Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

belonged to the criminal class, it was the province of the local authorities to protect themselves. If they had complained through the consul and required the steamship company to take the stowaways back, the consul could not have ignored the complaint, as it would have been morally incumbent upon the company to remedy the act of its agent."

Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lane, March 12, 1885, 154
M'S. Dom. Let. 455.

A young man, a citizen of the United States, who had not been a seaman, finding a chance to go to sea for the summer as a seaman on a British vessel, shipped at New York for Australia. He was discharged at Melbourne; and afterwards, having reached Sydney, N. S. W., appealed to the American consul there to send him back to the United States. The consul held that he was not authorized to do so. The consul's action was approved. The fact that the applicant for relief was " an American citizen" was not, said the Department of State, decisive of the question. The test of his right to relief as an American seaman is not his citizenship, but his actual and bona fide service in the American merchant marine."

Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lodge, U. S. S., Aug. 28, 1897, 220 MS. Dom. Let. 480.

Certain seamen of the American bark Iilo, which was wrecked near the Hawaiian Islands, reached Honolulu in an "utterly destitute" condition. The American consul-general supplied their wants. and shipped them to San Francisco, where they were to be discharged and paid off; and he wrote to the shipping commissioner at San Francisco, enclosing an account of the necessaries furnished and requesting that the amount supplied to each seaman be deducted from his wages. Held, that, under $$ 4577, 4579, Revised Statutes, the amount retained by the commissioner, in accordance with the consul-general's request, should not be retained by the government, but should be refunded to the seamen.

Olney, At. Gen., 1894, 21 Op. 25, 34.

"The only provision of the existing statutes requiring the retention of seamen's wages to meet their expenses appears in section 4581, Revised Statutes, as amended (23 Stat. 55, 25 Stat. 80), which provides that, 'If any seaman, after his discharge, shall have incurrel any expense for board, or other necessaries

(Id. 35.)

Licensed yachts are not required to "clear at the custom-house (section 4214, R. S. act March 3, 1883), and have been permitted to depart to foreign countries without obtaining the collector's certification to their crew lists and articles, but they are entered at the customhouse on their return (section 4218, R. S.). The crew is not accounted for at the custom-house, however, under section 4576, Revised

Statutes. Such yachts are liable to seizure and forfeiture for any violation of the provisions of Title XLVIII. Revised Statutes of the United States (section 4214, R. S., act March 3, 1883). It has been held that the provisions of law relating to the shipment of seamen do not apply to such vessels, but shipping commissioners have been permitted to allow the shipment of seamen on the vessels before them, if requested to do so by the private persons concerned.

The Treasury Department, June 8, 1892, basing its action on an opinion of the First Comptroller, "that seamen of the merchant marine alone are those within the contemplation of the law providing relief for American seamen," held that seamen discharged from an American yacht, either documented or simply carrying naval commissions, or both, were not entitled to relief in cases of destitution, the First Comptroller citing in his opinion Matthews v. Offley, 3 Sumner, and 15 Opinions Attorney-General, 683. A subsequent First Comptroller, however, took a different view, and held that seamen on American yachts were entitled to the relief provided for American seamen in the same manner and to the same extent as if the seamen were on other private vessels. (First Comptroller's Decisions, 189394, p. 309.) The Treasury Department accordingly changed its ruling, and declared that the Comptroller's decision covered both registered and licensed yachts.

[ocr errors]

Circular to United States consular officers, Sept. 29, 1897, State Dept.
Circulars.

Foreign-built yachts purchased and owned by American citizens in foreign countries. are not vessels of the United States' or regularly documented vessels within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and, according to paragraph 349 of the Consular Regulations, may, when in foreign ports, be subject to tonnage and other consular fees from which regularly documented vessels are exempt. "With reference to shipment, discharge, and relief of seamen of such vessels, and the collection and disposition of wages, you are referred to Articles XII. to XX. of the Consular Regulations as modified by the act of December 21, 1898, and the Department's circular of February 6, 1900.

"In connection with the foregoing, you should examine carefully the Department's circular of September 29, 1897, in regard to the shipment and discharge of seamen on American registered or licensed yachts. The relation of a consular officer to seamen on board foreignbuilt yachts, purchased and owned by American citizens abroad, should be the same as to seamen upon American registered or licensed yachts, except as otherwise provided by the Regulations.”

Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Thackara, July 20, 1900, 173 MS. Inst. Consuls, 433.

The consul, where a seaman is entitled to the privileges of an American seaman, and is destitute, is the proper judge as to the ship on board of which he should be placed for his return to the United States.

Matthews v. Offley, 3 Sumner, 115.

IX. SALARY AND FEES.

1. SALARY AND ALLOWANCES.

§ 732.

"Whatever weight of argument there may be intrinsic to the case itself, or resulting from the practice of some other nations, in favor of a consular establishment supported by salaries, it is perfectly certain that no such system will be sanctioned by the Congress of the United States."

Mr. J. Q. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hill, consul at Rio de Janeiro, April 30, 1819, 2 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 159, in reply to a communication urging the expediency of allowing salaries to consuls generally. For Mr. Livingston's report of March 2, 1833, on the American consular system, see S. Doc. 83, 22 Cong., 2 sess.

