the Permanent Court of International Justice on May 25, 1926, series A, note 7, p. 33, on the question of international liability for the enactment of a law, by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Portugal, whereby all the property of religious associations in Portugal was confiscated to the State. It was held that "even if the State refuses compensation to its own citizens in that case, it cannot be justified in treating foreign citizens in the same way".1 [The United States also contended that, regardless of the question of legal title of Fitzgerald by prescription, he was, in any event, entitled to compensation for the expensive improvements which had been placed on the property with the acquiescence of any and all others who might be interested therein, since that right was determined by article 966 of the Civil Code which was in effect when he was deprived of his property. That provision of municipal law was as follows: "ART. 966. A defeated bona-fide possessor, is also entitled to an allowance for the useful improvements made before the answer to the suit. "By useful improvements shall be understood only such as shall have increased the market value of the thing. "The person seeking the revendication, shall choose between the payment of the value thereof at the time of the restitution of the works of which the improvements consist, or the payment of the increased value of the thing at said time due to the said improvements. 66 With regard to the works done after the suit was answered, the bona-fide possessor shall have the rights only which are granted in the last paragraph of this article to a possessor in bad faith. 1 The following authorities were also discussed on this point: (1) Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 184; (3) The De Garmendia case, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Ralston's (4) The case of Putegnat Heirs vs. Mexico, Moore's Arb., p. 3718; (5) The case of Ashmore vs. China, ibid., p. 1857. -AMERICAN AGENT "The possessor in bad faith shall not be entitled to any allowance for the useful improvements referred to in this article. "But he may take with him the materials of which said improvements consist, provided that they can be removed without damage to the thing recovered, and that the owner refuses to pay him the price which such materials would be worth after their separation." This provision applies to a trespasser who has been ejected by judicial process. A fortiori it should apply to a case in which the possessor was arbitrarily ejected without judicial process of any kind.] EXTRACTS FROM BRIEF OF PANAMA No public documents have been filed which may establish the rights of Fitzgerald's predecessors, the only legal means of establishing the proof of transfers. Article 1857 of the Colombian Civil Code, in force at that time, provides the following: "A sale is deemed perfect from the time that the parties have agreed upon the subject matter and the price, subject to the following exceptions: “The sale of real property and easements and that of a hereditary succession, are not deemed perfect before the law until a public document has been executed Article 1760 of said code reads as follows: "The lack of a public instrument cannot be filled by other evidence in the acts and contracts with respect to which the law requires such formalities; and they shall be considered as not executed or concluded, even though it may be stated therein that the same are to be reduced to a public instrument, within a certain period, subject to a penal clause; such clause shall be void. "Aside from the cases indicated in this article, an instrument which is defective on account of the officer's lack of jurisdiction or due to any other flaw in form, shall have the force of a private instrument if it is signed by the parties." According to these provisions, it is clear as the light of day that there was no legal transmission of rights to the lot of land which is the subject matter of the claim. The Government of the United States cannot allege acquisitive prescription: (a) Because prescription can be presented as a plea, and not as an action (art. 51, Law 105 of 1890); (b) Because the lot of land in question, the greater part of which is situated on the beach of Carenero Island, constituted property of public use, which is not subject to prescription in any case (art. 2519 of the Colombian Civil Code); and (c) Because Fitzgerald himself recognized that he only had the use of the lot of land when he requested of the Department of Hacienda and Treasury that the property be adjudicated to him under a title of sale. Article 3 of Law 48 of 1882 classified baldío lands as property of public use with the ostensible object of making them not subject to prescription, in accordance with article 2519 of the Civil Code, and article 878 of the Colombian Fiscal Code deemed as baldíos-among other things-the islands, in either sea, within the jurisdiction of the Nation, which are not occupied by organized settlements or by private settlers with a just title. The Island of Carenero did not come under any of those cases. The adjudications which the Nation made of baldío lands had as their only purpose the development of some agricultural or livestock industry. The lands reverted to the State gratuitously, if such industries were not established thereon within the term of 10 years (art. 7 of said law). It was not for agricultural or cattle-raising purposes that Fitzgerald occupied the land, since its area was very small, as it measured 180 feet from north to south and 200 feet from east to west. On said land he had built two houses made of wood and tile, a small house which served as a kitchen, and a wharf. All these buildings had been constructed on the beach, which is property of public use inalienable. Article 679 of the Colombian Civil Code provides the following: "No person may, except by special permission of the competent authorities, construct any works on streets, plazas, bridges, beaches, fiscal lands, and other places belonging to the Union." Commenting on this provision, the writer Fernando Vélez states the following in his well-known work entitled Colombian Civil Law: "We believe that the nature of the public property where the work in question is to be constructed determines the authority who can give the permission for its construction. With respect to all property of public use of the Republic, it is evident that the respective national authorities can give such permission. With respect to property administered directly by the latter, such as beaches, no other authority could give the permission." The Colombian Government never granted a permit for those constructions. The claimant has not even attempted to furnish evidence of this fact. When the Department of Panama was converted into a free and independent state, it undertook to solve the anomalous situation which existed in the Province of Bocas del Toro in connection with the lots of low-water land. The National Convention enacted Law 62 of May 31, 1904, which regulates the adjudication of lots. It assigned to the Executive the power to grant permits for building on lots of low-water land. The petitioner had to fill the necessary requirements. Upon compliance with these requirements, the adjudication was made in the form of a lease contract for a term of 10 years, which could be extended for a like period, The lessee had to pay, before being given possession, 40 cents per square meter of land adjudicated to him, and he would continue to pay 30 cents per square meter of adjudicated land as an annual rental. Mr. Fitzgerald applied for the adjudication of the lots marked on the official plan with nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. The evidence which was filed was deficient, as the information of bare facts consisted of testimony of three witnesses instead of five. In 1905 Mr. Fitzgerald asked the Executive to grant him a permit for building on two lots of low-water land, which are marked on the official plans with nos. 11 and 13 of the first square of the town of Carenero, bounded as follows: North, First Street; south, the sea; east, First Street; and west, lot no. 9 occupied by Fitzgerald. This request was denied by Resolution No. 114 of November 29, 1905. Not agreeing with this resolution based on law and equity, Fitzgerald requested its revocation. The Executive did not comply with such request. And Mr. Fitzgerald did not stop here. At the same time he had made representations before the Governor of Bocas del Toro to the end of obtaining the adjudication of lot no. 11. The occupants of said lot asserted their rights. They obtained the protection which they asked. Mr. Fitzgerald did not avail himself of the legal remedies and resorted to the expedient of diplomatic intervention, in the absence of any cause to justify it. Our Department of Foreign Relations, in note dated January 11, 1911, gave a detailed explanation of Fitzgerald's claim, |