unable to comply with your request to have the Italian consulgeneral removed for refusing to legalize your signature.” Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Canale, July 19, 1899, 238 MS. Dom. Refusal of exequatur. "Refusals to grant the exequatur are not uncommon. An English consul was refused by Russia, in the Caucasus, because it was alleged that he was hostile to the Russian government, and had expressed strong opinions about Russian movements in Asia. In our own history, without going further back, a consul recently appointed to Beirut was rejected by Turkey, because he was a clergyman and might be too much connected with the missionaries; another was rejected by Austria on account of his political opinions, he having previously been an Austrian subject." Schuyler's Am. Diplomacy, 96. The action of the Spanish government in refusing exequaturs to consuls is final. Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Eaton, Oct. 12, 1839, MS. Inst. Spain, See, as to the refusal or revocation of exequaturs, Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. "The right of the Nicaraguan government to refuse an exequatur to Mr. Priest [who had been appointed United States consul at San Juan del Sur] can not be denied. If, as is intimated, the only cause assigned for their hesitation was the publication of a private letter of that gentleman which was deemed objectionable, he may regret this as a misfortune, but, if he shall not ultimately receive the exequatur, we could not consider it as an injury of which it would be advisable to complain." is Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wheeler, min. to Nicaragua, May 11, 1855, The publication of articles written by a consul derogatory to the govern- "The exercise of the undoubted right of withholding an exequatur an extreme one. In this country it is rarely resorted to." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morgan, May 31, 1881, MS. Inst. Mex. XX. 267. See, also, same to same, June 29, 1881, id. 318. The refusal of an exequatur by a foreign government, when not involving an invasion of the prerogatives of the United States under the law of nations, will not be excepted to. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cox, Apr. 29, 1886, MS. Inst. Turkey, See same to same, Mar. 24, 1886, id. 420. The Brazilian government in 1894 declined to issue an exequatur to Reuben Cleary, as deputy consul-general of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, on the ground that the granting of the exequatur would import that the office of deputy consul-general was entitled to the prerogatives, privileges, and immunities of that of consulgeneral, to which it was merely auxiliary. At the same time the Brazilian government informally recognized Mr. Cleary's power to act. The Department of State replied that as the Brazilian government had recognized the appointment of Mr. Cleary as deputy consulgeneral, a formal exequatur was not necessary. It seems that the legation had been instructed merely to ask for Mr. Cleary's recognition in his official capacity. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Brazil, Sept. 27, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 83-85. Conviction of a person by a United States military commission at Manila of publishing seditious newspaper articles in violation of the Articles of War will preclude the recognition of such person as the consular agent of a foreign power at that place. Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sickles, Dec. 26, 1899, MS. IV. DISMISSAL OR RECALL. § 701. For cognate cases, see the preceding section. The stipulation in a consular convention that consuls shall be received on both sides "could not mean to supersede reasonable objections to particular persons who might at the moment be obnoxious to the nation to which he was sent, or whose conduct might render him so at any time after. In fact, every foreign agent depends on the double will of the two governments, of that which sends him and of that which is to permit the exercise of his functions within their territory; and when either of these wills is refused or withdrawn, his authority to act within that territory becomes incomplete." Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to the minister plenipo. of France, Dec. 9, 1793, 5 MS. Dom. Let. 390; 4 Jefferson's Works, 90. The executive directory of the French Republic alleged that Mr. Parish, As to the case of the acting Chinese consul at Manila, in 1898, see Mr. The participation, by a consul of the United States in China, in the opium trade, after notice forbidding such participation, is ground for his dismissal. Mr. Legaré, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cushing, June 12, 1843, MS. Inst. China, The President, after commissioning a consul to whom the government to which the consul is sent objects, "will not revoke the commission unless he should be satisfied that the reasons for not receiving him were well founded and of a character to justify [that] government in refusing an exequatur." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Daniel, Nov. 7, 1853, MS. Inst. Italy, I. 76. It appearing that the Spanish consul at New York was in the habit of viséing passports which had already been used abroad, or which had been issued more than a year previously, after he was informed that the laws and regulations of the United States required passports to be renewed at or before the expiration of a year, for which renewal a tax of five dollars was collected, the Department of State, observing that a consul who persisted in such conduct after being requested to discontinue it manifested an unfriendly feeling and forfeited his claim to be recognized in an official capacity, asked that the consul in question be recalled and another sent in his place. