15. It is absolutely prohibited the establishment in the country of a society of any character whatever which does not have its headquarters or its domicile in it.

16. Foreigners have the right, the same as Venezuelans, to demand of the nation by way of reparation the losses and damages which may have been occasioned them, in times of war, by the civil and military authorities, legitimately constituted, always provided that they were operating in their public character; but they can only make these reclamations along the lines established by the legislation of the country, in order to prove the truth as to the losses and damages suffered, likewise their just value.

17. Foreigners cannot, nor can Venezuelans, reclaim from the government of Venezuela the losses and damages occasioned them by armed groups or peoples, in the service of any revolution; but they can commence a personal action against the authors of the losses and damages suffered.

18. The dispositions of this law are without prejudice to the contracts contained in public treaties.

19. The Presidents of the States, the Governor of the Federal District, and the Governors of the Federal Territories will proceed, immediately after the promulgation of this law, to form a directory of the foreigners domiciled in the territory comprised in their respective jurisdictions, which will be remitted opportunely to the Minister of Exterior Relations.

20. Foreigners who come to the Republic in order to be admitted into its territory will be under the obligation of presenting to the first civil authority of the place where they enter, the documents proving their personal status, and a certificate of good conduct, granted by the authorities of their last domicile, properly legalized.

21. The National Executive will make additional by-laws or regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the present law.

22. This repeals the Executive Decree of the 14th of February, 1873, which determines the duties and rights of foreigners, and the Executive Decree of July 30, 1897, which treats of the interference of foreigners in the election affairs of the country.

Given in the Federal Legislative Palace, in Caracas, April 11, 1903.

III. DECREE AGAINST FOREIGNERS BY Guzman BLANCO.

ART. 1. Those who commence reclamations against the nation, whether national citizens or foreigners, because of losses, damages, or forced loans, caused by acts of officials of the nation or of the States, be it in civil war, or in international war, or in time of peace, will make them in the manner which the present law establishes.

2. The reclamation will be made exactly by formal demand before the Alta Corte Federal.

3. In these actions will be cited, in addition to the representative of the nation, the official to whom is imputed the deeds, and the State in which he had authority, if such there be.

4. Before the answer to the demand, the tribunal will cause to be published in some periodical, at the expense of the claimant, a statement of the demand, in which will be set forth the facts, and other evidence in which they support the demand, the name, title, domicile, and profession of the

claimant, and the sum demanded. This will be signed by the secretary of the tribunal.

5. In this action oral evidence will not be admitted, except it is proved that the official who caused the damage or forced loans refused to give a corresponding receipt in writing, or that it appears clearly evident, from the nature and circumstances of the case, that it was from every point of view impossible to obtain such written document.

6. The tribunal can order the production of all the proofs which it thinks necessary for the discovery of the truth, whether upon the petition of the parties, or any other person or authority.

7. The nation will have the right to recoup itself from the official responsible, or from the State to which said functionary belonged at the time of the

wrong, for any sums which may be taken from the national treasury in virtue of sentence of judgment.

8. When it appears in a manifest manner that the claimant has exaggerated the amount of damages which he claims to have suffered, he will lose whatever rights he may have had, and will incur a fine of 500 to 3000 venezolanos ($100 to $600 gold) and imprisonment for from three to twelve months. If it should result that the reclamation is entirely false, the one to blame will incur a fine of from 1000 to 5000 venezolanos ($200 to $1000 gold), or imprisonment for from six to twenty-four months.

9. In no case can it be pretended that the nation, or the States, indemnify losses, damages, or forced loans which have not been executed by the legitimate authorities, operating in their public character.

10. The action to reclaim these losses, damages, or forced loans, as established by this law, must be begun within two years.

11. Whoever without having official character decrees contributions, or forced loans, or commits acts of despoliation of whatever nature, and also those who execute them, will be responsible directly and personally to the person damaged.

12. In these actions they will follow the law governing the proceedings of the Alta Corte Federal.

13. The law of the 6th of March, 1854, regarding indemnization to be paid foreigners, is hereby repealed.

Given in Caracas, February 14, 1873.

GUZMAN BLANCO.

IV. EXPULSION OF FOREIGNERS BY BRAZIL

On the 7th of January, 1907, the Executive of Brazil promulgated decree No. 1641 providing regulations for the expulsion of foreigners from the territory of that nation. The decree provides as follows:

"ART. 1. The foreigner who, for whatever motive, should compromise the national safety or public tranquillity, may be expelled from a part or the whole of the national territory.

"ART. 2. Are also sufficient causes for expulsion:

"1. The condemnation or action by foreign tribunals for crime or offences of a common nature.

"2. Two condemnations, at least, by Brazilian tribunals for crimes or offences of a common nature.

"3. Vagrancy, beggary, and pandering competently proved."

