Obrázky stránek

So far as concerns the right to hold property as a neutral against a belligerent, it has been held that a consul of a neutral


see Asser, Administration de la Justice consul rights and privileges necessary en Egypte, in the Revue de droit int. ii. to the performance of the duties of the 564; Martens, Kousularwesen in Orient, consular office; and, generally, a con1874; Mancini, Reforme Judiciare en sul may claim for himself and his Egypte, 1875; Rénault, Etude sur le office, not only such rights and priviprojet de réforme judiciare en Egypte, leges as have been conceded by treaty, 1875; Brauer, Die Deutschen Justizge- but also such as have the sanction of setze in ihrer Anwendung auf die amt- custom and local law, and have been liche Thätigkeit der Konsuln, etc., enjoyed by his predecessors, or by con1879. In modern practice a distinction suls of other nations, unless a formal is taken between consuls-general, vice- notice has been given that they will consuls, and local-consuls. The two first, not be extended to him." § 77: "A when endowed with diplomatic func- consul may place the arms of his govtions have the privileges of inviolability. ernment over his doors. Permission to In the United States consular regu- display the national flag is not a matter lations, as revised in 1881, it is stated of right, though it is usually accorded, (§ 75) that "a consular officer in civil- and it is often provided for by treaty. ized countries now has, under public . law, no acknowledged representative or diplomatic character as regards the country to which he is accredited. He has, however, a certain representative character as affecting the commercial interests of the country from which he receives his appointment, and there may be circumstances, as, for example, in the absence of a diplomatic representative, which, apart from usage, make it proper for him to address the local government upon subjects which relate to the duties and rights of his office, and which are usually dealt with through a legation." In § 76. "Although consuls have no right to claim the privileges and immunities of diplomatic representatives, they are under the special protection of international law, and are regarded as the officers both of the state which appoints and the state which receives them. The extent of their authority is derived from their commission and their exequatur; and it is believed that the granting of the latter instrument, without express restrictions, confers on the

. . 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. consul, however, under public law, is subject to the payment of taxes and municipal imposts and duties on his property in the country or on his trade, and generally to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the country in which he resides. It is, probable, if he does not engage in business, and does not own real estate, that he would not be subject to arrest or incarceration, except on a criminal charge, and in the case of the commission of a crime, he may either be punished by local laws, or sent back to his own country." § 78: "The privileges of a consul who engages in business in the country of his official residence, are, under international law, more restricted, especially if he is a subject or citizen of the foreign state."

It is added that inviolability of the consular archives is secured by treaties with Austro-Hungary, Belgium,

state loses his privileges as against a belligerent by doing business as a merchant in the place to which he is accredited; and, as a general rule, a consul doing business as a merchant in the seat of his consulate merges his consular, so far as privilege is concerned, in his mercantile status.1

Consuls in


cases have jurisdic

tion in
in foreign



§ 171. We have already seen that there are cases in which consuls of civilized countries exercise jurisdiction over citizens of such countries in barbarous lands. It is now to be observed that there are cases in which consuls in civilized lands have jurisdiction over specific lines of litigation given them by treaty.2 Thus by consular convention of 1778, between the United States and France, consuls of each country, as has been already noticed, are permitted to exercise police over all vessels of their respective countries, "within the interior of the vessel," and to adjudicate questions concerning wages arising in such countries. Treaties to the same effect have been negotiated with other countries; and congress, by the

Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Portugal, and Sweden; while inviolability of the consular office and dwelling (but not as an asylum) is secured by treaties with Belgium, France, Germany (of consuls, not citizens), and Italy. Exemption from arrest, except for crimes, is secured by convention with Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, and Italy. "In AustroHungary and France he is to enjoy personal immunities; but in France, if a citizen of France, or owning property there, or engaged in commerce, he can claim only the immunities granted to other citizens of the country who own property, or to merchants. In Austro-Hungary, if engaging in business, he can be detained only for commercial debts. . . . In Great Britain, Netherlands (as to colonies), Nicaragua, and Paraguay, they are regarded as appointed for the protection of trade." Exemption from obligation to appear as a witness "is

secured absolutely by convention with France, and, except for defence of persons charged with crime, by conventions with Austro-Hungary, Belgium, Italy, and Salvador. In such case the testimony may be taken in writing at his dwelling." By treaties with many states, consuls not owning real estate or doing business in the country of the consulate are exempt from taxation. By some treaties, also, consuls have the right to take depositions, and have jurisdiction of disputes in vessels of the United States.

11 Kent's Com., 44, 62; 2 Phill., 336; The Falcon, 6 C. Rob. Ad. 194; The Hope, Dods. Ad. 226; infra, § 219. By the act of congress, of August 18, 1856, U. S. Stat. at Large, ch. 127, American consuls in particular places are forbidden to engage in trade. The law in respect to consuls is discussed with great fulness in the fourth volume of Lawrence's Com. sur Wheaton. Supra, §§ 147, 170.

