¹ See especially Borchard, , Diplomatic Protection (New York, 1915), p. 208 ff.Google Scholar; Wiesse, , Le droit international appliqué aux guerres civiles (1898), pp. 242–243 Google Scholar; Rougier, , Les guerrea civiles et le droit des gens (1903), p. 486 Google Scholar ff.; Larnaude, “Les gouvernements défait,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int., 1921, 471; Gemma, “Les gouvernements défait,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, Vol. IV, passim; Spiropoulos, Die de facto Regierung im Völkerrecht (1926), Ch. I; Costa, Podesta, Ensayo sobre las luchas civiles y el derecho internacional (Buenos Ayres, 1926), p. 57 Google Scholar; Costa, Podesta, Efectos internacionales de la actuación de los gobiernos de facto (Buenos Ayres, 1924)Google Scholar, passim; Noël-Henry, Les gouvernements de fait devant le juge (1927), passim.

² Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Brown, Minister to France, May 28, 1827, H. Ex. Doc. 147, 22nd Cong., 2d Sees., 15-16; Moore, Digest, I, pp. 249-250. The same principle is restated by Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rives, Minister to France, July 20, 1829, ibid., pp. 18, 22-24; and by Mr. Rives, ibid., p. 180.

The history of the French indemnities to citizens of the United States, under the conventions of 1803 and 1831, is given in Moore, Int. Arb., V, pp. 4399, 4447. The indemnities paid by France to other Powers are noticed in the same volume, p. 4862.

³ Mr. Pinkney, United States Special Envoy, to the Marquis di Circello, Foreign Minister of the Two Sicilies, Aug. 26, 1816, 5 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 206 et seq. See also Moore, Int. Arb., V, p. 4576.

⁴ For an account of the indemnities paid by France and the Two Sicilies to the United States, see Moore, Int. Arb., V, pp. 4399 and 4576.

⁵ For the circumstances of Pierola’s coming into power, see Franco-Chilean Arbitral Tribunal of 1901, Decisions, passim.

⁶ The government of Pierola was recognized by France on Feb. 14, 1880, and by England on April 13, 1880. Other European Powers took similar action at about the same time. Franco-Chilean Arbitral Tribunal of 1901, Decisions, p. 129. For recognition of the Pierola government by the United States, see Moore, Digest, I, p. 156.

⁷ Calvo, Droit International, Vol. I, sec. 100.

⁸ Klüber, , Droit des Gens, Vol. I, sec. 259 Google Scholar.

⁹ Franco-Chilean Arbitral Tribunal of 1901, Decisions, pp. 292-293. Cases based on this same cause of action were brought before English and Belgian courts in 1888. Both the High Court of Justice in England and the Court of Appeals of Brussels decided that the Pierola government represented and bound Peru in 1880 in the agreement with Dreyfus Brothers & Company. However, these decisions were predicated solely on the fact that the Pierola government had been recognized by the English and Belgian Governments in 1880. The English case was an action by the Republic of Peru to restrain Dreyfus Brothers from taking out of court funds standing to their credit but arising from the compromise settlement with Pierola. In conformity with the Pierola settlement of 1880, Dreyfus Brothers had commenced action against the Peruvian Guano Company and had recovered judgment in English courts in 1885. The proceeds of the property involved in that action were paid into court in England and it was these proceeds which the Peruvian Government was attempting to prevent from being taken out of court by Dreyfus Brothers. However, the English court denied the Peruvian motion for an injunction on the ground that Dreyfus Brothers & Company of France were entitled to deal with dictator Pierola, who had been recognized by Great Britain, and said: “It is a question of international law of the highest importance whether or not the citizens of a foreign state may safely have such dealings as existed in this case with a government which such state has recognized. If they may not, of what value to the citizens of a foreign state is such recognition by the government?” Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Brothers & Co., L. R. 38 Ch. Div. [1888], 348, 355. For the case decided by the Court of Appeals of Brussels involving the same cause of action see La Belgique Judiciaire, Tome XLVI—Deuxième série, Tome 21, 10 Juillet, 1888 (No. 77, Dimanche, 23 Septembre 1888), p. 1218.

¹⁰ The Hague Court Reports (Second Series), 1932, pp. 31-38.

¹¹ Moore, Int. Arb., III, p. 2972.

¹² Hughes case, Moore, Int. Arb., Ill, p. 2972.

¹³ Ibid., II, pp. 1655-1656.

¹⁴ Ibid., II, pp. 1693-1732.

¹⁵ Ibid., III, pp. 2938-2944.

¹⁶ Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 7.

¹⁷ Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 8.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 14.

¹⁹ Franco-Venezuelan Commission of 1902, Ralston’s Report, pp. 367, 451.

²⁰ Ralston, Ven. Arb. of 1903, p. 455.

