over and satisfy the claims of foreigners arising out of injuries received, have not been acceded to in all cases. Thus, Secretary of State Bayard, referring to the Colombian law of 1886, establishing a board of claims to consider the claims of foreigners arising out of the recent rebellion, stated:

"It is a settled principle of international law that a sovereign cannot be permitted to set up one of his own municipal laws as a bar to a claim by a foreign sovereign for a wrong done to the latter's subjects; and you are consequently to take the ground in all discussions with the Government of Colombia that the statute adopted by Colombia on the 31st of August, 1886, is regarded by the government of the United States as in no way whatever qualifying or limiting the obligations of Colombia to the United States for injuries inflicted on citizens of the United States when in Colombia." 1

It is sometimes provided that the bringing of a claim which would prejudice the nation or any recourse to diplomatic protection involves the expulsion of the foreigner.2

Other attempts to secure jurisdiction over the foreigner take the form of ascribing local citizenship to him or depriving him of foreign nationality on the performance of or omission to perform certain acts. This might be considered an easy form of naturalization, but whereas citizenship is usually regarded as a benefit, it must in these cases be considered a penalty, inasmuch as it forfeits the foreigner's rights

America, can be sued. It is expressly provided for in the following constitutions and laws:

Argentine, constitution, Art. 100, Rodriguez, I, 127-128; Brazil, constitution, Art. 60, ibid. I, 155; Colombia, constitution, Art. 151, ibid. II, 355; Costa Rica, constitution, Art. 46, ibid. I, 332; Venezuela, constitution, Art. 14, ibid. I, 225; Brazil, law of November 20, 1894, Collecção das leis, 1894, I, 16 et seq.; Colombia, law of August 31, 1886, Arts. 1, 2, 77 State Papers, 807; Venezuela, law of April 16, 1903, Art. 16, 96 State Papers, 647 et seq.; Executive decree of Nov. 13, 1912, 8 A. J. I. L. (1914), Suppl. 174; Guatemala, law of February 21, 1894, Art. 81, 86 State Papers, 1286 et seq.

The Supreme Court is usually given jurisdiction of suits in which the government is a party.

1 Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. King, October 13, 1886, For. Rel., 1887, p. 246.

"Nicaragua, constitution, Art. 11, Rodriguez, I, 302; Honduras, constitution, Art. 15, ibid. I, 362; Honduras, law of April 10, 1895, Art. 37, 87 State Papers, 707; Alvarez, op. cit., 120.

as a foreign citizen and subjects him to all the conditions to which the native citizen must submit. Thus, Brazil provided, in 1889, that all aliens who within a certain period failed to register their foreign nationality before certain administrative boards would lose their right of alienage.1 Similarly, the laws of certain states provide that foreigners who enter the public service and accept a salary, thereby become citizens.2

It is generally provided that foreigners who take part in the domestic struggles of the country remain subject, as are citizens, to the consequences of their conduct in conformity with the local law.3 A participation in the political affairs of the country of residence is sometimes penalized with serious consequences for the foreigner, at least according to municipal legislation. The law of Venezuela of April 11 (16), 1903, makes it clear that alienage is regarded as a substantial benefit to the individual, and that means are sought to bring the rights of the alien down to the precarious level of those of the citizen. Art. 6 of the law of 1903 provides:

"Foreigners domiciled or in transit must not mix in the political affairs of the Republic nor in anything relating to said political affairs. To this end they cannot:

"1. Form a part of political societies.

"2. Edit political newspapers or write about the interior or exterior policies of the country in any newspaper.

"3. Fill public office or employment.

1 Brazil, constitution, Art. 69, reincorporating the decree of December 14, 1889, Rodriguez, I, 158; see also on forced naturalization, Moore's Dig. III, § 378, and supra, pp. 535, 683, 712.