In the instructions given by the Executive for the execution of this decree it is stated:

"ART. 2. The expulsion provided for in No. 1 of Article 1 may be ordered by the Federal Government upon all occasions in which the individual shows himself, in the exclusive judgment of the Federal Government, prejudicial to the interests of national security or of public order, in any part of the Union."

A large number of provisions are made with reference to the terms and conditions under which foreigners may be expelled, many of whi h appear to be reasonable, and some of which are monstrous. It will be seen from the articles quoted, however, that a foreigner may be expelled, no difference what damage may be done his estate, on any pretext whatever, whenever the Federal Government thinks his presence is prejudicial to the interest of national security or of public order in any part of the country, and on this point the Federal Government reserves to itself the sole and exclusive right of judgment. The foreigner who refuses to give up his tobacco crop, or the product of his mines, to the local military Jefe may be regarded not only as persona non grata, but as actually prejudicial to the national security, as in so doing he is setting an example of disobedience to the demands of the self-constituted constitutional authorities which might be followed by the native Brazilians, and thus become a grave menace to public order. It will be observed that the decree does not make it necessary to cite the foreigner for trial, or to give him any notice whatever of the proceedings against him. He may be seized in the twinkling of an eye, his property scattered to the four winds, or confiscated, and his family, if he have any, left to shift for itself.

V. LEGAL EFFECT OF LATIN-AMERICAN LAWS PROHIBITING TO FOREIGNERS THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS

Secretary of State T. F. Bayard gave the following instructions to Minister Hall, under date February 16, 1887:

"Your numbers 605 and 606, dated January 10, 1887, which relate to the status of foreigners under the laws of Salvador and Costa Rica, respectively, have been received.

"As you are aware, a municipal law excluding foreigners from having recourse to their own sovereign to obtain for them redress for injuries inflicted by the sovereign making the law, has in itself no international effect. The United States, for instance, would not be precluded from calling on Costa Rica for redress for injuries on a citizen of the United States by Costa Rica by the fact that the latter State had adopted a law to the effect that no such claims

are to be entertained. By the law of nations the United States have a right to insist upon such claims wherever they hold that such redress should be given; and they would not regard a statute providing that such redress should not be given; and would not regard a statute providing that such claims were not to be the subject of diplomatic action as in any way an obstacle to their taking such action. And I have further to say that the fact that a citizen of the United States was residing in the territory of a State passing such a statute at the time of an injury inflicted on him, does not preclude him from availing himself of the aid of the government of the United States in obtaining redress; for even were such residence regarded as a tacit acceptance of such a law (which it is not), such acceptance would be inoperative, since no agreement by a citizen to surrender the right to call on his government for protection is valid either in international or municipal law."

It should be stated, however, that the above decrees do not represent the policy of the government of Mexico, where foreigners are on an average as well treated as they are in the United States.

B

CHAPTER IV

THE CALVO AND DRAGO DOCTRINES

Y every method which ingenuity could devise the Latin-American dictatorships have sought to keep at their own mercy the foreigners among them. The plainest and most elementary precepts of international law are overruled by the decretas of halfbreed Dictators, and usually with success. Is not Uncle Sam with his Monroe Doctrine in the background?

Time and space hardly suffice to exhibit all the devious schemes for evading the law of nations in the endeavor to prevent foreign governments from intervening to protect their own citizens. A more brazen record of impudence and effrontery cannot be found in the history of international relations than is exhibited in the attitude of most of the South American Republics. At the outset of the Venezuelan arbitrations of 1903, Mr. Frank Plumley, umpire of the British-Venezuelan Commission, in discussing the Aroa Mines case, made the following remarks on this subject:

"The umpire desires to call attention specifically to the general attitude of the South American and Central American Republics relating to the right of the State by constitutional provision and municipal legislation to cut off the right of the government of the injured citizen to intervene to demand attention to injuries received by their subjects in property and person, who maintain, some of them, that in virtue of such legislation no diplomatic claim can exist, and if one is submitted to an arbitral tribunal a judgment of dismissal must be entered. He assumes, rightfully he believes, that all governments concerned in the matter of which we are now inquiring were fully informed and thoroughly advised concerning the legislation and the attitude to which the umpire refers. That they knew that at the time these protocols were drawn opinions irreconcilable with theirs were held by a very large part of the South American and Central American Republics; that these opinions were strengthening rather than abating; that they had taken form in national constitutions and statutes and in proposed treaties and international agree

ments.

"They knew that at the Pan-American Conference of 1889-1890, in a majority report of its committee on international law, among other things it was declared 'that foreigners are entitled to enjoy all the civil rights enjoyed by natives, and to all substantive and remedial rights in the same manner as natives,' and 'that a nation has not, nor recognizes in favor of foreigners, any other obligation or responsibilities than those which are established in like