²¹ Ibid,, p. 388.

²² Ibid., p. 394.

²³ General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 42; this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 160.

²⁴ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 48.

²⁵ General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 394; this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 452.

²⁶ Opinions of Commissioners, 1929, p. 162.

²⁷ Ibid., 1927, p. 197; this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 777.

²⁸ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 162.

²⁹ Adolfo de la Huerta, a former governor of the State of Sonora, was a follower of General Alvaro Obregon and became Provisional President of Mexico during the successful so-called Agua Prieta revolution of 1920. Obregon succeeded him as the constitutional President. Adolfo de la Huerta’s name should not be confused with that of Victoriano Huerta of 1913 fame.

³⁰ Arbitration between Great Britain and Rica, Costa, this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 147 Google Scholar.

³¹ In support of its contention that non-recognition resulted in estoppel, Costa Rica referred to cases decided in English and American courts to the effect that a municipal court cannot, in litigations before it, recognize or assume the defacto character of a foreign government which the executive department of the government, of which the court is a branch, has not recognized. It was held that such cases had no bearing on the point before the arbitrator. Costa Rica also cited cases decided by international tribunals dealing with nonliability of the state for acts of unsuccessful insurgents. It was held that these cases did not establish a precedent since they dealt with unsuccessful insurgents.

³² Arbitration between Great Britain and Rica, Costa of 1923, this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 156–157 Google Scholar.

³³ Ibid., p. 147, passim. The case of Huerta in 1913 should perhaps be classified under successful insurgents. However, there is no general agreement as to the status of the Huerta government. (Feller, The Mexican Claims Commissions, p. 160.) For the purpose of this article, this writer has classified the Huerta government under unsuccessful insurgent governments. See infra. However, see Borchard, , “International Pecuniary Claims Against Mexico,” in 26 Yale Law Journal, 338 Google Scholar.

³⁴ Moore, Int. Arb., IV, pp. 3426-3427.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 3427. The same commission rendered similar decisions in almost the same language in the cases of Livingston and Sims, ibid.

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 3427-3428.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 3428.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Ibid. p. 3430.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 3430-3432.

⁴² Moore, Int. Arb., IV, pp. 3491-3544. See also the cases of Donnell’s Executor, and of Hollins & McBlain, where Venezuela was held liable for flour sent by certain American citizens to Venezuelan revolutionists in 1812. Ibid., p. 3545 ff.

⁴³ Ibid., III, pp. 2873-2881; IV, pp. 3477-3483.

⁴⁴ Ibid., III, pp. 2900-2901.

⁴⁵ Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 145.

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 896.

⁴⁷ Moore, Int. Arb., II, p. 1613.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 1593.

⁴⁹ Ibid., IV, pp. 3548-3564.

⁵⁰ As to the practice of the United States, see Moore, Digest, VI, p. 954 ff.; For. Rel. 1912, pp. 946 and 961; 1913, pp. 924-925, 932-934. As to the British practice, see especially the printed instructions to His Majesty’s consular officers, For. Rel. 1913, pp. 937-938. See also League of Nations: Conference for the Codification of International Law, Bases of Discussions by the Preparatory Committee, III, pp. 108-121.

⁵¹ Hyde, International Law, I, p. 540.

⁵² Pope case, Moore, Int. Arb., Ill, p. 2972.

⁵³ Prats case, ibid., p. 2886.

⁵⁴ Walsh case, ibid., p. 2978.

⁵⁵ Burn, Frazier, and Blumenkron cases, ibid.

⁵⁶ McKenny case, ibid., p. 2881; Vesseron case, ibid., p. 2975; Cummings case, ibid., p. 2976; Crother case, ibid., p. 2977; Wyman case, ibid., p. 2978; Silva case, ibid., p. 2979.

⁵⁷ Jansen case, ibid., p. 2902; Baxter case, ibid., p. 2934.

⁵⁸ Hanna case, Moore, Int. Arb., III, p. 2982; Laurie case, ibid., p. 2987; Stewart case, ibid., p. 2989.

⁵⁹ McGrady case, ibid., p. 2981; Zandiver case, ibid., p. 2982.

⁶⁰ Sambiaggio case, Ralston, Ven. Arb. of 1903, pp. 666, 679; Guastini case, ibid., p. 730; Acquatella case, ibid., p. 486.

⁶¹ Area Mines case, ibid., pp. 344, 350; Santa Clara Estates Co. case, ibid., p. 397; Von Dissel & Co. case, ibid., p. 565.

⁶² Salas case, ibid., p. 903.

⁶³ Home Missionary Society case, American Agent’s Report, p. 425. See also Lovatt case, Moore, Int. Arb., Ill, pp. 2990-2992; and Moore, Digest, VI, pp. 956-957.

