sense in the country who would have done differently, or been justified, at the time, in doing differently, had he been in the shoes of either Dewey or Mr. McKinley. The proposition is too plain, too evident for contradiction.

So far, then, we must all agree as to our policy in the Philippines. There can be no division up to this point.

CHAPTER II

HOSTILE FLEETS AT MANILA

HOSTILE ATTITUDE OF FOREIGN NATIONS-INTERNATIONAL LAW UNDER WHICH THEY ACTED

THE moment Manila Bay cabled its message around the world, all the great nations rushed their men-of-war to that port under forced draft. Each of those nations had many of its own citizens there whose lives and property it was bound to protect.

The international law, under which they were acting in sending their men-of-war to Manila, and the obligation of Spain are defined by the following: Vattel, the great French authority, says (Vattel, Chitty's edition, Book II, § 104):

"As soon as he (a foreign sovereign, that is, Spain in this case), admits them (foreigners), he engages to protect them as his own subjects, and to afford them perfect security, so far as depends on him,"

Mr. John Quincy Adams, when Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. De Onis (supra), March 12, 1818, states the principle in this way:

"There is no principle of the law of nations more firmly established than that which entitles the property of strangers within the jurisdiction of a country in friendship with their own, to the protection of its sovereign by all the efforts in his power." Whart. Int. Law Dig., Vol. II, § 201.

There is Spain's liability. She was liable for any failure to protect the 60,000 or 70,000 foreigners in Manila "by all the efforts in (her) power."

Now, as a rule, the foreigners who continually reside in a foreign country that is at war are entitled only to such protection as that to which the native citizens of that country are entitled from their government. But there is a peculiar liability to which eastern governments are subject toward Europeans, that grows out of the fact that Europeans in the East almost never mix with the natives. They live by themselves, usually in a part of the town of their own. At Tientsin, for instance, which was so recently besieged by the Boxers, there are two cities, the Chinese and the

European settlements. International law regards these Europeans as Europeans still, and the Spanish Government was liable to the home governments of Europeans in Manila for any damage or harm done to them by any failure upon her part to protect them "by all the efforts in (her) power." The best statement I have found of this point is in Lawrence's Wheaton (Elems. of Int. Law, § 333, p. 418), as follows:

"The national character of merchants residing in Europe and America is derived from that of the country in which they reside. In the eastern parts of the world, European persons, trading under the shelter and protection of the factories founded there, take their national character from that association under which they live and carry on their trade: this distinction arises from the nature and habits of the countries.

"In the western part of the world, alien merchants mix in the society of the natives; access and intermixture are permitted, and they become incorporated to nearly the full extent.

"But in the East, from almost the oldest times, an immiscible character has been kept up; foreigners are not admitted into the general body and mass of the nation; they continue strangers and. sojourners, as all their fathers were. Thus, with respect to establishments in Turkey, the British courts of prize, during war with Holland, determined that a merchant, carrying on trade in

Smyrna, under the protection of the Dutch consul, was to be considered a Dutchman, and condemned his property as belonging to an enemy. And thus in China, and generally throughout the East, persons admitted into a factory are not known in their own peculiar national character; and, not being permitted to assume the character of the country, are considered only in the character of that association or factory."

RIGHT OF THE FOREIGN NATIONS TO INTERVENE

In case Spain did not, either because she could not or would not, protect a foreign citizen and his property in Manila, the nation to which that foreigner belonged could step in, come in,-intervene is the legal term,—and protect him herself with her cannon, her ships, her armies, or any other way she might choose. The right of a nation to protect its own citizens anywhere is akin to the highest law, -the law that, when invoked, allows a government to override and overturn every other law made by man or by itself even, the law of self-preservation. Here are the leading authors for these statements:

Taylor, Int. Pub. Law, § 174, says:

"A part of the general right of self-preservation possessed by every state is the special right