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Señor Lopez Roberts, Spanish min., April 29, 1870, MS. Notes to Spanish Leg. VIII. 384. Vidal's case. "In August last an outrage was committed and the terms of our treaty with Tripoli violated by an insult to our consul [Mr. Vidal] stationed at the port of Tripoli. As is the custom and right and duty of this government, prompt measures were taken for the protection of the consul and the maintenance of the honor and dignity of this government, and also to secure reparation and satisfaction for this insult. These measures were effectual and it is a source of satisfaction that an ample apology with the assurances against a recurrence of a similar indignity which was demanded by the United States, was accorded by the Tripolitan authorities. It is with much satisfaction that the President learns that the Porte promptly interposed the authority which it may exercise in Tripoli to the effect that reparation should be made; but this fact does not appear in the correspondence between the United States consul and the governor of Tripoli." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Maynard, min. to Turkey, Oct. 8, 1875, MS. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5th ultimo, referring to your previous notes of the 9th and 30th of December last, in which, by direction of the Ottoman government, you request the recall of Mr. Vidal, United States consul at Tripoli, on account of the course pursued by him on the occasion of the controversy between him and the governor-general in August last. "You also state that on a recent occasion the consul of the United States at that place threatened, in a communication sent by him to the authorities, again to send for vessels of war by means of which he proposes to enforce inadmissible demands.' Mr. Vidal gives no intimation of such intention in any of his despatches to this Department. In the absence of any report from him on this matter this government can not undertake to express an opinion or make any decision in regard thereto. It is a cause of regret that Mr. Vidal, who is esteemed by this government as a valuable officer, has unfortunately lost the confidence of the authorities of the government where he has for several years been discharging his functions. The President is ever mindful of the sensibilities of those to whom he accredits public functionaries, and even though he may think that those agents of this government have lost the confidence of the Government to whom they are accredited, through misapprehension of the motives which have directed their conduct, he appreciates the duty of considering the wishes of a friendly power not to have retained a representative who has ceased to enjoy their kindly sentiments. In view, therefore, of the request of the Ottoman authorities for the recall of Mr. Vidal, and in consequence of the earnest desire of the United States to preserve and strengthen the cordial and intimate relations which have so long existed between this government and the Porte, it has been determined to comply with the request, and this will be done as soon as his successor can be selected.” Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, May 3, 1876, MS. Notes to "This Department regrets the misunderstanding which took place last year, between Mr. Vidal, the consul of the United States at Tripoli, and the authorities there. The occasion of that misunderstanding was sudden and unexpected in its origin. The first information received in regard to it came by cable, and was necessarily meagre. The inference from it was, however, that the consul and his family were in danger from some popular tumult. The information received led to the visit there of the United States men-of-war to which you refer. It was not until months afterwards that written reports in regard to the affair reached this Department. It was then only that a proper opinion could be formed upon the subject. The Ottoman government ultimately thought proper to object to the course of Mr. Vidal on the occasion, and requested his recall. The request has been complied with. A successor to him has been appointed, and it is hoped that, through his agency, the good understanding with the proper authorities may be restored and preserved.” Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Sept. 18, 1876, MS. Notes to See, also, Mr. Fish to Aristarchi Bey, June 10, 1876, MS. Notes to Turkey, V. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. 1. UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATY. § 702. "Consuls are not public ministers. Whatever protection they may be entitled to in the discharge of their official duties, and whatever special privileges may be conferred upon them by the local laws and usages, or by international compact, they are not entitled, by the general law of nations, to the peculiar immunities of ambassadors." Wheaton's Int. Law, Dana's ed., § 249, p. 324. See, also, Bradford, At. Gen., 1794, 1 Op. 41; Berrien, At. Gen., 1830, 2 Op. 378; Butler, At. Gen., 1835, 2 Op. 725; Cushing, At. Gen.. 1854, 7 Op. 18; Gittings v. Crawford, Taney's Decis. 1. "In the early Middle Ages, and before the establishment of more or less permanent legations, consuls appear to have enjoyed the right of exterritoriality, and the privileges and immunities now accorded to diplomatic representatives. In non-Christian and semi-civilized |