"Knowing, as I do, the elevated view taken by General Martinez Campos of all questions," his "exertions" that "foreigners may suffer as little as possible," and the fact "that he maintains the best and most cordial relations with the head of the United States consular service in Cuba," "I can assure the government of which your excellency forms a worthy part that, in writing to Mr. Williams in the sense in which he did, it was certainly not with the intention or wish that the United States should address him through me, as is customary between sovereigns, but to the end that, he being, as he knows that he is, a delegated authority, foreign consuls in addressing him officially in the exercise of a right acknowledged by international and conventional law, and which nobody denies, may not go so far as to ask for decisions, request declarations, or demand settlements which His Majesty's government alone is competent to adopt "I am sure that what the governor-general of the island of Cuba has done was not denying a right, but endeavoring to prevent the abuse of it, which, it is true, has been unintentionally committed for a long time back." Mr. Dupuy de Lôme, Span. min., to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, Oct. 1, 1895, "I note the statement that, his [the governor-general's] office being merely one of delegated authority, foreign consuls, in addressing him officially in the exercise of a right which you state to be acknowledged by international and conventional law, and which nobody denies, may not go so far as to ask for decisions, request declarations, or demand settlements which His Majesty's government alone is competent to adopt.' "This statement would seem to imply a limitation of the subjects upon which a consular representative may properly correspond with the local Spanish authority in Cuba. But neither is such limitation expressly confirmed by you, nor, can it be fairly inferred either from the text of the treaty between Spain and Germany, in which I find the fullest conventional definition of the right, or from precedent and usage. The right of consuls 'to address the authorities of their district in remonstrance against every infraction of the treaties or conventions existing between the two countries and against whatever abuse may be complained of by their countrymen' clearly includes initial representations upon those subjects. It may indeed happen that the precise form of remedy may have to be referred to His Majesty's government and that appropriate redress may be attainable only after diplpomatic negotiations between the two governments. "But such negotiations are the sequel of the original remonstrance, and are made necessary only when and because the local authorities. show themselves lacking either in the will or the power to adequately deal with the grievance. This is clearly expressed in the concluding paragraph of article 9 of the Spanish-German treaty of February 22, 1870, which specifically authorizes consuls, in the absence of the diplomatic agent of their country, to conduct such further diplomatic discussion with the supreme government, thus clearly distinguishing between the incident in its incipient stage and the incident when it has passed that stage and become a subject of diplomatic treatment. "The communications of the consul-general to which his excellency the governor-general takes exception have been in each case made under the authority and direction of this Department in the interest of good relations and with the design of avoiding, if possible, that ulterior diplomatic correspondence which would necessarily ensue should any wrong against an American citizen in Cuba remain unredressed after due representation to the local authorities. It is, of course, true, as stated in my note of September 26, that the consulgeneral can not conduct a diplomatic discussion with the governorgeneral, since neither that officer nor the consul-general possesses the requisite powers. Nevertheless, though the subject treated of may ultimately become the theme of diplomatic negotiation, that circumstance can not deprive the consul of the clear right nor absolve him. from the clear duty of initiating such inquiries and remonstrances as the interests intrusted to his keeping may from time to time require." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dupuy de Lôme, Spanish minister, Oct. 11, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1213. Mr. Taylor, United States minister at Madrid, telegraphed, Oct. 21, 1895, that the minister of state was disposed to grant at once to consuls of the United States in Cuba all rights guaranteed to German consuls under the treaty of 1870." (For. Rel. 1895, II. 1214.) 66 Mr. Olney's note to Mr. Dupuy de Lôme, of the 11th instant, answers See Mr. Uhl, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Barker, consul at Sagua la See, also, President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 2, 1895. The consul-general of the United States at Havana having sought permission to ascertain and report upon the health and welfare of an American citizen confined in Cabanas fortress, the captain-general of Cuba, Gen. Weyler, replied that the prisoner was in good health, but that if the consul-general desired to make a personal examination he might visit him or any other American prisoner on giving a day's notice, so that the prisoner might be in the guardroom nearest the entrance to the fortress at the time of the visit. For. Rel. 1896, 834. Certain persons in New York having sent a letter and a draft for money to the consul-general of the United States at Havana for delivery to an American political prisoner in the Cubanas fortress, the consul-general transmitted the documents to the Department of State and recommended that they be returned to the senders with the suggestion that they be forwarded by another channel, since the consulate, unless otherwise directed, should not take charge of the prisoner's private correspondence. The action of the consul-general as to the letter was approved, but the draft was sent back to him with the instruction that he might, with the knowledge and assent of the authorities, deliver the proceeds of the draft, with a statement of the source from which it came. This was done with the ready assent of the acting governor-general of Cuba, who remarked that the application for the consent of the authorities was "the correct course in the matter." For. Rel. 1896, 770-772. In 1889 Mr. Williams, consular agent of the United States at Guanajuato, addressed an official letter to the Mexican federal judge at that place, asking, in the name of the United States consul-general at Mexico, that B. F. Davis, an American citizen, who had been "imprisoned since June 12th of last year without anything having been done, be given an immediate trial or be set at liberty." The judge, considering this communication to be disrespectful, imposed on the consular agent a fine of ten dollars, to be paid within three days. The fine not having been paid within that time, Mexican officers entered the consular agent's office and compelled him to deliver up his watch, at the same time informing him that unless the fine should be paid the watch would be sold at public auction to defray the fine and cost. The fine subsequently was paid. The Department of State of the United States, while admitting that the tone of Mr. Williams's letter was "somewhat peremptory and not wholly warranted by the relations that subsist between a consular agent of the United States and a Mexican federal judge," thought that the proceedings against Mr. Williams" were marked by a lack of consideration for the character and dignity of the official against whom they were directed;" that the consular agent, if his communication was considered disrespectful, should have been requested to withdraw it; and that if he refused to do so, and the circumstance; were thought to warrant it, complaint should have been made to his government. The discussion of the case was discontinued in view of the fact that Mr. Williams vacated the office of consular agent soon after the incident in question. Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Ryan, min. to Mexico, Sept. 2, 1889, 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 |