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. 6. 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 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, 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 The Spanish legislation is not opposed to the consuls of the United States "receiving the oath which, according to the custom-house regulations of the Union, should be taken on making the invoices of merchandise destined to its ports;" and if it should be proved that such an oath has been taken falsely, the person who may have. taken it will be condemned for the crime of falsity, and the competent judge will impose upon him the penalty designated for such cases in the 227th article of the penal code. Señor Calderon de la Barca, min. of state, to the Am. min. at Madrid, On June 24, 1874, the German foreign office called the attention of the American legation at Berlin to a case in which the United States district court at New York had issued an order directing certain American consuls in Germany, or their authorized agents, with the assistance of United States commissioners to be specially sent to Europe for the purpose, to take the sworn testimony of certain German subjects within the German Empire. The German foreign office 'pointed out that consular officers were not authorized by Article IX. of the consular convention between the two countries to discharge such functions. The German foreign office did not object to commissioners appointed by courts in the United States, whether the commissioners so appointed were consuls or other persons, obtaining information and making inquiries, provided that witnesses who were not American citizens gave such information voluntarily and were protected in so doing. But it pointed out that the exceptional privilege extended to United States consuls, by the consular convention between the two countries, of taking testimony under oath was expressly confined to witnesses of the same nationality as the consul. The German courts, said the foreign office, cheerfully complied, without any treaty obligation to that effect, with any request made by foreign courts of law for the examination under oath of designated persons. And the German law also provided that in such examination the parties might be represented, and that the attorneys might exercise a proper influence by putting questions through the judges. For. Rel. 1874, 446, 458-464. The German government has adhered to the position thus taken in regard to obtaining testimony under oath. (Mr. Wharton, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Englehart, March 13, 1891, 181 MS. Dom. Let. 234.) "The German government has recently brought to the attention of the Department its objections to the taking of testimony of German subjects by our consular officers. In view of this our consul-general at Berlin issued, under date of June 26 last, a circular to the consular officers within his jurisdiction giving the opinion of our ambas sador at Berlin that, under the existing regulations, it is not advisable for United States consular officers in Germany to take by commission, issued out of the courts, whether Federal or State, of the United States the testimony of German subjects. The German government prefers that the testimony shall be taken through letters rogatory." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Dickinson, Thurber, and Stevenson, Although there is said to be no statute in Germany which prohibits consular officers from taking testimony, yet it has in fact been found that the only way of securing testimony there under a commission is to have it done under the direction of a German court. (Mr. Porter Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Jenks, Nov. 27, 1886, 162 MS. Dom. Let. 464.) "Where the law, either of the United States or of one of the States of this Union, requires a notarial act to be performed by a consular officer of the United States, the performance of such act by a foreign consular officer, temporarily charged with the protection of American interests in a foreign country, is not valid or effective. Such is the case in respect of declarations made abroad by applicants for pensions, to which you refer. The statutes of the United States expressly provide that such declarations shall be made either before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or before some officer of the country duly authorized to administer oaths for general purposes.' "In this connection reference to Mr. Olney's instruction No. 896, of March 10, 1898, to Mr. Terrell, minister of the United States at Constantinople, is made, "The case in point was that of Louis Jones, whose claim for a pension was rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions, on the ground that there was no valid declaration on file, the officer before whom the declaration had been executed (the British vice-consul at Varna) not being an officer of the country authorized to administer oaths for general purposes. "Mr. Terrell inquired, in view of the fact that there was no American representatives in Bulgaria and that the British consular officers there are charged with American interests, whether there was any one in the country who was 'authorized to administer oaths for general purposes." "Mr. Olney replied: "The laws of the United States (Revised Statutes 4714, as amended by 27th Statutes, 272) authorize the Commissioner of Pensions to accept declarations of claimants residing in foreign countries made either: 1, before a United States minister or consul, or, 2, before some officer of the country duly authorized to administer oaths for general purposes, and whose official character and signature shall be duly authenticated by the certificate of a United States minister or consul. If there is an official of the Turkish government at Varna authorized to administer oaths gen |