See, also, Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Ryan, Sept. 26, 1889, id. 462; Mr. Blaine, Sec, of State, to Mr. Whitehouse, Nov. 6, 1889, id. 479. In April, 1897, the legation of the United States at Mexico, acting under instructions, complained of the failure of the judge at Piedras Negras to reply to two inquiries of the United States consul at that place in relation to the case of R. H. Doane, an American citizen, who was arrested in Mexico in December, 1896, on a charge of complicity in robbery. The Mexican government, April 19, 1897, replied that the governor of the State of Coahuila would be asked to report upon the state of the proceedings for the legation's information, but added that the failure of the judge to answer the consul's inquiries did not justify any complaint against his official conduct, "for the reason that the Mexican judges are not obliged to give any information to foreign consuls, neither have the latter a right to ask it, as may be seen in the law of the 26th of November, 1859, which is always sent to said officials when they are furnished with their exequatur." The government of the United States, May 5, 1897, answered that the Mexican law at most excluded, only by omitting to mention it, the right of a consul to make a request for proper information in regard to a case such as that in question; that such inquiries were "usual in the consular intercourse of nations," and were often made under express instruction of the Secretary of State; that the fact that the preliminary proceedings in criminal cases were secret did not preclude a respectful inquiry from a consul "as to the general nature of the offense charged or as to the status of a pending case;" that the United States anticipated "a courteous response to such inquiries made by its consuls abroad, just as it expects like courteous response by the judicial officers of the United States to the inquiries of foreign consuls in this country:" that this position had been "uniformly recognized as just and proper" in other countries, and that an exception could not be made in the case of Mexico without a marked departure from the usage which obtained elsewhere. The Mexican government replied: "The authorities of the Republic can not recognize in consular agents faculties not expressed in the laws that define their attributes. Therefore this Department does not consider that the judge has incurred any official responsibility in not replying to the letters addressed to him by the consul. . . . However, the fact that the judge did not reply to the two letters mentioned should be considered a mere lack of social courtesy, aggravated by the official position occupied by the commercial agent of a friendly government; and in this light the gov ernor of the State of Coahuila has been requested to charge the said functionary with the performance of that social duty." Mr. Mariscal, Mex. Min. of For. Aff., to Mr. Sepulveda, Am. chargé, April See, also, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ryan, min. to Mexico, No. 363, In a case where the commander of a United States vessel of war, at the instigation of an acting United States consul, intervened and presented some written interrogatories to a jefe politico, in regard to a case which had been pending before him, but which was then in the hands of the supreme court of Mexico, the Department of State, which had not authorized the intervention of the acting consul in the matter, which was "already receiving satisfactory diplomatic attention," disavowed the action of the acting consul and the commander of the man-of-war with an expression of regret. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clayton, min. to Mexico, No. 354, May 11, 1900, MS. Inst. Mexico, XXV. 183. The United States consul-general at Frankfort having requested from the police president of the city information as to the number of Americans living there, the latter replied that under instructions from his superiors he could not answer questions of that character unless they were presented through diplomatic channels. The consul-general protested, and the American embassy laid the matter before the imperial government, which took the ground that consular officers were authorized by Article VIII. of the convention of Dec. 11, 1871, to require information from the local authorities only in certain specified cases. The United States concurred in this view, holding that, under the article in question, there were only three cases in which such demands of consular officers upon the local authorities were authorized: (1) For the redress of any infraction of the treaties and conventions between the two countries; (2) for the redress of any infraction of international law; (3) to the end of protecting the rights and interests of their countrymen. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tower, ambass. to Germany, No. 42, April 1, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, 447. Requests have occasionally been made upon the government of the United States to permit its diplomatic and consular officers to extend their protection to citizens or subjects of a foreign government who may desire it and who may be sojourning at places where there are no diplomatic or consular representatives of that government. This government has from time to time, upon the request of friendly powers, given to its diplomatic and consular officers authority to take upon themselves, with the consent of the government within whose jurisdiction they reside, the function of representing those powers at places where the latter had no such officers. It has understood this authority to be restricted simply to the granting of the services and good offices of our representatives, with their own consent, to meet what has ordinarily been a fortuitous and temporary exigency of the friendly government. When this function is accepted, which must. be done only with the approval of the Department of State, the diplomatic or consular officer becomes the agent of the foreign government as to the duties he may perform for its citizens or subjects. He becomes responsible to it for his discharge of those duties, and that government alone is responsible for his acts in relation thereto. He does not, however, for this purpose become a diplomatic or consular officer of the foreign government." Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 174, p. 60. As to consular protection in Eastern countries, see supra, §§ 287–290. Although, under Article I., section 9, clause 8, of the Constitution, a consul of the United States can not also become the consular officer of another government, yet he may be permitted to assume such official care and protection over the citizens or subjects of another power, within his consular jurisdiction, as may be compatible with the regulations of the government of the country and in consonance with welldefined principles of international comity in such cases. Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, min. to Turkey, No. 65, March 18, As to the protection of American interests by the British consul in the As to the protection by the United States consul of British interests in the As to the erection by the Navy Department of a tablet at Santiago de As to the protection of Panaman interests by consular officers of the United States, see circular of Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to the Dip. officers of the United States, Jan. 19, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 1. As to the use of good offices for the citizens of third powers, see, further, supra, §§ 653-655. The consul-general of the United States at Panama, Colombia, was, on the request of the government of Greece, preferred through its consul-general in New York, instructed, Nov. 14, 1900, to employ his good offices for the protection of Greek subjects so far as the local authorities might permit him to do so. Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Cobb, U. S. vice-consul at 4. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS. § 720. The right of consuls to take depositions is secured by conventions with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany (of American citizens), Italy, Independent State of the Congo, Netherlands, Roumania, Servia, and Salvador. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 87, p. 34. By section 1750 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is quoted in § 845 of the Consular Regulations, authority is given to consular officers of the United States to administer oaths and take depositions and to perform any notarial act which a notary public is authorized to do in the United States. By section 1674 of the Revised Statutes, § 783 of the Consular Regulations, the term "consular officer" includes a consular agent. The consular agent therefore has all the power to administer oaths which is given by section 1750 of the Revised Statutes to any consular officer of the United States. The Department of State can give him no additional or special authority in such matter. Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terres, chargé at Port au Prince, This instruction related to a request made by an attorney in the United States to the American consular agent at Port de Paix to take certain depositions to be used in preparing a diplomatic claim against the Haytian Government. In the course of the instruction Mr. Sherman said: The testimony, as the Department understands it, is not to be used in the Haytian courts. If it were to be so used, it would be necessary that it be taken in accordance with the requirements of the Haytian law. . . . While the consular agent at Port de Paix has the authority within his territorial jurisdiction to take depositions in a matter of this kind, which depositions would be unhesitatingly accepted by this Department, it does not follow that he is obliged to abandon his public duties and go about the country obtaining this evidence. This is a matter which Mr. Kelly [the attorney] will have to settle with the agent; he has no right to demand this service." It was once ruled by Mr. Frelinghuysen that, while a "commercial agent" had in all respects the same general notarial powers as a consul, yet a consular agent," not being "a consular officer in the accepted or legal sense," had not. (Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, 66 to Mr. Hale, Jan. 29, 1885, 154, MS. Dom. Let. 105.) Under § 1750 R. S. [U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 1196] conferring on consular officers the power "to perform any notarial act which any notary public is required or authorized by law to do within the United States," a consular officer is a notary public, in the sense of the Nebraska statute, authorizing notaries public to take and certify affidavits for use in the courts of the State. Browne v. Palmer (1902), 92 N. W. 315. Under the laws of Pennsylvania, an acknowledgment of a power of attorney, made by a married woman before a deputy consul-general, is valid. Stewart v. Linton (1902), 204 Pa. 207, citing Moore v. Miller, 147 Pa. 378, holding that an acknowledgment of a deed, made by a married woman before a United States commercial agent in Canada, was sufficient. "I transmit herewith a copy of a letter from , esq., dated the 12th instant, in which he complains that you refused to administer and certify, on the application of certain parties by the name of, the oath of verification to a petition intended to be filed by the said parties in the surrogate court of the county of New York. "Consular officers of the United States are authorized by Congress and by some of the States and Territories to administer oaths, take affidavits and depositions, and to perform other notarial services. Such services, when rendered under State or Territorial authority, are unofficial, and consular officers are not compelled to perform them. "The Department presumes that in the case in question you had good reasons for your action, but, as a general rule, when the notarial act requested can be performed without interference with official business and without giving offense to the local government, consular officers are expected, upon the tender of a suitable remuneration, to perform it. it "Applying these general instructions to the case of Mr. follows that, in the absence of any of the above-mentioned reasons for refusing the application of his clients, you should, upon being satisfied of the identity of the said applicants, have administered the oaths and signed the certificates as requested, and should still do so if the parties appear before you again for that purpose. "You will understand that these instructions relate exclusively to your exercise of notarial functions. They are not to be considered as in any way bearing on the question of your right to issue certificates on matters of law or of fact." Mr. Adee, Second Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Johnson, Apr. 20, 1887, 121 |