to preventing any aggressions or attacks upon legations, consulates, foreigners or non-combatants generally; sometimes they have supported one faction against another or the constituted government against insurgents; sometimes they have insisted upon the maintenance of a neutral zone in which no fighting was to be permitted, as in the Dominican Republic in 1904 and 1914 and in Honduras in 1911; sometimes they have prevented the bombardment of certain towns or the blockade of certain ports in which foreign interests have been considerable.

The interference of the United States in these matters has been frequent in Latin-America. The hegemony of the United States on this continent and the force of the Monroe Doctrine have served to induce this government to assume, in greater degree than any other foreign government, a vague measure of primacy in the maintenance of order in the disturbed areas of Latin-America. It is not true, however, as has often been asserted, that the Monroe Doctrine throws upon the United States responsibility for the safety of foreigners in the countries to the south. The seizure of custom-houses or the temporary occupation of ports by European powers, when undertaken for the sole purpose of protecting their subjects or obtaining redress for injuries, cannot be regarded as an impeachment of the Monroe Doctrine. Moreover, while the United States was not formally a party to the Washington Conventions of 1907 between the countries. of Central-America, this government, nevertheless, regards itself as in a measure responsible for their execution, and on this ground has justified its intervention in revolutions and disagreements in and between those countries designed to maintain peace. The existence of the Platt amendment in the Cuban treaty and its probable early extension to Nicaragua, and the financial control in the Dominican Republic arising out of the treaty of 1907, throws upon the United States a certain measure of guardianship in the maintenance in those countries of a responsible government capable of meeting its obligations and protecting foreigners.

Foreign military forces have on occasion been landed in time of actual war between two countries to protect legations or consulates.1

1U. S. forces landed in Korea, in 1894 (Appendix to Memorandum, 63) and in Honduras in 1907 (Appendix, 66).

While the landing of troops in the cases above mentioned has been purely protective, they have not always been able to avoid belligerent operations to effect their purpose. One of the most notable of these interventions was the joint action of the powers in China in 1900 at the time of the Boxer uprising, and the landing of American troops in Nicaragua in 1910, which resulted in the loss of a few American lives.1 While these operations have in origin practically always had the character of non-political intervention, they have at times resulted in an actual interference in the internal affairs of another country, by accident or unavoidable consequence, however, rather than principal design.

The question has occasionally been raised whether the use of the armed forces of the United States for the protection of American citizens abroad requires Congressional legislation. The landing of forces in foreign countries for the purpose of protecting American citizens is not normally an act of war, or a declaration of war, although it might possibly lead to war. Inasmuch as the Constitution vests in Congress authority "to declare war," and does not empower Congress to direct the President to perform his constitutional duties of protecting American citizens on foreign soil, it is believed that the Executive has unlimited authority to use the armed forces of the United States for protective purposes abroad in any manner and on any occasion he considers expedient. It is true that President Buchanan took a contrary view of his duties, and that Congress has on various occasions, by Act and Joint Resolution,2 directed or authorized the President to employ the military forces of the United States in the protection of the interests of American citizens abroad; yet in view of the above, it seems that such authorization is entirely unnecessary, if not without constitutional warrant. Moreover, the commanders of the public vessels of the United States in foreign waters have on many occasions exercised a wide discretion in protecting American

3

1 Memorandum, 33, and citations to Appendix. See particularly, p. 67.

2 Supra, p. 363. See, e. g., Act of March 3, 1819, 3 Stat. L. 510 (protecting merchant vessels from piratical aggressions); Resolution of June 2, 1858 (Water Witch and other claims against Paraguay); J. Res., June 19, 1890 (Venezuelan Steam Transportation Co. claim v. Venezuela); J. Res. of Mar. 2, 1895 (Mora claim v. Spain). 3 See the able discussion in Memorandum of the Solicitor, op. cit., 34–43.

interests by force of arms, and have in emergencies acted without special authority even of the Executive, although responsible to him for their action.1

§ 196. Reprisals.

Reprisals are retaliatory measures of self-help taken by states, as a last resort, to obtain redress for an injury. Such measures may assume a variety of forms, and consist of some seizure of the property or some equivalent injury to the interests of the offending state. Their dangerous proximity to war measures is apparent. In former times, special letters of reprisal were issued to particular individuals who had sustained injury at the hands of a foreign government or its subjects, authorizing them to exact redress on their own account. The United States has never granted authority for special reprisals, and the practice has universally fallen into desuetude. General reprisals by the nation are not infrequent as a mode of redress. One of the best examples of such a measure was the recommendation of President Jackson proposing to exclude French vessels and products from the United States until the French chambers appropriated the indemnity payable under the treaty of 1831.3 They have been resorted to frequently in recent years.4

Among other measures of reprisal adopted for the non-payment of pecuniary claims, have been the following: the seizure of vessels of the offending state; the seizure of custom-houses and the temporary

1 Moore's Dig. VII, § 1093.

2 See the able discussion in Lawrence's Wheaton, 2nd ed., 1863, 506-510; Vattel, liv. II, ch. 18, § 342; Moore's Dig. VII, §§ 1095, 1096.

3 Moore's Dig. VII, 123–130.

4 Moore's Dig. VII, § 1096. The recent abrogation by the U. S. of the treaty of 1832 with Russia because of Russia's unwillingness to admit American citizens of Jewish faith, may well be considered a measure of reprisal, under the circumstances.

'Great Britain seized vessels of Naples in 1840, for alleged violation of treaty in the grant of a sulphur monopoly in 1816, Lawrence's Wheaton, 509; British reprisals against Spain, 9 St. Pap. 897; Great Britain in 1861 seized five vessels of Brazil in Rio Janeiro as reprisal for non-payment of Prince of Wales claim, Hogan, Pacific blockade, 117; Blockading powers, Germany, Great Britain and Italy seized Venezuelan vessels in 1903, For. Rel., 1903, 417; British commander instructed to seize Nicaraguan vessels in 1895, For. Rel., 1895, II, 1025–1034.

