FITZPATRICK V. PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY.

121

argues with much learning and ability that the case is to be governed by the application of the laws in force on February 26, 1904, and not by the general principles of the law relating to master and servant that prevailed in the United States. In support thereof counsel cited the President's letter to the Secretary of War, dated May 9, 1904, as follows: The, laws of the land with which the inhabitants are familiar and which were in force on February 26, 1904, will continue in force in the Canal Zone and in other places on the Isthmus over which the United States has jurisdiction until altered or annulled by the said Commission; but there are certain great principles of government which have been made the basis of our existence as a nation, which we deem essential to the rule of law and the maintenance of order, and which shall have force in said Zone.
This letter, which may be said to be the organic law of the Canal Zone, has passed under the consideration of this court in the case of Wing Chong vs. Kung Ching Chong, wherein this court said that, "In determining the vested rights of the people in the ceded territory of the Canal Zone this inhibition is upon the courts; but in cases arising after the establishment of said courts relief on facts subsequently arising is to be given in harmony and in accordance with the established laws of the United States where life, liberty, and property are involved."
We think this is the rule that should be recognized and adopted by the courts of the Canal Zone unless our decision would bring us into direct, palpable, and unmistaken conflict with the laws which were in force in the Canal Zone on February 26, 1904. That is to say, if there is doubt or uncertainty as to the construction and interpretation of the laws here existing prior to February 26, 1904, the courts of the Canal Zone should accept and adopt that construction which more clearly harmonizes with the recognized principles of jurisprudence prevailing in the United States. Where the laws are clear and free from doulot and ambiguity it might be otherwise, and we might then be compelled to enforce the same pursuant to the provisions of the President's letter, herein referred to, notwithstanding they might conflict with our ideas of right and justice from the American viewpoint, but we should, so far as reasonably may be done, construe the laws so as to make them harmonize with the laws prevailing in the native land. In so doing we recognize the principle of International Law referred to by counsel for appellant and sustained in many well-considered decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the laws, customs, and usages prevailing 'in ceded