[ocr errors]

statute of June 11, 1864, made provision for the support of the jurisdiction thus given to foreign consuls.' By statute, also, our consuls abroad have power to administer oaths in certain cases, and to acknowledge papers; and perjury be fore a consul abroad is punishable as such in a Federal court before whom the offender is brought. In this country, also, it has been held that a foreign consul, received as such by our government, may, without special authority, appear for a citizen of his country in a case in which the latter, though absent, is interested.3

§ 172. A consul cannot enter on his duties without the permission of the state within whose limits the con




required to sular functions are to be exercised; supposing such state to be civilized. This permission is usually granted by an "exequatur," which may be recalled on due grounds. The announcement of the appointment of a consul is by lettres de provision.-In old times a distinction was taken between consules electi and consules missi; the latter being generally subjects of the appointing state, while for consules electi this was not necessary. Consules electi, also, are generally unpaid, and are allowed to engage in business, which is refused to consules missi. But the tendency among European states is to restrict consular appointments to consules missi, with settled fees, and exclusion from business.



tion per-
missible in
which dis-


174. On the subject of intervention two extreme views have been announced. On the one side it was maintained by Burke, in his letters on a Regicide Peace, that a nation, such as England, holding a comturb pubiic manding position in Europe, is justified in intervening to put down propagandist anarchy in another land; and it was declared by the members of the Holy Alliance, in 1815, to be the duty of the "Christian sovereigns" who took part in that alliance, to unite to repress any European outburst against legitimacy. This position, however,


1 See Lawrence's Wheaton, note 73. 3 The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat 152. 2 See Supra, § 170, note; Whart.

Crim. Law, 8th ed. §§ 273-6.


has been long repudiated. The chief instance of interference of this class is that of Russia to protect Austria from revolution in 1848; and since then France witnessed the overthrow of the old equilibrium in Germany without protest; and neither Austria nor Russia interfered to prevent the democratization of France. On the other side, it cannot be said that the opposite extreme, that of the laissez faire, in reference to foreign states, has acquired unqualified acceptance. the United States the doctrine of non interference has been generally adopted as an axiom in political economy; yet in the United States there is a general acceptance of the position taken in this respect by Mr. Monroe, under the advice of Mr. J. Q. Adams, so far as it assumes that no European power is to be permitted to interfere forcibly in the domestic affairs of Americau sovereignties; and in the further position that the control of a caual across the Isthmus of Panama is not to pass into the hands of any one European power. Mr. Gladstone, and the leading members of his cabinet, are adherents of the laissez faire school; but by Mr. Gladstone's administration an attack on Egypt, and an at least temporary occupation and reorganization of Egypt have been justified, on the ground that this was necessary to the preservation of European commerce and peace. In semi-barbarous countries, settlements by civilized states have never been regarded as interfering with sound international jurisprudence. England has indefinitely extended her Indian empire, has taken possession of Cyprus, and has acquired at least a temporary dominancy in Egypt. France has occupied Algiers and Tunis, and has obtained control of Madagascar. We may, therefore, hold to the following positions:

(1) The application of influence by one state over another to mould the latter's political action, is not contrary to the law of nations, provided that force is not threatened.

(2) The application of force, or its threat, to induce a change by another state, either of its political constitution or of its political action as to a third state, is a violation of the law of nations.?

See as to qualifications infra, § 175. bered, disclaimed, when waging war Great Britain, it should be remem- against the French Republic, any de

(3) It is, however, open to the successful party to insist, on the conclusion of a war, on guaranties which may involve some modifications of the policy of the party vanquished.

sign thereby to interfere in the domestic affairs of France. The ostensible reason was that the decree of the national convention of November 19, 1792, was virtually a declaration of war. See Phill., op. cit., i. 561. This decree was a bombastic resolution to give aid to "tous les peuples que voudront recouvrir leur liberte." See article by Mr. Oscar Browning, in Fortnightly Review for Jan. 1883, where the diplomatic history of this period is reviewed, and where the mistakes of the British as well as the French governments in this respect are pointed out.

In Lord John Russell's despatch, addressed, in 1860, to Sir J. Hudson, British minister at Turin, justifying the interference of the king of Sardinia in aid of the insurrection at Naples, occurs the following remarkable passage: "That eminent jurist, Vattel, when discussing the lawfulness of the assistance given by the United Provinces to the Prince of Orange, when he invaded England and overturned the throne of James II., says: 'The authority of the Prince of Orange had doubtless an influence on the deliberations of the States General, but it did not lead them to the commission of an act of injustice; for when a people from good reasons takes up arms against its oppressor, it is but an act of justice and generosity to assist brave men in the defence of their liberties.""

Ann. Reg. 1860, p. 294, Pub. Doc. It must be remembered that at the time the States General intervened in English affairs, there was no armed resistance to the authority of James II. This is a dangerous precedent, and would sustain almost every form of aid given to foreign insurgents.

According to General Washington, "no government ought to interfere with the internal concerns of another, except for the security of what is due to themselves.". Sparks's Life and Writings of Washington, xi. 382.

"As regards the citizens of the recognized state, any interference with the action of the local law would be a positive breach of the law of nations." Even in the case of a partially recognized and partially protected state, such interference is forbidden. Lord Dufferin's interposition on behalf of Midhat Pacha (July, 1881) was wholly unofficial in form, however peremptory it may have been in substance. When Lord Granville's attention was called to the persecution of the Jews in Russia, and the alleged sympathy of the Russian government, in the house of lords (Feb. 9, 1882) he declined, with the approval of Lord Salisbury, to interfere officially." Lorimer's Law of Nations, i. 334.

Mr. Webster, in his letter of April 21, 1841, to Lord Ashburton, speaks as follows: "The salutary doctrine of non-intervention by one nation with the affairs of others, is liable to be essentially impaired if, while the government refrains from interference, interference is still allowed to its subjects, individually, or in masses;" adding, that "the United States have been the first among civilized nations to enforce the observance of the just rules of neutrality and peace, by special and adequate legal enactments against allowing individuals to make war on their own authority, or to mingle themselves with the belligerent operations of other nations."

« PředchozíPokračovat »