Obrázky stránek

concerns the agent's relation to the government to which he is accredited and from which he receives his exequatur.” The French government subsequently stated that the object which the Tunisan government had in view was the withdrawal of the custom-house franchise from consular agents engaged in business. The United States, besides reaffirming its position that neither the treaty nor usage made any distinction between salaried and unsalaried consular officers, replied that it was perfectly compatible with a consular officer's duties as such that he be permitted to engage in trade, and that the practice was generally recognized among nations; that vice-consuls, as a rule, were resident merchants, and even officers of the regular consular career receiving salaries below a stated amount were permitted to engage in business apart from their office and subject to the laws governing trade, and that the United States would insist on similar treatment for its consular agent to that accorded to “consuls de carrière."

Mr. Chl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, March 12,

1895, For. Rel. 1895, I. 414; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Eustis, amb. to France, June 17, 1895, and Dec. 7, 1895, id. 419, 422.

“ In no event could a consular uniform, which is the personal property of the individual, be included in the term ' consular supplies, which are the property of the government. The case is different with flags and coats-of-arms, which belong to the government, and are by the consular officer turned over to his successor.”

Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Cafiero, May 11, 1898, MS. Notes

to For. Consuls, IV. 413.

“In explanation of my statement in my aforesaid note [of June 5] to the effect that consular officers are not accorded the privilege of free entry, I have to say that on the arrival of consular officers in this country free entry is allowed of their personal and household effects, as in the case of ordinary passengers; but, under the regulations of the Treasury Department, they have not the right after arrival in this country, as in the case of ambassadors and ministers, to import supplies, &c., free of duty. The fact that Signor Tosti [Italian viceconsul at New York] failed to import his household effects for his permanent establishment here on the occasion of his first arrival in this country in his official capacity of vice-consul, is no bar to the free importation now of such effects, provided they have been used abroad not less than one year, whether immediately preceding his arrival or not."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count Vinci, No. 489, June 8, 1899, MS. Notes

to Italian Leg. IX. 362.

"Article 476 of the Customs Regulations of the United States provides for the free entry in the United States of articles sent by a foreign government, for its use, to an agent in this country, on application through the Department of State.' Under this article official supplies to foreign consular officers in the United States are admitted free of duty.

“ With a view of establishing Article 476 aforesaid upon a reciprocal basis, which would appear to be rightfully demanded, the Secretary of the Treasury desires to ascertain the course pursued in this respect towards United States consular officers by the different nations of the world having consular representatives in this country."

Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Dip. officers of the United States, circular,

May 29, 1901, MS. Inst. Arg. Rep. XVII. 543. The following papers may be consulted with regard to the countries men

tioned : Austria-Hungary : Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, No. 16, Nov. 6,

1885, MS. Inst. Aust.-Hlung. III. 371. Brazil: Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, No. 12, Aug. 7, 1897,

MS. Inst. Brazil, XVIII. 259. Germany: Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Everett, chargé, No. 255,

Aug. 24, 1881, MS. Inst. Germany, XVII. 112; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Everett, No. 300, Feb. 2, 1882, id. 153; Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, No. 100, Jan. 3, 1889, 128

MS. Inst. Consuls, 214. Great Britain: Mr. Bayard, Sec, of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to England,

No. 59, July 21, 1885, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXVII. 513; Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bonham, consul-general at Calcutta,

No. 20, April 5, 1887, 120 MS. Inst. Consuls, 677. Italy: Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stallo, No. 23, April 3, 1886, MS.

Inst. Italy, II. 328; same to same, April 27, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 633; same to same, Aug. 20, 1887, id. 640 ; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. MacVeagh, No. 144, Jan. 20, 1896, MS. Inst. Italy, III. 102; Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Cafiero, May 11, 1898, MS. Notes to For. Consuls, IV, 413; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count Vinci, No.

489, June 8, 1899, MS. Notes to Ital. Leg. IX. 362 Japan: Treasury Department Circular, No. 184, Oct. 13, 1898. Mexico: Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Manning, Sec. of Treas., Sept.

10, 1885, 157 MS. Dom. Let. 106; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, No. 184, May 15, 1886, MS. Inst. Mex. XXI. 491; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Manning, No. 99, May 4, 1887, id. 693; same to same, June 2, 1887, MS. Inst. Mex. XXII. 5; Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr.

Towle, No. 18, Dec. 27, 1900, 175 MS. Inst. Consuls, 520. Russia : Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Breckinridge, No. 93, July 6,

1895, MS. Inst. Russia, XVII. 355, acknowledging receipt of Mr. Breckinridge's No. 92, June 15, 1895, which enclosed a note from

the Russian foreign office of March 16/28, 1895. Sweden and Norway: Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Magee, No. 103,

Sept. 14, 1888, MS. Inst. Sweden and Norway, XV. 181; Mr. Sherman,

Sec. of State, to Mr. Ferguson, No. 132, April 23, 1897, id. 129. Turkey: Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. ('ox, No. 43, Nov. 6, 1885, MS.

Inst. Turkey, IV. 305. Venezuela : Treasury Dept. Circulars, Nos. 175 and 196, Sept. 26 and

Nov. 23, 1898.