Section 3 of act of 1866 (Revised Statutes, § 1729) is limited to unsalaried consuls and commercial agents and does not embrace consular agents.

Stanbery, At. Gen., 1866, 12 Op. 97.

A diplomatic and consular appropriation act which transfers a consulate from the class in which it had stood to a lower class, with a smaller salary, repeals, by necessary implication, so much of the prior legislation as had placed the consulate in the previous class with a higher salary.

Mathews v. United States (1887), 123 U. S. 182.

Where Congress omitted to appropriate for the continuance of the office of consul-general of the United States at Cairo, the Department of State accepted, with thanks, the offer of the incumbent " to keep the office open and to perform such services as may be required of you by this government without other compensation than the honor attached to such a post," pending the submission to Congress, at its next session, of the reasons" showing the necessity of keeping up the post."

Mr. John Davis, Act. Sec, of State, to Mr. Comanos, No. 81, Aug. 20, 1884,
MS. Inst. Egypt, XVI. 363.

A substitute or vice-consul, left in charge of the consulate during the temporary absence of the consul, is to be compensated out of the

statute emoluments of the office, subject to regulations of the Department. An acting consul in charge of a consulate during actual vacancy of the consulate is entitled to receive the statute compensation of the office.

Cushing, At. Gen., 1856, 7 Op. 714.

The Revised Statutes confer upon the President full power, in his discretion, to appoint vice-consuls and fix their compensation, to be paid out of the allowance made by law for the principal consular officer in whose place such appointment may be made. The fact that the minister resident and consul-general at Siam had obtained leave of absence and was ill and unable to discharge his duties, and that the vice-consul previously appointed had failed to qualify, created a temporary vacancy and justified the emergency appointment of a viceconsul to fill it; and the person so appointed was entitled to receive the salary fixed by law for the minister resident and consul-general, which salary was single and indivisible.

United States v. Eaton (1898), 169 U. S. 331.

Where a vice-consul-general is appointed by the diplomatic representative to fill the office in case of an emergency, and immediately enters on the discharge of the duties thereof, and is recognized by the Department of State, he is entitled to compensation from the time of appointment, though his bond is not executed until sometime later.

United States v. Eaton (1898), 169 U. S. 331, 18 S. Ct. 374.

See Boyd v. United States, 31 Ct. Cl. 158.

A vice-consular officer, acting during his principal's absence, is entitled to compensation for the whole term of such absence, though it may extend beyond the statutory period of 60 days.

Boyd v. United States, 31 Ct. Cl. 158.

A consul's bond takes effect from the time of its approval by the Secretary of State. (R. S. § 1697.) And where an appointee was commissioned consul on the 18th of January and his bond, dated the 13th of the same month, was not approved until the 27th, this was held valid.

Williams, At. Gen., 1872, 14 Op. 7.

Attestation is not essential to the validity of a consular bond.

Wirt, At. Gen., 1820, 1 Op. 378.

In the instructions of a consul of the United States to Tunis, there occurred the following: "On your way to Tunis, (perhaps at Malaga or Marseilles,) you may probably devise means for the liberation of our unfortunate captives at Algiers. Should you find a

suitable channel, therefore, through which you can negotiate their immediate release, you are authorized to go as far as three thousand dollars a man; but a less sum may probably effect the object.

If success should attend your efforts, you will draw upon this Department for the necessary funds for paying their ransom, and providing for their comfortable return to their country and friends." The consul employed an agent at Cadiz for a certain hire and a promise of additional pay in case of success, to endeavor to effect the release of the captives, and then drew bills on the Department of State, in favor of a merchant at Gibraltar, for the compensation stipulated to be paid, etc. It was advised that the employment of an agent was justified under the power. Objection, however, was made to the manner of the employment, as being inconsistent with the true meaning of the instructions; and, after a consideration of all the proceedings, which were much complicated by several matters somewhat foreign to the main business, it was advised that an application to Congress would be necessary.

Rush, At. Gen., 1816, 1 Op. 196.

An expenditure of $5.73 by the vice-consul at Bangkok, for lights on the celebration of the king's birthday, when approved by the State Department, should be allowed by the Treasury accounting officers.

United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 18 S. Ct. 374.

The provision of the act of Congress of May 1, 1810, fixing a salary to the consul at Algiers, and assigning to him certain duties, treating that place as belonging to a Mohammedan power, ceased to be operative when the country of which it was the principal city became a province of France. (See acts of March 1, 1855, and August 18, 1856.)

Mahoney v. United States, 10 Wall. 62.

By the act of April 5, 1906, entitled "An act to provide for the reorganization of the consular service of the United States," consulsgeneral are divided into seven classes, with salaries, respectively, of $12,000, $8,000, $6,000, $5,500, $4,500, $3,500, and $3,000; consuls are divided into nine classes with salaries respectively of $8,000 (including only Liverpool), $6,000 (including only Manchester), $5,000, $4,500, $4,000, $3,500, $3,000, $2,500, $2,000.

Act of April 5, 1906, section 2.

2. FEES.

§ 733.

"The question considered, as to what are 'official services' performed by consuls under the Consular Regulations of 1874 and 1881,

« PředchozíPokračovat »