dividual in the public interest. The dividing line between sacrifices for which the individual shall be compensated and those which he must bear alone, the extent of his remedy for official misfeasance or nonfeasance, the proper party defendant, whether state or officer, de España, . . . 2. ed., Madrid, 1908-11, 8 vol.; Caballero y Montes, José María, Lo contencioso-administrativo, . . . Zaragoza, 1902-04, 3 vol.; Colmerio, Manuel, Elementos del derecho político y administrativo de España, . . 7. ed., Madrid, 1887; González, Alfonso, La materia contencioso-administrativa, comentario á la legislación vigente, Madrid, 1903; Martínez Alcubilla, Marcelo, Diccionario de la administración española, 5. ed., . . Madrid, 1892-95, 9 vols. and Appendices; Posada, Adolfo, Tratado de derecho administrativo según las teorías, filosóficas y la legislación positiva, . . . Madrid, 1897-98, 2 vols.; Royo Villanova, Antonio, Elementos de derecho administrativo, . . . Valladolid, 1907, 2 vol. in 1; Santamaría de Paredes, Vicente, Curso de derecho administrativo, . . . 7. ed., Madrid, 1911; Ubierna y Eusa, J. A., Conflictos jurisdiccionales entre los poderes ejecutivo y judicial, Madrid, 1911.

.

Belgium: Bladel, Georges, Eléments de droit maritime administratif belge, Bruxelles, 1912; Bourquin, Maurice, La protection des droits individuels contre les abus de pouvoir de l'autorité administrative en Belgique, Bruxelles, 1912; Errera, Paul, Traité de droit public belge, Paris, 1909; Giron, A., Dictionnaire de droit administratif et de droit public, Bruxelles, 1895-96, 3 vol.; Giron, A., Le droit administratif de la Belgique, 2. éd., . . . Bruxelles, 1885, 3 vol.; Masson, F., and Wiliquet, C., Manuel de droit constitutionnel, notions élémentaires des institutions constitutionnelles et administratives de la Belgique, . . . 7. éd., Bruxelles, 1904; Orban, O., Manuel de droit administratif belge, Liège, Namur, 1897.

Portugal: Motta, Jayme Arthur da, Codigo administrativo de 1896 annotado, 2. edição, Coimbra, 1909; Pedrosa, Guimaraes, Curso de ciencia da administração e direito administrativo, 2. ediçao, Coimbra, Imp. Univ., 1909, 2 vol. SPANISH AMERICA:

Argentine: Estrada, José M., Curso de derecho constitucional, federal y administrativo, Buenos Aires, 1895; López, Lucio Vicente, Derecho administrativo argentino, . . . Buenos Aires, 1902.

...

Bolivia: Loayza, Hiram, Juicios de hacienda comprende juicio coactivo, . . La Paz, 1906; Moscoso, Octavio, Diccionario jurídico y administrativo de Bolivia, Sucre, 1908, 2 vol.; Santos Quinteros, José, Derecho administrativo, Sucre, 1893. Brazil: Viveiros de Castro, August O., Tratado de sciencia da administração e direito administrativo, 2. ed., Rio de Janeiro, 1912.

Chile: Amunategui Rivera, J. D., Administración politica i derecho administrativo, Santiago de Chile, 1907; Amunategui Rivera, José Domingo, Tratado general de derecho administrativo aplicado á la legislación de Chile, Santiago, 1907; Amunategui Rivera, J. D., Résumen de derecho administrativo aplicado a la legislación de Chile, Montevideo, 1900; Larrain Zanartu, J. J., El ciudadano y el gobierno, Santiago, 1886; Perez de Arce, Hermójenes. Tratado de administración pública, . . . Santiago,

Colombia: Olarte Camacho, Vicente, Recopilación de leyes y disposiciones ad

are matters which differ from country to country and which require detailed examination.

We have already adverted to the two aspects of the state as a property owner and fiscal entrepreneur and as a public power. The difficulty in applying the rule of responsibility, which is generally admitted in the former case and on principle denied in the latter, consists in determining when the state does act as a subject of property rights and when it acts in its sovereign sphere as a public power. For example, one transaction may involve its functions in both capacities; thus, it has been held in France that a request for diplomatic interposition made upon the Foreign Office, with papers in support, cannot in case of refusal involve the responsibility of the state, but that the loss of the papers filed does warrant an action for damages. The only way of settling the difficulty is by reference to the administrative jurisprudence of the various countries, from which we may determine the particular activities of the state which have been held to be within its functions as a fiskus, or to constitute acts of gestion, and therefore to involve the liability of the state.

