"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, with which you enclose a copy of a contract between the Chinese minister at Washington, acting on behalf of his government, and your clients, the American-China Development Company, and in which you request this Department to give notice to the United States legation and consulates in China that the representatives of the American-China Development Company, charged with carrying out the provisions of the contract, 'shall have recognition and protection in the performance of their duties,' and that the charge of the revenues and property assigned to the loan under the contract 'will be noted by this government, which will uphold the contract as a binding engagement upon the Imperial Chinese government.' You state that the English investors will have 'the usual recognition' from the British Foreign Office, substantially in this form, and ask this Department to give you a letter 'in substantially the same general form as that to be written by the British Foreign Office.' You further state that you are authorized by the English investors in your enterprise to say that the British Foreign Office is prepared to discuss the form and phraseology of the letter desired by you, if this Department wishes to take the matter up in that manner. "In reply I have to say that the Department is unable to give you such a letter as you request. While the government of the United States is always ready to enforce the just rights of its citizens abroad, it has always declined to become the guarantors of their contracts with foreign governments. As a rule, it has declined, where such a contract was alleged to have been violated by the foreign government, to interfere beyond the exercise of good offices. This being so, still less can it assume beforehand to guarantee the execution of the contract. "As to the statement that such a letter as you desire from this government may be obtained from the British Foreign Office, I have only to say that, assuming your supposition to be correct, the British Crown, which exercises the executive power in that country, possesses both the war-making power and the treaty-making power, and is therefore authorized, in matters involving relations with foreign countries, to give guarantees and to enter into engagements which the Executive of the United States would not alone be compe tent to assume. "The government of the United States, in giving to its citizens assurances of protection, is unable to go further than to say that if their rights should be violated, it would act upon the case when presented, in such manner as might at the time appear to be lawful and proper." Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Cary & Whitridge, August 24, 1898, 231 The United States cannot interfere with the right of a foreign government to prescribe the terms of the concessions which it may make to American citizens to carry on business within its territory, in the absence of a treaty regulating the matter; and where a concession has been accepted in which a certain privilege is denied, the United States cannot demand the annulment of the provision. The most that it could with propriety ask would be that, on grounds of comity, American citizens should be allowed to engage in and carry on business on the same terms or on terms equally favorable with those granted to the citizens of other foreign countries. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, No. 330, April 1, 1899, MS. Inst. Hayti, IV. 135. See, further, in relation to this subject, supra, § 647. "Except for arbitrary wrong, done or sanctioned by superior authority, to persons or to vested property rights, the United States government, following its traditional usage in such cases, aims to go no further than the mere use of its good offices, a measure which frequently proves ineffective. On the other hand, there are governments which do sometimes take energetic action for the protection of their subjects in the enforcement of merely contractual claims, and thereupon American concessionaires, supported by powerful influences, make loud appeal to the United States government in similar cases for similar action. They complain that in the actual posture of affairs their valuable properties are practically confiscated, that American enterprise is paralyzed, and that unless they are fully protected, even by the enforcement of their merely contractual rights, it means the abandonment to the subjects of other governments of the interests of American trade and commerce through the sacrifice of their investments. . . . Thus the attempted solution of the complex problem by the ordinary methods of diplomacy reacts injuriously upon the United States Government itself, and in a measure paralyzes the action of the Executive in the direction of a sound and consistent policy." President Roosevelt, message to the Senate, Feb. 15, 1905, Confid. Exec. V. 58 Cong. 3 sess. 2-3. (Injunction of secrecy removed Feb. 16, 1905.) See, as to contract claims, infra, §§ 995-997. 5. JOINT ACTION; CONCERTED ACTION. § 917. "Diplomatic agreements, between agents of foreign powers, hastily gotten up in a foreign country, under the pressure of revolutionary dangers, may be entirely erroneous in their objects, as they must be H. Doc. 551-vol 6- -19 incomplete in form, and unreliable for want of adequate authority. Moreover, they unavoidably tend to produce international jealousies and conflicts. You will, therefore, carefully abstain from entering into any such negotiations, except in extreme cases, to be immediately reported to this Department.' Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pruyn, min. to Venezuela, No. 14, Aug. 22, 1868, Dip. Cor. 1868, II. 964. This instruction related to the action of Mr. Pruyn in entering, in com- See Mr. Pruyn to Mr. Seward, No. 35, Oct. 1, 1868, and Mr. Seward to "It is of course neither possible nor desirable to avoid a free interchange of opinion between the representative of the United States and the representatives of other powers upon questions of common concern arising in foreign capitals. Such free communication is not only approved, but is especially commended. At the same time care should be taken to avoid, as far as possible, formal conventions in which propositions are considered, with an understanding or agreement that a decision by a majority of representatives shall commit or bind the representative of the United States. A consent on your part to give such an effect to a decree of a council of representatives would be virtually a proceeding derogating from the authority of the President, and if approved by him would have the seeming but unreal pperation to bind the United States by his own individual act, in derogation of the Constitution, which requires that no engagement shall be made with foreign powers other than by treaty solemnly celebrated by the President and duly ratified by the Senate." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hovey, min. to Peru, No. 42, Feb. 25, This instruction related to the proceedings of the diplomatic corps at Complaint having been made of the imposition of excessive fines on vessels by the customs authorities of Cuba, the minister of the United States at Madrid was instructed to use his best endeavors to secure a modification of the existing regulations, and to endeavor to secure similar and, as far as possible, identical action on the part of the British, German, and Swedish and Norwegian governments, whose commerce was likewise affected. He was therefore to confer with the ministers of those governments at Madrid, in the hope that they might be instructed each to frame a note to the Spanish government, such notes to be simultaneous, if not identical. He was, how ever, himself to address a note to the Spanish government should the rest decline to act. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Gen. Sickles, min. to Spain, March 21, 1873, See, as to the concerted action taken, For. Rel. 1873, II. 989–999, "In consequence of the continued exaction in Cuba, of oppressive fines against American vessels, General Sickles, has been instructed to address a note to the Spanish government for the purpose of securing such a change in existing tariff laws of Cuba, as shall make the goods themselves which may be imported into Cuba in American vessels, subject to any fines that may be exacted under the laws, rather than the vessels which import them. The reasons which have induced these instructions will sufficiently appear in the note of instructions to General Sickles and the memorandum which accompanies it, copies of both of which are enclosed. "You are instructed to use your best endeavors to secure from the British government such instructions to its minister at Madrid as may enable him to make a simultaneous, if not identical application to the Spanish government in support of the desired change, and you may deliver a copy of the instructions to General Sickles and of the enclosed memorandum to the minister for foreign affairs. "The interests of all the maritime powers whose mercantile marine is in the habit of trading with the Cuban ports is identical; and the modifications which are asked for, are so reasonable and so just, that it does not appear to be necessary for the Department to add anything further in support of them." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Gen. Schenck, min. to England, March 22, 1873, "In 1879 our presentation of the matter [of the deposit of ship's papers with the local authorities] anew to the Colombian government was supported by the British government. I send you herewith, for your information, copy of a note received by Mr. Evarts from Sir E. Thornton on the subject. You will find, also, in the volume of Foreign Relations 1879 (page 283) certain correspondence exchanged between Mr. Dichman [the American minister] and the British minister resident at Caracas. It is not to be forgotten moreover that, in the arrangement of 1876 with the Colombian Government relative to the non-enforcement of the obnoxious law of 1875, the German representative took a prominent part. "Without yielding the initiative which we have taken in this matter [of the custody of ship's papers in Venezuelan ports], it will be well for you to keep your British and German colleagues advised of all that may transpire, so that, under whatever instructions they may receive from their respective governments, they may have an opportunity of benefiting by our course in pressing a reform which is no less necessary for the interests of their governments than for our own." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Venezuela, Nov. 29, 1882, MS. Inst. Venez. III. 268, enclosing copy of a note of Sir E. Thornton to Mr. Evarts of Jan. 28, 1879. The representations of the United States to Venezuela in 1883 were supported by Great Britain. (For. Rel. 1883, 897, 904, 919, 921, 931.) "The Secretary stated to the British minister, Sir Julian Pauncefote, that the complaints received from our legation in Constantinople had been very frequent of late concerning the persecution and bad treatment of missionaries by the local Turkish authorities. These had become so frequent and were of such an aggravated character that the government of the United States felt that some energetic action should be taken towards their repression. A new minister was about to go to Constantinople who would receive special instructions on this subject. It occurred to the Secretary that it might be well to have the cooperation of, or concert of action by, the British ambassador at Constantinople in these matters, if similar complaints had reached the British government which would justify it. "The Secretary further stated that, unless the Turkish government did not take some energetic measures towards the correction of these evils, it might be necessary to send one or more naval vessels into Turkish waters with a view of impressing upon that government the interest which was taken in this question by the United States. Such a step would be taken by the United States only as a last resort. He felt that, through concert of action on the part of the diplomatic representatives of the two governments at Constantinople, satisfactory assurances might be secured from the Turkish government. "Sir Julian expressed his approval of the suggestion of concurrent action by the ministers, and stated that he would communicate confidentially and fully to Lord Rosebery upon the subject. He suggested that it might be well to have our legation in London make some informal representation, as well as to advise our new minister to Turkey to put himself in communication with the British ambassador there. "The Secretary responded that the suggestions of Sir Julian would be carried out by him." Memorandum of conference between the Secretary of State of the United In 1899, when the long-pending controversy in regard to Venezuela's requiring ship's papers to be deposited with the customs |