but there is a difference of practice3* among the states in taking jurisdiction of a suit entirely between foreigners. In some states jurisdiction is entertained, in others it is refused, and in some instances a special tribunal has been instituted to take jurisdiction over questions in which foreigners are concerned."

Martial law is instituted within a community by the political power of the state in such cases as that state finds necessary for its protection or the preservation or safety of the inhabitants, and involves the suspension of the processes of the civil courts and the substitution of military courts. As the military court is a very poor means of dispensing justice, and is frequently an instrument of oppression, individuals strongly object to being subjected to its power. It seems, however, that an alien has no ground to complain if martial law is proclaimed in the country and he is subject to it. The only reason upon which his home state can interfere is where the action is irregular, arbitrary or unnecessarily harsh. If, for instance, the military court should single out aliens of a particular nationality for punishment or should inflict, say, the death penalty for a trivial offense, there would be just ground for feeling that the alien had not been properly treated. In all of these cases, however, the home state merely interferes by way of diplomatic representations and no case has been found where any state has resorted even to the compulsion of force in order to secure a release from the sentence of a military court."

pauperis, without giving such security, and in some cases a treaty will provide for such privilege.

3* Vattel, (1758) Chitty's Trans. Book II. §102 note.

4 Great Britain, German States and Holland will take jurisdiction; Twiss, L. of Nations, Peace, 2 ed. (1884) 268. In the United States of America, federal courts will not take jurisdiction. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46 (1807). The courts of the member states will generally take such jurisdiction.

5 France, Belgium, Kingdom of Two Sicilies will not take jurisdiction of suits between foreigners; Twiss, L. of Nations, Peace, 2 ed. (1884) 269.

6 As at Rome.

7 Mr. Rahming, a British subject,

was arrested in New York during the American Civil War and held in military custody on the charge of having endeavored to persuade the owners of a vessel to import cannon into Wilmington. A writ of habeas corpus was granted but obedience refused by the commanding officer in charge. The English Government remonstrated but did not press as on appeal the Supreme Court of the United States decided the writ of habeas corpus legal and issued an attachment against the officer in question; Hall, Int. Law, 6 ed. (1909) 274. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is in the same category. In 1861, in the United States this writ was suspended and a controversy arose between Great Britain and the United

Alien in the Jurisdiction.

MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST ALIENS.

$453

$453. In medieval times violence was usual and expected and the power of the state was weak, consequently few cases arose where any independent state complained of violence against its members. in a foreign state. The increase in peace and order, strength of the central government, commerce, civilization and additional privileges and care taken of aliens have resulted in a greater demand by them for protection and a consequent stronger course of action by their own governments. We find therefore, in modern times, a number of instances where aliens in the state have been damaged by mob violence, and demand has been made by the alien's own state for redress. There is a distinction in this connection between (A) temporary mob violence, (B) revolt amounting to an insurgency or belligerency, (C) change in government accompanied by disorder and damage. during the change. The general tendency in modern times seems to be to recognize and enforce the obligation of a state to protect aliens from the violence of mobs. There is, however, a difference of opinion. Some writers contend that a state is not bound to accord greater protection to foreigners than to its own members, and that a state is not responsible when outbreak is the result of vismajor. It is not, however, a case of vismajor, as supposed by the writers.

As may be expected, therefore, the practice is not uniform and no definite statement can be made as to the law. A few instances are collected in the note."

States over the imprisonment of British citizens as to whom a writ of habeas corpus had been denied. At the conclusion of the war, a claim commission was appointed which awarded damages in many cases of persons arrested by United States military authorities; 2 Moore, Dig. of Int. L., (1906) 195.