When the state acts in its capacity as a public power, its responsibility has often been admitted by special legislation. For example, all states recognize the necessity of compensating the owner of private property taken for public use. How much further governments go in

ministrativas, Bogota, Colombia, 1901–2, 2 vol.; González, Florentino, Derecho administrativo (Bogota).

Costa Rica: Zambrana, Antonio, La administración. Un estudio, San José, 1897. Cuba: Morilla, José Maria, Breve tratado de derecho administrativo espagñol general del reino, y especial de la isla de Cuba, 2. ed., Habana, 1896, 2 vol. in 1. Guatemala: González Saravia, Antonio, La administración publica (Guatemala). Haiti: Price, Hannibal, Législation haitienne. Cours de droit administratif, 2. ed., Havre, 1910.

Paraguay: Ley de organización administrativa (Asunción), 1908.

Peru: Riós, Ricardo R., Legislación administrativa y manuel de funcionarios públicos, Lima, Moreno, 1907-, Vol. 1 and cont.

Salvador: Organización política y administración de el Salvador. Codificación de las leyes politicas y administrativas vigentes (El Salvador).

Uruguay: Varela, Luis Vicente, Código de procedimientos administrativos y de los contencioso administrativo, Montevideo, 1908; Varela, Luis, Apuntes de derecho administrativo, . . . Montevideo, 1897, 2 vol.; Varela, Luis Vicente, Estudios de derecho administrativo, . . . Montevideo, 1901-6, 2 vol.

compensating individuals for losses incidental to the operation of the state's public or police power differs greatly from country to country. To some extent the question will be discussed below. For the present it may merely be noted that the more important countries of Europe are greatly widening the sphere of state responsibility for the losses imposed upon individuals through the exercise of the public power and especially is this the case where, in countries like France, an administrative jurisdiction controls acts of administration. Many publicists therefore profess to note an abandonment of the timehonored distinction between acts of gestion and acts of public power as a criterion of state responsibility, and it is unquestionably true that recent decisions have greatly weakened the force of the distinction.1

Finally, in addition to the differences as to substantive responsibility, there is to be noted a wide variation in the remedies offered to individuals injured through official action. In some countries, as in France and Italy, recourse may be had to the administrative courts by way of annulment for acts in excess of jurisdiction or power, or misuse of authority by officers. This remedy does not lie in Belgium and some other states, like the Scandinavian countries, where there are no administrative courts and where judicial control is extremely limited. In the United States and Great Britain, the judicial control through the use of injunction and mandamus effects the same purpose.2 In some countries the government is made primarily responsible for the defective operation of the public administration, at least for acts not attributable to the personal malice or intentional wrong-doing of the officer. This is the system in force with various modifications in the countries of Western Europe. In France, the responsibility of the state is exceedingly wide, in Austria very narrow. In Germany, distinctions are made between the lawful and unlawful exercise of the public power, a special statute being a necessary con

1 Teissier, G., La responsibilité de la puissance publique, Paris, 1906; Sourdois, Jean, De l'évolution, du fondement et de l'étendue de la responsabilité de l'Etat, Bordeaux, 1908, ch. V. Tirard, Paul, De la responsabilité de la puissance publique, Paris, 1906, p. 171 et seq., gives an account of the recent decisions of the French Conseil d'Etat which indicate the new tendency to widen the sphere of state responsibility. See also Otto Gierke in 28 Deutscher Juristentag, I, 102 et seq.

Laferrière, op. cit., I, 26 et seq.

dition for responsibility in the former case. Since the Prussian act of August 1, 1909, and the imperial act of May 22, 1910, the state by law has assumed responsibility for the unlawful acts of officers. Something of the same development may be noted in recent statutes of Salvador and Venezuela. In Switzerland and Hungary, the responsibility of the state is largely subsidiary to that of the offending officer. In some countries, as in Austria, Portugal, Greece, Servia, and many of the countries of Latin-America, the responsibility of the wrong-doing officer is increased in direct ratio to the decrease in the responsibility of the state. In the United States and Great Britain

1 Über die Entschädigung für Einwirkungen der öffentlichen Gewalt in die Privatrechtsphäre by Walther Perlmann in 34 Ztschr. f. d. privat- u. öff. Recht, 57-122 and Studien zur Frage der Schadenshaftung des Staates und ihrer Geltendmachung, by Perlmann in 24 Archiv. f. öff. Recht (1909), 520-571; Die direkte oder subsidiäre Haftung des Staates und der Gemeinden für Versehen u. Vergehen ihrer Beamten und Angestellten by E. Ziegler in 7 (n. f.) Ztschr. f. schweiz. Recht (1888), 481–562. 2 La responsabilità dei pubblici funzionarii by G. Quaranta, 16 Il Filangieri, 273– 297.