2 Salvador, constitution, Art. 48, Rodriguez, I, 268; Ecuador, law of 1888, Art. 5, First Pan-American Conference, Report on Uniform Code of International Law, Sen. Ex. Doc. 183, 51st Cong., 1st sess., p. 28, and U. S. protest thereon. See also supra, pp. 712, 813.

3 Venezuela, decree of May 18, 1869, 59 State Papers, 1304; Constitution of 1904, art. 14. The American republics generally reserve the right of treating aliens who take part in their civil struggles as their own nationals. See treaties of Germany and Colombia, July 23, 1892, Art. 20, Martens, Vol. 69, p. 842; Spain and Honduras, November 17, 1894, Art. 3, Olivart's Colección, Vol. II, p. 156; Spain and Colombia, April 28, 1894, Art. 4, Olivart, ibid., Vol. II, p. 63; Italy and Colombia, October 27, 1892, Art. 5, Martens, Vol. 72, p. 310. See also debate in German Reichstag, January 21, 1894, cited in R. G. D. I. P. (1895), 343–344. In the treaties concluded among themselves, the Latin-American countries usually incorporate a provision to this effect. Tchernoff, op. cit., 210.

"4. Take arms in the domestic contentions of the Republic. "5. Deliver speeches which in any way relate to the politics of the country."

Article 7 provides:

"Domiciled foreigners who violate any of the provisions established in article 6 lose their character of foreigners and become ipso facto subjected to the responsibilities, burdens, and obligations which might be occasioned to natives through intestine political contingency." 1

Foreign corporations doing business in the state are sometimes regarded as national corporations,2 especially where they are the grantees of a concession-contract from the government. Turkey, by a law of January 10, 1888, endeavored to attach to its permission to foreigners to set up printing presses the obligation of renouncing the immunities and privileges of foreigners, and a subjection to the same law as Turkish nationals. The United States adhered to its policy of refusing to consider its right of protection impaired in any way by such a municipal law.3

The holding of real property sometimes has as its consequence local citizenship, or, at least, with respect to such property, the obligations of citizenship. Thus, the law of Haiti containing this provision was advanced as a defense to a claim for the injury of property in Haiti owned by an American citizen. The arbitrators in the case decided that the provision could only be given effect where there had been a legal proceeding to dispossess the American citizen under the law, and in the absence of such proceeding, mere possession was considered to entitle him to an indemnity for injuries to his property. The provision in the constitution of Mexico of 1857, by which aliens holding 1 Senate Doc. 413, 60th Cong., 1st sess., p. 16.

2 Colombia, constitution, Art. 14, Rodriguez, II, 321; Venezuela, constitution, art. 124, Rodriguez, I, 231; Salvador, law of September 29, 1886, Art. 5, 77 State Papers, 116.

The statutes often provide that concession contracts made with foreigners or foreign corporations shall make the concessionary a citizen for all purposes of the contract. See also, North and South American Construction Co. (U. S.) v. Chile, Aug. 7, 1892, Moore's Arb. 2318-2322.

Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Strauss, Minister to Turkey, June 28, 1888, For. Rel., 1888, II, 1599.

Williams (U.S.) v. Haiti, Convention of 1885, Moore's Arb. 1859. See For. Rel., 1885, 525, 540.

real estate became Mexican citizens unless they manifested an intention to retain their foreign citizenship, came for consideration before the Commission of July 4, 1868, in which Umpires Lieber and Thornton both held that even though there was no manifestation of an intent to retain their original citizenship, nevertheless, Mexican citizenship could not be imposed upon foreigners by the law, as the provision was permissive and not obligatory; likewise, that it had no retroactive effect upon an alien acquiring real estate prior to the enactment of the constitutional provision.1

$394. Matriculation as Foreigner.

Several countries, such as Mexico, Salvador, Spain (in Cuba), Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Peru,2 have at various times by their municipal law required foreigners to matriculate or register their alienage in a certain book kept for that purpose, as a condition precedent to the assertion of their rights as foreigners. As provided for by the Salvadorean law of September 29, 1886, Arts. 21-28, these rights of foreigners are:

(1) To appeal to the treaties and conventions existing between Salvador and their respective governments.

