192 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
which the inhabitants of the country are subject, and 
his solicitude is in proportion to the injuries to which 
he is thus exposed. This fact became conspicuous 
in the late war between Germany and France, and led 
to many complaints on the part of British subjects 
voluntarily residing at the seat of war, which con- 
strained Lord Granville to disabuse them of the idea 
that armies in the field were to fold their arms and 
cease to act, lest by chance they might, in the heat of 
action, disturb the peace of mind, or damage the prop- 
erty or person, of some commorant Englishman. 
Incidents of this nature are most of all frequent in 
times of civil war, especially in those countries of 
Spanish America, where militarism prevails, and the 
regular march of civil institutions is interrupted by 
military factions headed by generals, in contention 
with one another, and with the constituted authorities 
of the Government. 
For injuries thus done to its subjects, residing or 
‘sojourning in a foreign country, every Government 
possesses of course the right of war or of reprisals, 
which, in effect, is the same thing, being the adoption 
of force as a remedy in lieu of reason: a method of 
redress for private injuries, which, however common 
formerly, is contrary to all the prevalent notions of 
international justice in our day. 
Hence, while it is the right and duty of every Gov- 
ernment to interpose on proper occasion, through its 
Ministers or Consuls, or otherwise, on the happening 
of any injury to its citizens or subjects abroad, yet 
the recurrence to force as a means of redress is admis- 
