Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/246

 War Claims—American Occupation of the Philippines. 219 for military purposes, and he sought the in terposition of his own government to enable him to obtain compensation or indemnity for his losses. Lord Granville replied to his appli cation by saying that " it is out of their (the governments') power to interfere to obtain any redress for him, inasmuch as foreigners residing in a country which is the seat of war are equally liable with the natives of the coun try to have requisitions levied on their pro perty by the belligerents." In another case his lordship says, " that her Majesty's subjects, resident in France, whose property has been destroyed during the war, cannot expect tobe compensated on the ground of their being British subjects for losses which the necessi ties of war have brought upon them in com mon with French subjects." And in still another case, that of the Eng lish residents of Chantilly, his lordship in structs Mr. Odo Russell, in presenting their case for the consideration of the Emperor of Germany, to state, "that her Majesty's gov ernment make no claim for the petitioners to be exempted, as British subjects, from the evils incident to a state of war, to which all other persons resident in France are exposed." These views are in full accord with the long established and well understood rules which the necessities and exigencies of war give rise to. However much they may be modified in practice by the enlightened and humane spirit of modern times, the rules which govern the conduct and rights of belligerents in such emergencies are not changed." (Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Thornton, May 1 6, 1873, MSS. notes, Great Britain.) The same doctrine is emphatically declared by Mr. Frelinghuysen, as Secretary of State, in diplomatic correspondence with the Bel gian government.- "The property of alien residents, like that of natives of the country, when ' in the track of war,' is subject to war's casualities, and whatever in front of the ad vancing forces that either impedes or may give them aid when appropriated, or which, if left unmolested in their rear, might afford

aid and comfort to the enemy, may be taken or destroyed by the armies of either of the belligerents, and no liability whatever is un derstood to attach to the government of the country, whose flag that army bears, and whose battles it may be fighting, and when actual, positive war is in progress the com mander of the armies in the field must be the judge of the existing exigencies and ne cessities which dictate such action. This is believed to be the universal rule at the pres ent day; it is that which has been followed by the governments of Europe in the recent wars. In the case of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, Earl Granville, then Sec retary of State for foreign affairs of Great Britain, adhered to this rule in regard to British subjects resident in France, during the time of the Prussian invasion of France, and it is known that British subjects then resident in France, and who were in the track of the war, lost property to the amount of many millions of dollars." (Mr. Frelinghuy sen, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bounder de Melsbroeck, April 17, 1883, MSS. notes, Belgium.) It is sometimes very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory decision in the investigation of claims before the board, owing to the insuffi cient and sometimes conflicting evidence. The witnesses are generally Philippinos, Chinese, or a half class called here, Mestizos, all of whom speak the Spanish language with more or less facility. It is very difficult to obtain an efficient interpreter. Owing to these conditions, the testimony is frequently of a very unsatisfactory character. In the case under consideration, a portion of the evi dence tends to show that the fire was set to the distillery by the unauthorized acts of sol diers sent to destroy the vino contained therein. This, however, is positively denied by the sergeant in charge of the detachment, but if proven, the fact would not fix the lia bility upon the government. That the United States is not liable for the unauthorized or wanton acts of its troops, reference is made