Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

that the notice was given with a view to avoid misunderstanding, and that the police would be accompanied by a justice of the peace. Immediately afterwards, and before a response could be made by the legation, Mr. Battiste's residence was surrounded and entered by the police, who represented that they were searching for a thief. It appeared that the chief of police entered the dwelling, revolver in hand, to the terror of the inhabitants. Subsequently the legation complained to the minister of foreign affairs of the action of the police, observing that Mr. Battiste would have given any information in regard to his private residence that the Government might have desired. The minister of foreign affairs replied: “I hasten to express the regret that the unusual precautions taken by my department to facilitate the execution of that police measure did not produce the desired result. I will add that my regrets are the more intense and the more sincere, that Mr. Battiste has always merited the consideration of the Government."

On receiving full reports of the case, the Department of State said:

“The search seems to have been immediately accomplished without awaiting the result of the formal application made to the legation for its sanction.

“ The application so made is somewhat vague, but in the light of Mr. Battiste's report to Mr. Terres it appears that the entire square was being searched for an escaped thief who was supposed to have taken refuge there.

"As the immunities attaching to the office of deputy consul do not include so-called asylum for persons charged with violating the law, no objection could be seen to effecting the proposed search after notification, and with the sanction and, if necessary, the full assistance of the officers of the legation. It seems clear, however, that the proceedings were not conducted with suitable consideration for Mr. Battiste's official position, his yard fence having been broken down and his premises alarmingly invaded by an armed force.

“ The protest made by Mr. Terres is approved as proper and timely. The reply from Mr. St. Victor is evasive and unsatisfactory, being confined to an expression of regret that the exceptional precautions taken by his department to facilitate the execution of the proposed police measure had not produced the expected result.

“ You will impress upon Mr. St. Victor the obvious circumstance that no time was allowed to the legation to respond in the desired sense, inasmuch as the search appears to have been already in progress when the agents of the legation hastened to Mr. Battiste's house for the purpose of aiding the local authorities in the orderly execution of the proposed search, and you will express the hope that you may not at any time hereafter be called upon to make renewed complaint respecting any such offensive disregard of the consideration and official amenities due to the representative agents of the United States at Port au Prince, or, indeed, anywhere else within Haitian jurisdiction.

“As it would appear from Mr. Terres's statements that Mr. Battiste's fence has been broken down, you should insist, if it has not already been done, that any injury done to the property of this officer of the United States shall be made good."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min. to Hayti, Nov. 27, 1899, For.

Rel. 1899, 407.

On the morning of February 1, 1904, the United States consul at

Cienfuegos found the door of his office “besmeared Case at Cienfuegos. and the coat-of-arms literally covered with mud." He reported the facts to the police. The acting mayor ordered an immediate investigation, and, in company with other civil authorities, called at the consulate to express regrets. The minister of the United States at Havana brought the matter to the attention of the government, which expressed its “most energetic disapproval ” of the occurrence, and intimated that the author of the offense should not remain unpunished. The government of the United States, “ in view of the apologies made and the precautions taken to prevent a repetition of the insult,” declared that the incident might be regarded as closed.

For. Rel. 1904, 236-238.

5. DISPLAY OF NATIONAL ARMS AND FLAG.

$ 706.

A consul may place the arms of his government over his door. Permission to display the national flag is not a matter of right, though it is usually accorded and is often provided for by treaty.

The right to place the national arms and the name of the consulate on the offices is given by treaties with Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands (and colonies) ; on their offices and dwellings, by treaty with Belgium and Germany; the right to place their national flag on their dwellings, except where there is a legation, by treaties with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Roumania, and Servia; the right to place the arms, name, and flag on their offices or dwellings, by treaties with France and Salvador; and the right to place the name and flag on their dwellings, by treaty with Colombia. The treaty with the Independent State of the Congo confers the right to raise the flag on the consular office.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $$ 70, 73, 86, pp. 26,

28, 33. As to the display of the national arms, $$ 70 and 73 do not seem to be

entirely consistent.

[ocr errors]

“ The raising of the consular flag in Mexico

is a matter subject to municipal law, unless a privilege in respect to it should have been granted by treaty. We have no other privilege than that of equality with other nations, which will always be insisted on. It appears, however, that the authorities at the City of Mexico have overlooked a strict observance of the law, by allowing consuls to display their flags on holidays of their respective nations. This, it seems to me, is as much as may be needed. If, however, they should at any time think. proper to withdraw this indulgence, it is clear that we can not insist upon its continuance as a matter of right.”

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, Feb. 16, 1874, For. Rel. 1874, 730.