Portugal, constitution of April 29, 1826, art. 145, § 27.

Austria, Perlmann, op. cit., p. 109. See, however, Ružicka, Ernst, Die Entschädigungsklage wegen übler obligkeitlicher Verwaltung, Wien, 1913, in which the author, on the basis of the decree of Feb. 13, 1789, finds a wide range of state responsibility to individuals, and almost no liability of the officer.

Brazil, Constitution of 1889, art. 60; Mexico, constitution of 1857, arts. 103, 104. In other countries of Latin-America, the liability of officers is limited to certain circumstances, e. g., injuries inflicted in the course of revolutions.

Venezuela, Constitution of April 27, 1904, Title IV, art. 27; Title VIII, art. 115 (Rodriguez, Amer. Const. I, 205, 229); decree of Feb. 14, 1873, art. 3. By decree of Nov. 13, 1912, the state reserves a right of subrogation against the officer, if it must pay a diplomatic claim.

Salvador, Legislative decree of May 10, 1910, grants individuals a right to sue the state. See Exposición de motivos, by Salvador Rodríguez. Libro rosado. Haiti, Constitution of Oct. 9, 1889, art. 185 (Rodríguez, II, 85).

Ecuador, Constitution, art. 39 (Rodriguez, II, 284); Salvador, Constitution, art. 138 (Rodriguez, I, 294); Bolivia, Constitution, art. 111 (Rodriguez, II, 441); see also Tchernoff, Protection des nationaux, 292; Calvo, op. cit., § 1263.

As in most state systems founded upon Roman law, the state in Latin-America generally can be sued. It is expressly provided for in the following constitutions and laws.:

Argentine constitution, Art. 100, Rodriguez, Vol. I, pp. 127-8; Brazil constitution, Art. 60, ibid., Vol. I, p. 155; Colombia constitution, Art. 151, ibid., Vol. II, p. 355; Costa Rica constitution, Art. 46, ibid., Vol. I, p. 332; Venezuela constitution, Art. 14, ibid., Vol. I, p. 225; Brazil, law of November 20, 1894, Collecção das Leis, 1894,

the responsibility of the state outside of contractual relations is exceedingly limited. By statute certain invasions of property rights in the public interest are compensated-thus, by state law, the duty to make compensation is at times imposed upon the state for the destruction of diseased animals; or of houses, to prevent the spread of a conflagration; for the injuries to individuals arising out of erroneous decisions of health officers in imposing restrictions upon persons suspected of contagious diseases, etc. On the other hand, the responsibility of officers is, in theory at least, exceedingly broad. We shall examine hereafter the many limitations on this supposedly wide responsibility. One tendency with respect to official responsibility is manifest on all sides-that is, in the interests of good administration, to protect the officer from liability for his acts performed in good faith. This tendency is compensated in Europe by increasing the responsibility of the state; in Anglo-American law, however, such a compensatory tendency is, as yet, hardly evident.

THE STATE AS A PUBLIC POWER

The study of the remedies of the individual and the respective responsibilities of state and officer can perhaps be made most clear by examining the state in its threefold functions as a public power, namely, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive or administrative—the last, for our purposes, the most important of all.

$51. Acts of Legislation-No Responsibility the Rule.

It is manifest that acts of legislation may seriously interfere with private interests and in some cases even private rights. An act of the legislature is almost always general and impersonal in its nature and can only in exceptional circumstances involve the state in pecunVol. I, p. 16 et seq.; Colombia, law of August 31, 1886, Arts. 1, 2, 77 State Papers, p. 807; Venezuela, law of April 16, 1903, Art. 16, 96 State Papers, p. 647 et seq.; Decree of Nov. 13, 1912, 9 Bl. f. vergl. Rechtsw. (1913), Col. 71–74; Guatemala, law of February 21, 1894, Art. 81, 86 State Papers, p. 1286 et seq.; Salvador, Decree of May 10, 1910, Libro rosado. The state is practically always suable for its acts as a fiskus.

The supreme court is usually given jurisdiction of suits in which the government is a party.