SEGREGATION OF JAPANESE STUDENTS acting for the United States government, which is responsible in our international relations, to enforce the rights of aliens under treaties.1"
47
our government for injuries to the per sons and property of their subjects in the United States, the precise question as to the liability of the nation for the ac tion or lack of action by state authorities, has been somewhat confused. Our govern ment has constantly denied national liabil ity, although from reasons of humanity or beneficence it has made generous compen sation to indemnify the sufferers or their representatives. Denial of liability has been in the nature of a demurrer on the facts shown. It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss what may be the duty of a state according to international law, with respect to acts of mob violence committed against the persons and property of resident aliens. It is submitted, however, that neither the existence of a duty, nor the extent of the scope of a duty, which one government may owe to another, whether arising from a treaty, or from the general principles of international law, depends upon the extent of control it has seen fit to exercise over any of the agencies of government employed in its territory. If our government in sincerity wishes to do exact justice in its relations with foreign countries; if it desires their esteem and regard, it must be compelled to fling aside as untenable in law, and as unworthy of an enlightened nation, the slightest pretense that lack of necessary legislation or of proper machinery of govern ment is a defense for not fulfilling the functions of government. Again, assuming that there may have been a violation of the treaty of 1894, as well as that the United States is responsible for the acts of the authorities of California of such a kind, the means which the United States might find it necessary to employ to insure in future the observance of the treaty is not in theory of international importance. That is entirely a local affair. Practically, however, Japan might keenly regret to find our government put to vast expense, or forced to adopt extraordinary means in order to give to the subjects of the
On July 26, 1875, Mr. Robert Bunch, who was Minister Resident of Great Britain to Columbia, rendered an award as umpire in the arbitration of the claim of the United States against Columbia for damages aris ing from the occupation in the state of Panama, of the American steamer Montijo. In reply to the contention that the govern ment of Columbia was not responsible for an act by the constituent state of Panama, he said : "It cannot be denied that the treaties under which the residence of foreigners in Columbia is authorized, and their rights during such residence defined and assured, are made with the general government, and not with the separate States of which the Union is composed. The same practice obtains in the United States, in Switzerland, and in all countries in which the federal system is adopted. In the event, then, of the viola tion of a treaty stipulation, it is evident that a recourse must be had to the entity with which the international engagements were made. There is no one else to whom application can be directed. For treaty purposes the separate states are non existent; they have parted with a certain defined portion of their inherent sovereignty, and can only be dealt with through their accredited representative or delegate, the federal or general government. ... If this rule, which the undersigned believes to be beyond dispute, be correctly laid down, it follows that in every case of inter national wrong the general government of this republic has a very close connection with the proceedings of the separate States of the Union. As it, and it alone, is respon sible to foreign nations, it is bound to show in every case that it has done its best to obtain satisfaction from the aggressor."2 In cases of mob violence where foreign governments have sought reparation from 1 President Roosevelt, annual message, Dec. 4, 1906. 1 The Montijo, Moore's International Arbi trations of U. S., pp. 1439, 1440.
1
