66 33 Art. 1650. So far as lies within their power, commandersin-chief and captains of ships shall protect all merchant vessels of the United States in lawful occupations, and advance the commercial interests of this country, always acting in accordance with international law and treaty obligations."" 165. Classification of states with regard to stability and protection afforded.—All states, with respect to their character or institutions, may be divided into three general classes: (1) Stable, (2) weak, (3) semi-civilized or barbarous. In the case of states possessing stable institutions, and whose courts are always ready and open for hearings or trials for the purpose of affording redress for the injuries of individuals, all that is ordinarily done is to call the attention of the government of the state through the usual diplomatic channels, to any seeming failure of justice in respect to citizens abroad, and if a dispute follows it is settled diplomatically by arbitration or in extreme cases by war. 1891. 166. Case of the "Baltimore."—A case in an ordinary stable country was that of mob violence towards the crew of the U. S. S. "Baltimore" in Valparaiso, Chile, on October 16, A considerable number of the men of the "Baltimore being on leave and unarmed on shore in the city were assaulted by armed men nearly simultaneously in different localities in the city. One petty officer was killed and another died from his injuries, while seven or eight of the seamen were seriously injured. The ground taken by the United States in this matter was: First. That the attack was one upon the men because they wore the uniform of the United States Navy, and as a feeling of hostility to the United States, and not from any action upon the part of our men. 33 U. S. Navy Regs., 1913. Second. That the authorities of Valparaiso failed in their duty in not giving police protection to the attacked men, which offense was aggravated by the fact that some of the police of the city, as well as some Chilean sailors and soldiers, joined in the attack." The Chilean Government entered a general denial of hostile intent against the United States, and quoted the following from a dispatch from our Secretary of State in connection with riots against Italian subjects within our territory. The dispatch was to the Marquis Imperiali, under date of May 21, 1891, and the words quoted were as follows: "There is no government, however civilized it may be, however great may be the vigilance displayed by its police, however severe its criminal code may be, and however speedy and inflexible may be its administration of justice, that can guarantee its own citizens against violence growing out of individual malice or a sudden popular tumult." With regard to such cases in general Vattel also says that: “It would be unjust to impute to the nation all the faults of its citizens. In general, it cannot be said that one has received an injury from a nation because some of its members have injured him." The vital question of international law involved in the "Baltimore" case was, however, whether the Chilean Government took proper or sufficient measures to prevent the attack and to bring the offenders to punishment. This was a question of fact which our government had to decide for itself according to all the evidence in its possession, and it decided that the Government of Chile had not done all that it should have done to prevent the attack and to punish the offenders." 34 Moore's Digest, p. 854, etc. 35 Snow's Int. Law, ed. by Stockton, p. 54. With respect to the second class of states, that is weak states with unstable governments, it at times occurs that citizens abroad must be protected at once, not by diplomatic representation; there is no time for that, but by the employment of naval force. Under these circumstances whenever civil disturbances occur, it is usual for powers to send a naval force to the place of the troubles or threatened commotion for the purpose of affording protection or asylum to the citizens that may be there domiciled. In those cases the regulations of the Navy already quoted must be followed so far as they can apply. The responsibility for any action taken by a naval force, rests wholly upon the commanding officer thereof, after due consultation with the diplomatic or consular officer upon the spot. At times the mere appearance of a naval force, accompanied by a firm attitude on the part of the officer in command, will prevent the resort to active measures. A display of force is sometimes ordered by Congress or by the President of the United States. It happens at times that the commanding officer of a naval force is required by circumstances or request to protect the citizens of other countries than his own. Instances of this kind have occurred of late years, for example, in the protection afforded by British men-of-war in Alaska at the time of a threatened Indian uprising, and by our own vessels on the Isthmus of Panama and at Bluefields in Nicaragua. As to the third class of governments, such as are ordinarily classed as semi-civilized or barbarous, intervention by force in behalf of citizens domiciled or sojourning there is a more common matter. In these countries the employment of naval forces is the principal means of such protection, added thereto at times by the landing of military detachments. CHAPTER VI. TREATIES.-AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.- 167. Treaties.*-By the regulations of the Navy of the United States a senior naval officer when abroad is directed to guard against any actual or threatened violation of the principles of international law or treaty rights to the injury of the United States or its citizens on the part of foreign authorities. The responsibility for any action taken by a naval force rests solely upon the commanding officer thereof. It is hence desirable that when on a foreign station the commanding officers, and those likely to be in command, should make themselves familiar with the treaties with the countries within the limits of their station. Treaties are not international law, but as contracts between nations, treaties are subject to a certain extent to the rules of international law. A treaty which is in any of its parts a direct violation of a well-known fundamental rule of international law is not binding upon the parties concerned or third parties. A treaty, for example, which establishes jurisdiction over the high seas, or militates against the equality of sovereign states, would be void and of no effect. Treaties 'do not make international law, but they do show tendencies which may eventually become accepted rules. When changes become well established it is not necessary to have treaty conditions upon the point. Treaties, as distinguished from conventions, protocols and declarations, are of primary importance, stipulating, as they generally do concerning political or large commercial sub *The volumes containing the treaties in force of the United States will be found in the libraries of the various ships of the U. S. Navy. jects. Conventions generally concern specific matters of minor importance. Protocol, a word generally used to describe the daily minutes of a conference, is sometimes used as the name of a brief agreement or convention of binding force. Declaration is used often as an enunciation of a general doctrine or principles which shall be binding upon the assenting parties, like the Declaration of Paris, and of London. The right to make treaties is included in the fundamental rights of a sovereign state. It can be exercised also in a partsovereign state, like Egypt, to the extent permitted by the suzerain power. The treaty-making power of a state is in the hands of its ruler, subject to more or less restriction, as the constitution of the state provides. With us, for example, the President can only conclude treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. To make a treaty financially effective the House of Representatives is also called upon to act. As commander-in-chief the President can, acting alone, in the exercise of his military powers, conclude armistices and arrange conventions with an enemy. So also can the commander-in-chief of an army or of a naval force. These latter are, however, subject to review by the President, and, as in the case of General Sherman in North Carolina during the Civil War, subject to disapproval and disavowal. The Constitution of the United States provides that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution and laws of any state of the Union to the contrary notwithstanding. A treaty is not binding, of course, until it is duly ratified by the proper authorities of each state. Unless otherwise provided the treaty, however, goes into effect from the date of its signature. |