§ 717.

The jurisdiction allowed to consuls in civilized countries over disputes between their countrymen is voluntary and in the nature of arbitration, and it relates more especially to matters of trade and commerce.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $ 73, p. 28.

" To remove a misconception which seems to have partially taken place, you are advised that no judicial authority belongs to your office, except what may be expressly given by a law of the United States and may be tolerated by the government in whose jurisdiction you reside. On the contrary, all incidents of a nature to call for judicial redress must be submitted to the local authority, if they can not be composed by your recommendatory intervention."

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to consuls and commercial agents, circular,

July 1, 1805, MS. Desp. to Consuls, I. 248.

It is inadmissible for a consul to take persons from a vessel of his nationality arriving in port and subject them to examination at the consulate on suspicion of their being implicated in a crime committed in his country, even though they be afterwards discharged.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, British min., March 3, 1883,

MS. Notes to Gt. Br. XIX. 216.

A United States consul in China is required, within the range of his duties, to obey the official order of the minister of the United States in China. If this order is reversed by the Department of State, the reversal is communicated through the minister, until which time the order binds.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to China, Feb. 6,

1884, MS. Inst. China, III. 537.

In certain treaties it is provided that requisitions for surrender of fugitives from justice may be made by consular officers in the absence of diplomatic representatives.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $ 92, p. 36.

A consul of the United States has no authority to appoint a curator for an American corporation, which may at the time have in the country in which he resides no competent official upon whom legal service can be made in case of “ legal attacks

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, No. 123, Feb. 5, 1894, MS.

Inst. Central America, XX. 237.

upon it.

“ The viséing of passports, by: national consuls in a foreign country, is generally regarded as a domestic function, regulated by the laws and requirements of the consul's country. Several European powers prohibit vises to the passports of certain classes of aliens. Russian consuls, for instance, will not authenticate any paper in behalf of a Jew for use in Russia ; and Turkey refuses to legalize the passports of any naturalized person of Armenian birth. There is no way by which this Department can procure a visé in such cases. The Turkish minister uniformly refers all applications for visés to the Ottoman consuls.

In the supposition that Mr. Minassian emigrated and became naturalized without imperial permission, his only effective remedy would seem to lie in a petition to the Sultan to sanction his change of allegiance and permit him to revisit his native country.”

Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Agnew, May 3, 1895, 202 MS. Dom.

Let. 49.
See, to the same effect, Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bogigian, April

29, 1895, 201 MS. Dom. Let. 689.

Unless by statute or treaty a foreign consul can exercise no municipal jurisdiction in the United States.

In re Aubrey, 26 Fed. Rep. 818.

A consul, though a public agent, is clothed with authority only for commercial purposes. He has a right to interpose claims for the res-titution of property belonging to subjects of his own country, but it is not competent for him, without the special authority of his government, to interpose a claim on account of the violation of the territorial jurisdiction of his country.

The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445; The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177.
See, also, as to the extent of the powers and privileges of consuls, Viveash

v. Becker, 3 Maule & Selwyn, 281.

While consuls, when there is no other representation, and when duly recognized, are competent parties to assert or defend the rights of property of their fellow-citizens or subjects in a court of admiralty without special procuration, they can not receive actual restitution of the property in controversy without a special authority. But a viceconsul, duly recognized by our government, is a competent party to assert or defend the rights of property of the individuals of his nation, in any court having jurisdiction of causes affected by the application of international law—in this case a court of admiralty.

The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152.
See, also, The London Packet, 1 Mason, 14.

A consul, in an enemy's country, has no authority by virtue of his office to grant a license or permit which will have the effect of exempting a vessel of the enemy from capture and confiscation.

Rogers v Amado, 1 Newberry's Adm. 400.

A consul of the United States in a neutral country has no authority hy virtue of his official station to grant a license or permit to a vessel to exempt it from belligerent capture by the naval forces of his own country for attempting to enter a blockaded port.

The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 20 S. Ct. 489.


$ 718.

With the exception of correspondence with the Treasury Department concerning accounts, and such other correspondence as law or regulation may require him to have with other departments or officers, the consul is required to conduct no official correspondence with any department of government except through the Department of State. This rule is especially applicable to communications from subordinates of other departments. Such communications should not be answered without first obtaining the Department of State's permission,

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $ 134, p. 48.
See, also, id. 88 132, 133.
See Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boutwell, Sec. of Treas., Jan. 21, 1871,

88 MS. Dom. Let. 69.

In various treaties between the United States and other powers, it is stipulated that consuls shall have the right to correspond with the local authorities in case of any infraction of treaty, and that, if the jocal authorities fail to give redress and there is no diplomatic representative, they may apply to the government of the country in which they exercise their functions.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), $ 85, p. 33.

“ In the practice of our Government there is no immediate connection or dependence between the persons holding diplomatic and consular appointments in the same country; but, by the usage of all the commercial nations of Europe, such a subordination is considered as of course. In the transaction of their official duties the consuls are

« PředchozíPokračovat »