The right of consular agents of Austria to hoist their national flag in places where their sovereign has no legation is established by the fourth article of the consular convention of July 11, 1870, between Austria and the United States, and this right can not be impaired by any municipal ordinance prohibiting the exhibition of flags.

Mr. Freylinhuysen, Sec. of State, to Gov. Pattison, of Penna., Aug. 27,

1884, 152 MS. Dom. Let. 304.

Consuls, in erecting flag poles, may be required to conform to municipal regulations designed to keep the streets free from projecting signs and other fixtures.

Mr. Crídler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Halstead, No. 74, Feb. 3,

1900, 171 MS. Inst. Consuls, 2.

6. CEREMONIAL.

$ 707. “ Consuls have no claim, under international law, to any foreign ceremonial, and no right of precedence except among themselves, and in their relation to the military and naval officers of their own country. This precedence, as to officers of the same grade in the consular body of the place, depends upon the date of the respective exequaturs."

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $ 76, p. 29.
See, as to the relations of consuls to naval officers of the United States, id.

$ $ 109–113, 440–442.

With reference to the action of Commander Truxton, U. S. S. Jamestown, in sending an armed party and forcibly placing the American flag on the United States consulate at Honolulu at halfmast, on the occasion of the death of the Dowager Queen Kalama, Mr. Fish said: “The conduct of the consul on that occasion in not taking notice of a patent and notorious fact was wrong. The Navy

Department has censured the conduct of Commander Truxton, which was an inexcusable indignity to the consul, and a violation of the rules and regulations of the service, which you ought to have denounced and rebuked. You were remiss in not protesting against it, if you could not have prevented it.”

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierce, min. to Hawaii, No. 27, Oct. 21,

1870, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 203.

Although the captains of United States army transports have no official standing, being merely masters of ships employed by the War Department, the Department of State recommended that the War Department adopt with regard to them, as a wise and prudent provision, Art. 169 of the Naval Regulations of 1896, which requires that “ diplomatic and consular officers in charge of legations or consulates shall be notified of the arrival of the ship in port.”

Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, April 26, 1900,

244 MS. Dom. Let. 526.

The Secretary of the Navy " thinks it inadvisable to indicate any correspondence of rank between consular officers and naval or mili, tary officers; for, while the honors prescribed for consular officers of different grades are explicitly stated in the Navy Regulations, the Navy Department is unacquainted with any explicit determination of the correspondence of rank between consular officers and officers of the Navy or Army."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Gov. Allen (Porto Rico), May 23, 1900, 245

MS. Dom. Let. 230.
This letter also discusses the naval courtesies to be paid to the governor

of Porto Rico.

As consular officers have under international law no claim to any foreign ceremonial and right of precedence except among themselves and in their relations with the military and naval officers of their own country, there would " seem to be no necessity” for the governor of Porto Rico “ to call in person upon all consular officers." Nor could it be said to be “ appropriate " for him to do so; at most the only question that could properly be suggested would be whether it " was not deemed unfitting or inappropriate ” for him to make such a call.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Gov. Allen (Porto Rico), May 23, 1900, 245

MS. Dom. Let. 230. As to the relations of the agents of the Independent State of the Congo

with foreign consuls, see For. Rel. 1887, 26.

7. UNIFORM.

$ 708.

“ Diplomatic officers are forbidden by statute to wear any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress. Consular officers are not authorized by law to wear any uniform, and the prohibition imposed by statute on diplomatic officers is hereby extended to consular officers. It is provided, however, that all officers who served during the rebellion as volunteers in the Army of the United States and have been honorably mustered out of the volunteer service shall be entitled to bear the official title and upon occasions of ceremony to wear the uniform of the highest grade they held, by brevet or other commissions, in the volunteer service. They may also, on like occasions, wear the distinctive army badge of the corps or division in which they served. These provisions are held to apply to consular officers whose service and discharge from the Volunteer Army bring them under its terms. R. S. secs. 1226, 1688."

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 452, p. 178.
It was ruled that this precluded a consul who was an officer in the

National Guard from wearing the uniform of his rank; and it was
stating that the placing of his military title on his official card would
be considered objectionable. (Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of
State, to Mr. Olmstead, December 9, 1897, 223 Dom. Let. 279.)

8. PRESENTS.

$ 709.

Under Article I, section 9, of the Constitution of the United States, “no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” This applies to consuls and diplomatic agents.

See supra, $ 651.

9. ENGAGING IN BUSINESS.

$710.

No consular officer whose salary exceeds $1,000 a year is allowed to engage in business, and the President may extend this prohibition to a consular officer whose salary does not exceed that amount, and may require him to give a bond not to violate the prohibition.

« PředchozíPokračovat »