Dear Mr. Secretary of
State:
Following upon the conversation which we had this morning, I beg to
submit the inclosed documents for your examination of the claim of the
Belgian firm El Oriente in re “Saturnus:”
I deeply appreciate, dear Mr. Secretary, your kindness in consenting to
take this case under your personal examination.
I beg to offer you my earnest thanks, and remain with highest
consideration, etc.,
[Memorandum on the Saturnus case presented
by the Belgian Minister to the State Department.]
In reply to the claim of the Belgian firm El Oriente, in re Saturnus, the State Department made it known
that the United States Government rejected all responsibility for
the damage suffered by the claimants at the hands of the Philippine
insurgents, both on strictly legal grounds and on the broad grounds
of equity.
On legal grounds, however, it seems that the evidence adduced before
the various “claim boards” in the Philippine Islands would hardly
prove acceptable in any court of justice, because the evidence
rested exclusively on hearsay testimony and ex parte affidavits, as
it is shown in the brief presented by Mr. Michener, counsel for the
German firm of Baer, senior, in the same Saturnus case.
[Page 60]
The Belgian claimants, therefore, can not accept the statement that
it has been shown conclusively that the moneys found in the
possession of the insurgents were not the identical funds plundered
by the insurgents from the steamer Saturnus.
On the broad grounds of equitable justice, the United States
Government would hardly dispute the fact that it has benefited by
the precise amount of money found in the hands of the insurgents and
taken from them by the American troops.
Whatever may be the origin of these funds, even supposing they were
not the identical moneys plundered from the Saturnus, the claimants in the case have at least a claim
to a pro rata of these funds, and consequently a claim on the
Government who was benefited by the confiscation of that money.
The State Department, in order to reject the present claim, seems to
lay stress upon the decision of an English court of law, in re West
Rand Central Gold Mining Company, Ltd., v.
The King, as reported in 2 K. B., page 391, of the Law Reports,
1905. But it appears that this decision can hardly be stretched so
as to cover the present claim, owing to the fundamental difference
in the circumstances of the cases.
The English decision held that “There is no principle of
international law by which, after annexation of conquered territory,
the conquering State becomes liable, in the absence of express
stipulations to the contrary, to discharge financial liabilities of
the conquered State incurred before the outbreak of the war.
But the essential difference between the cases grows out of the fact
that, whereas the late South African Republic was a foreign country
in a state of war against Great Britain, the Philippine Islands, on
the contrary, were possessions of the American people, on which a
number of American subjects were not waging war but only in a state
of rebellion against the authority of the country’s lawful
government. The United States Government seems to have had so little
doubt of its ability to restore public order in its possessions
that, toward the end of July, 1899, General Otis, commanding the
army of the United States in the Philippines, granted to the steamer
Saturnus permission to sail for the
Philippine ports of her destination, without any warning or
reservation as to possible risks from the rebellion.
It appears, therefore, in equity at least, that the United States
Government tacitly guarantee the shippers in the case against any
molestation at the hands of its own subjects, in parts of its
dominions where it undertook to preserve public order and to crush
rebellion, and that the same Government, having failed to protect
these shippers against such molestation, can not disclaim liability
for the loss incurred.
