian The Marquis Imperiali to Mr. Blaine April 12, 1892: "Mr. Secretary of State: You were pleased to inform me, by your note of today, that the Federal Government will distribute this Government has decided to pay to sum among the families of the vic- | Italy, by way of indemnity, the tims. sum of 125,000 francs, which will "While the injury was not in- be distributed by the Italian Gov flicted the massacre which took place directly by the United ernment among the families of the States, the President nevertheless royal subjects who were victims of feels that it is the solemn duty, as well as the great pleasure, of the March 14, 1891, in the city of New National Government to pay a satis- Orleans. Your excellency also exfactory indemnity. Moreover, the presses the hope that the decision President's instructions carry with reached by the President will put them the hope that the transaction an end to the unfortunate incident of today may efface all memory of to which that deplorable occurthe unhappy tragedy; that the old and friendly relations of the United tions between the two countries States and Italy may be restored; will be firmly re-established. and that nothing untoward may ever again occur to disturb their much pleasure, of the language harmonious friendship. rence gave rise, and that the rela "After having taken note, with used by the President in his mes "I avail myself of this occasion sage of December last, and after - 896. The Montijo" case; claims by the United States against other confederations; federal responsibility for acts of State. In April, 1871, the steamer Montijo belonging to citizens of the United States was seized by revolutionists while on a voyage to Panama, being at the time within the jurisdiction of the United States of Colombia. The claim was duly presented and after an extended diplomatic correspondence an agreement of arbitration was entered into between the United States and the Colombian government in August, 1874. During the course of the correspondence the question of the liability of the central government of Colombia for the acts of the State of Panama which was one of the constituent States forming that confederation was raised. The United States claimed that under the peculiar circumstances the acts constituted a breach of treaty stipulations for which the federal government was liable. On the other hand the Colombian government disclaimed all lia having fully appreciated the words | in the past and as it is to be hoped of regret and censure uttered with they will ever be in the future. so much authority by the Chief Magistrate of the Republic, and likewise the recommendations that were suggested by the lamentable incident to his lofty wisdom, His Majesty's Government is now happy to learn that the United States acknowledge that it is their solemn duty, and at the same time a great pleasure, to pay an indemnity to Italy. "The King's Government does not hesitate to accept this indemnity without prejudice to the judicial steps which it may be proper for the parties to take, and, considering the redress obtained sufficient, it sees no reason why the relations between the two Governments, which relations should faithfully reflect the sentiments of reciprocal esteem and sympathy that animate the two nations, should not again become intimate and cordial, as they have traditionally been "In bringing the foregoing to your knowledge, in virtue of the authorization given me by his excellency the Marquis di Rudini, president of the council, minister of foreign affairs, in the name of the Government of his Majesty, the King of Italy, my August Sovereign, I have the honor to declare to your excellency that the diplomatic relations between Italy and the United States are from this moment fully re-established. "I hasten, moreover, in obedience to instructions received, to inform you that, pending the minister's return to this capital, I have taken charge of the royal legation in the capacity of chargé d'affaires. "Be pleased to accept, etc." (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1891, p. 728.) $ 96. 1 Moore's International Arbitrations History, vol. II, p. 1425. bility, alleging that the improper acts, if any, were committed within the jurisdiction of Panama and were beyond the control of the federal government. § 97. Result of the Arbitration.—In April, 1875, the Colombian arbitrator filed an opinion holding that the federal government of Colombia had not incurred any liability to the American claimants. The United States arbitrator at the same time filed an opinion maintaining the opposite view. The matter was subsequently referred to an umpire who, in July, 1875, rendered an award in favor of the United States for $33,000, which was considerably less than the demand made by the owners of the steamer. § 98. Decision of the Umpire.-There were many points in the decision of the umpire, who was Mr. Robert Bunch the British Minister at Bogota, which did not involve the question of responsibility of a federal government for the acts of one of the constituent States, but we refer to the opinion only in that respect. In discussing this question he says: "The reason advanced by the Colombian arbitrator is that the government of that Union cannot be held answerable for the failure of that of Panama to compensate the owners of the Montijo, because the former has no connection with it and private debts, especially with those which have in the case a vicious origin. To this the undersigned (the Umpire) replies, First: That in his opinion the government of the Union has a very clear and decided connection with the debts. incurred by the States of the Union towards foreigners whose treaty rights have been invaded or attacked; and Secondly: That the debts so incurred by the separate States are in no way private, but on the contrary, are entirely public in their character." The Umpire then proceeds to discuss the question; he reviewed the McLeod case at length and in referring to it said that undoubtedly the liability of federal powers for acts of the constituent States may produce to the nation at large the gravest complications: he also held that debts contracted by duly authorized officers of a given State are essentially public and can be the subject of an international arbitration of this nature.1 1 For note 1, see next page. A full account of this controversy and the award of the umpire can be found in Chapter XXIX of the second volume of Moore's History of International Arbitration. § 98. 1" NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STATE ACTS. "There remains to be considered the concluding portion of the sixth reason advanced by the Colombian arbitrator, which is that the government of the Union cannot be held answerable for the failure of that of Panama to compensate the owners of the Montijo because the former has no connection (solidaridad) with private debts, especially with those which have, as in the present case, a vicious origin. "To this the undersigned replies, first, that in his opinion the government of the Union has a very clear and decided connection with the debts incurred by the States of the Union toward foreigners whose treaty rights have been invaded or attacked; and, secondly, that the debts so incurred by the separate States are in no way private, but, on the contrary, entirely public in their character. "As regards the first point, it cannot be denied that the treaties under which the residence of foreigners in Colombia is authorized, and their rights during such residence defined and assured, are made with the general government, and not with the separate States of which the Union is composed. The same practice obtains in the United States, in Switzerland, and in all countries in which the federal system is adopted. In the event, then, of the violation of a treaty stipulation, it is evident that a recourse must be had to the entity with which the international engagements were made. There is no one else to whom application can be directed. For treaty purposes the separate States are nonexistent; they have parted with a certain defined portion of their inherent sovereignty, and can only be dealt with through their accredited representative or delegate, the federal or general government. "But if it be admitted that such is the theory and the practice of the federal system, it is equally clear that the duty of addressing the general government carries with it the right to claim from that government, and from it alone, the fulfillment of the international pact. If a manifest wrong be committed by a separate State, no diplomatic remonstrance can be addressed to it. It is true that in such a case the resident consular officer of a foreign power may call the attention of the transgressing State to the consequences of its action, and may endeavor by timely and friendly intervention on the spot to avoid the necessity of an ultimate application to the general government through the customary diplomatic channel; but should this overture fail, there remains no remedy but the interference of the federal power, which is bound to redress the wrong, and, if necessary, compensate the injured foreigner. "If this rule which the undersigned believes to be beyond dispute, be correctly laid down, it follows that in every case of international wrong the general government of this republic has a very close connection with the proceedings of the separate States of the Union. As it, |