Mr. John Quincy Adams, when Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. De Onis (supra), March 12, 1818, states the principle in this way:

"There is no principle of the law of nations more firmly established than that which entitles the property of strangers within the jurisdiction of a country in friendship with their own, to the protection of its sovereign by all the efforts in his power." Whart. Int. Law Dig., Vol. II, § 201.

There is Spain's liability. She was liable for any failure to protect the 60,000 or 70,000 foreigners in Manila "by all the efforts in (her) power."

Now, as a rule, the foreigners who continually reside in a foreign country that is at war are entitled only to such protection as that to which the native citizens of that country are entitled from their government. But there is a peculiar liability to which eastern governments are subject toward Europeans, that grows out of the fact that Europeans in the East almost never mix with the natives. They live by themselves, usually in a part of the town of their own. At Tientsin, for instance, which was so recently besieged by the Boxers, there are two cities, the Chinese and the

European settlements. International law regards these Europeans as Europeans still, and the Spanish Government was liable to the home governments of Europeans in Manila for any damage or harm done to them by any failure upon her part to protect them "by all the efforts in (her) power." The best statement I have found of this point is in Lawrence's Wheaton (Elems. of Int. Law, § 333, p. 418), as follows:

"The national character of merchants residing in Europe and America is derived from that of the country in which they reside. In the eastern parts of the world, European persons, trading under the shelter and protection of the factories founded there, take their national character from that association under which they live and carry on their trade: this distinction arises from the nature and habits of the countries.

"In the western part of the world, alien merchants mix in the society of the natives; access and intermixture are permitted, and they become incorporated to nearly the full extent.

But in the East, from almost the oldest times, an immiscible character has been kept up; foreigners are not admitted into the general body and mass of the nation; they continue strangers and sojourners, as all their fathers were. Thus, with respect to establishments in Turkey, the British courts of prize, during war with Holland, determined that a merchant, carrying on trade in

Smyrna, under the protection of the Dutch consul, was to be considered a Dutchman, and condemned his property as belonging to an enemy. And thus in China, and generally throughout the East, persons admitted into a factory are not known in their own peculiar national character; and, not being permitted to assume the character of the country, are considered only in the character of that association or factory.'

RIGHT OF THE FOREIGN NATIONS TO INTERVENE

In case Spain did not, either because she could not or would not, protect a foreign citizen and his property in Manila, the nation to which that foreigner belonged could step in, come in,-intervene is the legal term,—and protect him herself with her cannon, her ships, her armies, or any other way she might choose. The right of a nation to protect its own citizens anywhere is akin to the highest law, -the law that, when invoked, allows a government to override and overturn every other law made by man or by itself even, the law of self-preservation. Here are the leading authors for these state

ments:

Taylor, Int. Pub. Law, § 174, says:

"A part of the general right of self-preservation possessed by every state is the special right

to protect its subjects abroad, which is correlative to its liability to respond for injuries inflicted upon aliens within its own limits."

At § 198, he continues:

"Nations must hold intercourse with each other, and the right of a state to protect its subjects abroad imposes the reciprocal duty upon it to answer for injuries unlawfully inflicted upon foreigners within its territory and jurisdiction."

That is, "If I may protect my citizens in your country, I'll protect yours in mine."

Hall's Int. Law, § 87, states the principle thus:

"States possess a right of protecting their subjects abroad which is correlative to their responsibility in respect of injuries inflicted upon foreigners within their dominions."

How far a nation may go in protecting its citizens when they are endangered while among a foreign nation, may be judged by the following citations:

Prof. Hoffcutt, of Indiana University, in a treatise styled "International Law for Mob Injuries," says:

"It is the undeniable right of every sovereign state, and to a reasonable extent the duty, as

well, to protect the persons and the property of its citizens visiting or domiciled in a foreign country, and when they are injured in a manner not warranted by the principles of international law, to intervene in their behalf. If the foreign country permits aliens thus to visit or reside in its territory, it impliedly guarantees them the same measure of safety and protection as is provided for its own citizens. Should it fail in this international duty, in any respect, the government of the injured alien has a just cause for intervention and complaint. The principle was stated concretely by Chief Justice Marshall to be that 'The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes local and temporary allegiance to the country, is yet. entitled to the protection of

his own government.' (Murray vs. Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, 120.) This language was adopted as correct by Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, (vol. 6, Webster's Works, p. 523) and has been since generally approved as embodying an accepted principle of international law and a rule for the guidance of the government of the United States."

Mr. Hall (Int. Law, § 12) states:

"When a state grossly and patently violates international law, in a matter of serious importance, it is competent to any state, or to the body of states, to hinder the wrongdoing from being accomplished, or to punish the wrongdoer, International law being unprovided with the support of an organized authority, the work of police