⁶⁴ Solis case, Opinions of Commissioners, 1929, p. 48. See also Coleman case, ibid., p. 56.

⁶⁵ Moore, Int. Arb., Ill, pp. 2873-2881; IV, pp. 3477-3483.

⁶⁶ Ibid., III, p. 2886.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 2881.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 2902.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 2982.

⁷⁰ Ralston, Ven. Arb. of 1903, pp. 666, 679.

⁷¹ Ibid., pp. 344, 350.

⁷² Ibid., p. 145.

⁷³ Ibid., p. 680.

⁷⁴ De Forge et Fils (France) v. United States, Boutwell’s Report, 132; Moore, Int. Arb., Ill, p. 2781.

⁷⁵ Ralston, Ven. Arb. of 1903, p. 730.

⁷⁶ Ibid., pp. 750-751.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 397.

⁷⁸ Ealston, Ven. Arb. of 1903, p. 401.

⁷⁹ Hopkins case, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 44; this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 161. The Commission dealt with the Huerta government as if it were an unsuccessful insurgent government. Mexico strenuously maintained that the Huerta government was neither de facto nor de jure. The Commission’s investigation revealed that Huerta at no time was in complete control of Mexico. The Commission decided, therefore, that Mexico should be held liable for only certain categories of Huerta’s acts.

⁸⁰ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 42.

⁸¹ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 44-45; this Journal, loc. cit. The Commission stated that a similar distinction of insurgent acts arises in the field of international law and relations. Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 45-46.

⁸² Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 48-49.

⁸³ See George W. Cook (U. S.) v. Mexico, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 318-324; Parsons Trading Company (U. S.) v. Mexico, ibid., pp. 324-325; John A. McPherson (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 325-329; National Paper and Type Company (U. S.) v. Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1929, pp. 3-5; Francis J. Acosta (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 121-123; Singer Sewing Machine Co. (U. S.) t>. Mexico, ibid., pp. 123-126; Esther Moffit (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 288-291.

⁸⁴ Lee A. Craw (U. S.) ». Mexico, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1929, pp. 1-2.

⁸⁵ National Paper and Type Company (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 3-5.

⁸⁶ Parsons Trading Company (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 135-137.

⁸⁷ George W. Cook (U. S.) ». Mexico, ibid., pp. 266-281; this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 398. In this case the Mexican Government denied liability on two grounds: first, because the transaction in question took place with the Huerta Administration which it considered to be illegitimate, and secondly, because the contract was entered into not between the Ministry and the claimant company directly, but between the Ministry and an agent of the company personally. It was contended that the company could not, under Mexican law, enforce a contract made by its agent in his own name for the company. The Commission unanimously overruled the first defense on the basis of the Hopkins case, but by a majority opinion sustained the second defense. The majority opinion on this point stated that since in countries, and among these Mexico, where the civil law prevails, the sole fact of a contract having been entered into by an agent in his own name excludes the principal from right of action, the claimant company did not have the right to sue in a case like this, the contract of which was governed by Mexican law. Opinions of Commissioners, 1929, pp. 267-268.

⁸⁸ George W. Cook (U. S.) ». Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1931, pp. 162-167; ibid., pp. 167-168.

⁸⁹ General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 303-305; this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 180.

⁹⁰ Peerless Motor Car Company (U. S.) ». Mexico, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 303, 304; this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 181.

⁹¹ Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, pp. 303, 304.

⁹² Ibid., pp. 304-305; this Journal, loc. cit.

⁹³ Hopkins case, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 47.

⁹⁴ The phrase is that of the General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Hopkins case, Opinions, 1927, p. 49.

⁹⁵ On June 2, 1913, the American Ambassador ta Mexico telegraphed to the Secretary of State of the United States as follows: “Mexican loan of 200,000,000 pesos has been definitely concluded. Speyer Brothers share in this loan as creditors and also directly through their European house.” For. Bel. 1913, p. 806.

⁹⁶ See Carranza’s decree of Feb. 19, 1913, For. Rel. 1913, p. 721.

⁹⁷ See text of the agreement of 1922 between the Obregon government and the international committee of bankers, Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Sept. 9, 1922, p. 1155. See also ibid., July 1, 1922, p. 17; Current History Magazine, Vol. 15, p. 360; Vol. 16, p. 911; Vol. 17, p. 353.

⁹⁸ Hopkins case, General Claims Commission of 1923, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners, 1927, p. 46.

⁹⁹ British-Mexican Claims Commission of 1926, Decisions and Opinions, 1933, p. 304.

¹⁰⁰ British Shareholders of the Mariposa Company case, op. cit., p. 306.

¹⁰¹ Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 666.

¹⁰² Sambiaggio case, Ralston, op. cit., p. 680.