1

occupation of towns; the bombardment of coast towns; 2 the blockade of ports and the interruption of commerce; 3 the despatch of punitive expeditions, the declaration of embargoes 5 and the passage of non-intercourse acts, and other forcible measures having in view

1

1 E. g., British occupation of Corinto, 1895, For. Rel., 1895, II, 1025, 1032. French seizure of the fort of San Juan de Ulloa, Mexico, 1838. This actually resulted in a declaration of war by Mexico, settled by treaty of peace of March 9, 1839. Alvarez in 3 A. J. I. L. (1909), 298. French seizure of custom-house at Mitylene, 1901, For. Rel., 1901, 529 and 9 R. G. D. I. P., 677. This has been done in Latin-America on several occasions by various powers.

2 British bombardment of Omoa, 1873, 67 St. Pap. 955; U. S. bombardment of Greytown, 1854, Moore's Dig. VII, 112–116.

3 The anomalous remedy known as pacific blockade has been used for the redress of many wrongs besides those arising out of the non-payment of claims. The nature of this extraordinary remedy is best discussed in Hogan, Albert E., Pacific blockade, Oxford, 1908; Ducrocq, Représailles en temps de paix, Paris, 1901; and Staudacher, H., Die Friedensblockade, Leipzig, 1909. Illustrative cases may be found in Hogan, 73 et seq.; Moore's Dig. VII, § 1097, and Tchernoff, op. cit., 238-244. It has on several occasions been used as a measure of reprisal for the non-payment of claims, notably by France against Portugal in 1831 (Hogan, 77; Ducrocq, 100; Tchernoff, 239; Moore's Dig. VII, 136); by France against Mexico in 1838 (Hogan, 85; Ducrocq, 111; Moore's Dig. VII, 136); by Great Britain against Greece in 1850 in the Pacifico, Finlay and Fantome cases (Hogan, 105; Calvo, III, § 1841; 39 St. Pap. 480; Lawrence's Wheaton, 2nd ed., 509; Moore's Dig. VII, 132); by Great Britain against Brazil in 1862 in the Prince of Wales and Forte cases (Hogan, 117; 73 St. Pap. 81 et seq.; Moore's Dig. VII, 137); and by Great Britain, Germany and Italy against Venezuela, 1902-1903 (For. Rel., 1903, 417-439; Hogan, 149; Zeballos in 1 Bull. argentin de dr. int. privé, 145–177). While pacific blockade is a measure of constraint much milder than war, it merges easily into war, if resistance is long-continued; see, e. g., the French blockade of Formosa, 1884 (Hogan, 122; Ducrocq, 129). The United States has always insisted that pacific blockade must not affect the rights of states not parties to the controversy (For. Rel., 1903, 420 et seq.; Moore's Dig. VII, 141); but it is hardly possible to avoid interfering with the commerce of third states, even if vessels of the blockaded country only are seized.

4 French expedition against Portugal, 1831, 18 St. Pap. 395, 397; British expedition against Abyssinia, 1867, Bonfils, § 440; Agreement between Great Britain, France and Spain, 1861, for taking of forcible measures against Mexico, Moore's Dig.. VI, § 956; Lawrence's Wheaton, 509.

5 The United States in 1807 passed an embargo act prohibiting the departure of vessels from U. S. ports as a measure of reprisal for Napoleon's Berlin decree of 1806 and the British orders in council. Other embargo acts were passed in the years between 1807 and 1814. Moore's Dig. VII, § 1008.

6 Non-intercourse Act of 1798 suspended commercial intercourse between U. S. and France and her dependencies. By the Act of 1809, it was made unlawful to import French products. Moore's Dig. VII, § 1099.

retaliation and the exaction of redress.1 An example of a negative reprisal may be found in the instruction to the British minister in Mexico in 1858, making the recognition of the Constitutional Government contingent upon acknowledgment by that Government of liability for certain claims of British subjects.2

It will have been observed that in most of these cases the forcible action undertaken was in fact the establishment of a state of limited war, and in some cases war actually resulted.3

$197. War.

Only in rare instances has a state actually undertaken war in the full sense-in its physical manifestations merely general reprisals as a mode of redress for the failure to extend local protection to its nationals or for the non-payment of claims. The means of constraint enumerated above have at times assumed the form of hostile belligerent action, but the protecting state has usually endeavored to avoid a construction of its acts which might entail all the legal consequences of war, particularly in its relations with third states. Nevertheless Great Britain's armed expedition against Abyssinia in 1867 on account of the imprisonment and detention of several British subjects has been considered a war measure, and Italy expressly alleged that the principal reason for its declaration of war against Turkey in 1912 was the non-payment of Italian pecuniary claims. It may be remembered that one of the causes of the war of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain was Great Britain's continued interference with American vessels and the removal of American seamen alleged to be British subjects. The claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico for "grievous wrongs perpetrated by Mexico" were recited by President Polk in his special message of May 11, 1846 as one of the causes which required the adoption of war measures. Not a few inter

1

4

1E. g., the use of naval forces to support threats and ultimatums, supra, p. 449 and Memorandum of Solicitor, 31-33.

2 Lord J. Russell to Sir C. Wyke, Mar. 30, 1861, 62 St. Pap. 237.

French blockade of Mexican ports in 1838, Hogan, 85, Moore's Dig. VII, 136; French blockade of Formosa, 1884, Hogan, 122.

'Bonfils, § 440; Annual Register, 1868.

'S. Doc. 337, 29th Cong., 1st sess., 5.