(2) To have recourse to the protection of their sovereign through the medium of diplomatic representation.

(3) The benefit of reciprocity.

1 Anderson and Thompson (U.S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore's Arb. 2482; Morton (U.S.) v. Mexico, July 4, 1868, Moore's Arb. 2477-2479. See alsc supra, p. 492. 2 Mexico, decree of March 16, 1861, Legislaciôn mexicana, Vol. 9, p. 123; decree of December 6, 1866, ibid., Vol. 9, p. 749; decree of July 28, 1871, ibid., Vol. 11, p. 540; decree of April 6, 1872, ibid., Vol. 12, p. 173. These decrees were repealed by the law of May 28, 1886, ibid., Vol. 17, p. 474, by which optional registration was substituted for compulsory matriculation. See Moore's Dig. VI, pp. 309-314, and authorities there cited.

Salvador, law of September 29, 1886, Arts. 21-28, 77 State Papers, 116-122, Moore's Dig. VI, 314–315, III, 791-793; Spain in Cuba, decree of October 3, 1895, Revista de Legislación, Boletin, v. 100 (1895), pp. 639-640, Moore's Dig. VI, 316-317, III, 794-795; Honduras, decree of April 10, 1895, Arts. 23-26, 87 State Papers, 703704; Ley de extranjeria, Feb. 8, 1906, Art. 25, For. Rel., 1909, pp. 361-363; Guatemala, decree of February 21, 1894, Arts. 35-41, 86 State Papers, 1281 et seq., Venezuela, law of April 16, 1903, Art. 12, 96 State Papers, 647 et seq.; Peru, decree of March 3, 1887, Moore's Dig. IV, 26.

The Cuban regulations of 1895 and the Mexican law of 1861 similarly made matriculation a condition precedent to the assertion of rights as foreigners, either as granted by municipal law or by treaty. The omission so to matriculate, therefore, would operate as an estoppel or deprivation of their rights as citizens of a foreign country. Mexico even required in its law of 1861 (Art. 8) that "tribunals and judges, before entering any claims presented before, them by a foreigner, must first demand a presentation of said certificate, noting its date and number, and without such presentation no such claimant shall be heard in court or out of it." These countries contend that such matriculation is a proof of the alien's nationality and of his right to the special privileges and obligations embodied in the rights of aliens. According to the Salvadorean statute, unless a foreigner possesses a certificate of matriculation no authority or public functionary of Salvador is permitted to concede to him any of these rights.

With respect to these statutes, the United States has taken the view that while this government is disposed to admit the convenience of registration as an additional evidence of the rights of its citizens to the protection of the local authorities, and by consular instructions has facilitated such registration, it has never consented that the failure. to register could deprive American citizens of their rights as such citizens.1 Mr. Bayard's interpretation of the Salvadorean statute was that "by making the compliance of a foreigner with a municipal regulation a condition precedent to the recognition of his national character, the [foreign] government not only assumes to be the sole judge of his status, but imposes upon him as a penalty of non-compliance a virtual loss of citizenship." He considered this to be an attempt to abrogate the sovereign right of this government toward its citizens in foreign lands, "to which this government has never given assent."

1 Mr. Olney, Sec'y of State, to the President, December 7, 1896, For. Rel., 1896, p. lxxxvii and p. 677 et seq. (with reference to the Cuban statute); Mr. Fish, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Foster, Minister to Mexico, July 15, 1875, Moore's Dig. VI, 310 (with reference to the Mexican statute); Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Hall, November 29, 1886, For. Rel., 1887, pp. 78-80 (with reference to the Salvadorean statute). See also Moore's Dig. VI, 315; ibid. III, 790 et seq.

According to a letter from Mr. Hall (For. Rel., 1887, p. 111) Salvador, evidently heeding the objection of foreign governments, took no steps to carry out the law.