8 Difference of opinion, see Hall, Int. Law, 6 ed. (1909) 219; Hershey, Int. L., (1912) 163-165; 6 Moore, Dig. of Int. L., (1906) 809 et seq.; 1 Oppenheim, Int. L., 2 ed. (1912) 223. "The Non-Liability of States for Damages Suffered by Foreigners in the Course of a Riot, an Insurrection or a Civil War," Harmodio Arias; 7 Amer. J. Int. Law, 724 et seq. "The International Responsibility of States for

Injuries Sustained by Aliens on Account
of Mob Violence, Insurrections and
Civil Wars," Julius Goebel, Jr.; 8
Amer. J. Int. Law, 802 et seq. See
Resolutions of the Institute of Inter-
national Law, at meeting of 1900,
Carnegie Ed., 159. "International
Responsibility to Corporate Bodies for
Lives Lost by Outlawry," John W.
Foster; 1 Amer. J. Int. Law, 4 et seq.

1901-Mob in Rio Janeiro sacked American Baptist Mission Church. Damage paid without question by state authorities. 1891, October 16— Sailors of U. S. S. Baltimore attacked while on leave at Valparaiso during a revolution. Chile paid an indemnity of $75,000; Wilson, Int. L., (1910) 150. This question is complicated in the

Labor Laws.

LABOR LAWS AFFECTING AN ALIEN.

§454. In some states statutes have been passed regulating the employment of labor and discriminating as between aliens and members of the community with respect to employment in work within the state. This is a limitation upon the liberty of contract. It is a provision that the alien shall not have the same freedom of making a contract for his labor that a member of the community has, and it is therefore to such an extent placing an alien in a different class from that occupied by a member of the state."

Alien in the Jurisdiction.

ALIEN DAMAGING INTEREST OF A STATE OR ITS Member.

$455

§455. The alien may damage the interest of the state or its members, and the self-interest of the state will accordingly impel it to expel him or prevent his entry, if such damage is anticipated." The ground of action here is not alienage, but particular conduct of the alien himself. Where the damage is to an individual member of the state, the remedy afforded by the municipal court will ordinarily be adequate. Other circumstances may be present which will compel the state to take direct action against the alien himself. If, for instance, he is likely to become a public charge, is diseased, of immoral character or incapable of harmonizing sufficiently with the social and political institutions of the state, self-interest will impel his exclusion or expulsion. The mixture of a large foreign element in the native population may, merely because of numbers, introduce a disturbing and damaging element. The entry of aliens of a particular class may be denied merely on the ground of number, and a smaller number of that class permitted to enter. This may occur in two ways; a large influx of civilized settlers in the barbaric population will destroy the native races and institutions which is detrimental from the native's point of view. So the mixture of members of an inferior race of civilization with a civilized state will produce a like disturbing influence. The only difference is that a powerful civilized state will be able to protect itself by exclusion or expulsion, whereas, the barbarous population is weak and helpless.

So also the alien may belong to some secret organization holding views disapproved of by the state, and the spread of which is regarded as damaging to the government or social institutions. It is totally immaterial whether a state is an autocratic or a democratic government, whether there is freedom of religious worship or not, a civilized democratic state or any of its members has no more standing to force its enlightened ideas on the less advanced state than a backward state has to spread its lower grade of civilization in the former state. The application of the principle depends entirely on the question of

11 A state has an interest in its own institutions, methods of government, and ideas of its people, and may therefore well prohibit the circulation of any book or the delivery of any lecture within its jurisdiction which it deems

improper, and no alien who enters the country and is so prohibited seems to have any ground of complaint; 2 Moore, Dig. of Int. I.., (1906) 166, Vattel, (1758) Chitty's Trans. Book II. $102.

.

self-interest, of which the state itself is the sole judge and as to which no outside power is competent to pass judgment.12

RELIGION OF AN Alien.

§456. The case of the Jews is the principal instance of the exclusion or expulsion of an alien on the ground of religion in the modern world. There is a strong prejudice against this race still surviving in some modern states, a prejudice said to be more economic than religious. It is difficult to see how any international factors of conduct can operate to restrain such action, which in practice has frequently been successfully taken. Any discrimination on the ground of religion taken in any state is a matter of municipal law, as to which no other state has any concern, and the person of that religious denomination may well be told to stay at home and not stick his finger between the bark and the tree.13