countries these privileges have, to a large degree, been preserved to them, and they have the sanction of both treaty and usage. Upon the establishment of legations, however, the exemptions and immunities granted to consuls came to be regarded as a limitation of the territorial rights of the sovereign, and they have in the process of time been restricted to such as are necessarily incident to the consular office, or have been provided for by treaty, or are supported by longestablished custom or the particular laws of the place. A consular officer in civilized countries now has, under public law, no acknowl edged 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."

66

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 71, p. 27.

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 commissions and their exequaturs. It is believed that the granting of the latter instrument, without express restrictions, confers upon a consul all rights and privileges necessary to the performance of the duties of the consular office. Generally, a consul may claim for himself and his office. not only such rights and privileges as have been conceded by treaty, but also such as have the sanction of custom and local laws, and have been enjoyed by his predecessors or by constils of other nations, unless a formal notice has been given that they will not be extended. to him."

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 72, p. 27.

"The law of nations does not of itself extend to consuls at all. They are not of the diplomatic class of characters to which alone that law extends of right. Convention indeed may give it to them, and sometimes has done. so; but in that case the convention can be produced.. Independently of [a special] law, consuls are to be considered as distinguished foreigners, dignified by a commission from their sovereign, and specially recommended by him to the respect of the nation with whom they reside. They are subject to the laws of the land indeed precisely as other foreigners are, a convention where there is one making a part of the laws of the land; but H. Doc. 551-vol 5—3

if, at any time, their conduct should render it necessary to assert the authority of the laws over them, the rigor of those laws should be tempered by our respect for their sovereign, as far as the case will admit. This moderate and respectful treatment towards foreign consuls it is my duty to recommend, and press on our citizens, because I ask it for their good, towards our own consuls, from the people with whom they reside."

Mr. Jefferson, Sec. for For. Aff., to Mr. Newton, Sept. 8, 1791, 4 MS. Am.
Let. 283.

"Consuls are not diplomatic characters, and have no immunities whatever against the laws of the land; " and hence they can be prosecuted for breach of neutrality laws.

Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gore, Sept, 2, 1793, 23 MS. Dom.
Let. 244.

See, to the same effect, circular of Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, May 5,
1830, 23 MS. Dom. Let. 339.

"Consuls are undoubtedly entitled to great respect as bearing the commissions of their sovereign; but their duties are of a commercial nature and their public character subaltern; neither their persons nor their domiciles have heretofore beeen protected as have those of ambassadors and other public ministers. Instances are not wanting in which some of them have been brought within the jurisdiction of our courts. It is not known that it has ever yet laid the foundation of any charge of a breach of privilege, or infringement of public law, on the part of any of the governments of Europe, whose commissions these consuls may respectively have borne."

Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, chargé d'affaires at St. Petersburg, July 31, 1816, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, VIII. 89.

A foreign consul is liable to be punished to the same extent as other foreign residents for a criminal violation of the local law of the country in which he resides.

Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Calderon de la Barca, Spanish min.,
Aug. 28, 1849, MS. Notes to Spain, VI. 187.

In 1879 an officer of the Mexican Government exacted a forced loan from various persons, including Macmanus and Sons, an American firm, of which Mr. Scott, the American consul at Chihuahua, was a member. The consular office, it appears, was used as a place of deposit for the funds of American citizens engaged in business in Chihuahua; and, when payment was demanded, Mr. Scott closed the doors. An officer later appeared with an additional force, when Mr. Scott, concluding that further resistance was useless, opened the

door, and the officer obtained the sum required. Even supposing, said Mr. Evarts, that the consul had been engaged in no other business than that of an official character, there was nothing in the treaty of 1831 which guaranteed to his place of business freedom from search. There was a distinct guarantee of the archives and papers of the consulate, but it was not alleged that these were disturbed. By a stipulation in the treaty the parties had agreed to enter into a special convention for defining the powers and immunities of consuls, but all attempts in that direction had proved abortive, so that no exemption of the offices of consuls from being entered by the authorities of the country could be claimed as a right, especially where a consular officer was a member of a mercantile firm and his place of business was the same as that of the firm.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, No. 725, Feb. 20, 1880, For. Rel. 1880, 734.

A consul may claim exemption from service on juries and in the militia.

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

With reference to this and certain other privileges, it is said to be probable that "all these privileges could not be claimed for subordinate officers, especially for those who are citizens or subjects of the foreign state." (Ibid.)

Citizens of the United States who hold foreign consulates in the United States are not exempt from jury duty or service in the militia by the law of nations.

Cushing, At. Gen., 1856, 8 Op. 169.

Adopted in Lawrence's Wheaton (1863), 430.

During the war between the United States and Spain the Department of State, replying to an inquiry as to the status of Mr. José Costa, a Spanish subject, who held a commission and exequatur as consul for Uruguay at San Francisco, California, said: "The international rule, followed by this government, is that a foreign consul, being a citizen or subject of a state other than that which appoints him, is in all respects to be treated as such citizen or subject, and only as enjoying the official immunities or privileges stipulated for his consular office. Your inquiry as to Mr. Costa being required to register is not clearly understood. No general requirement of registry of Spaniards within the territory of the United States has been made, but, if such formality should be required, Mr. Costa would unquestionably have to conform thereto."

Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Murguiondo, May 12, 1898, MS.
Notes to For. Consuls, IV. 414.

A "consul is not entitled, by virtue of his office, to be considered a diplomatic agent of his sovereign in the absence of an accredited minister, or chargé d'affaires of his country, and consequently can not justly claim the privileges usually accorded to diplomatic functionaries."

Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hagerdorn, Bavarian consul at Philadelphia, Sept. 7, 1839, 30 MS. Dom. Let. 329.

Where a consul, by being appointed chargé d'affaires, acquires diplomatic privileges, he becomes so invested as chargé d'affaires, not as consul.

Cushing, At. Gen., 1855, 7 Op. 342.

The minister of the Netherlands, in announcing his departure on leave, stated that the business of the legation had, as in previous instances, been entrusted to the Dutch consul-general at New York: but that, as the consul-general was returning from Europe and might not arrive for several days, any communication from the legation "would be signed, for the minister," by the person provisionally in charge of the consulate-general. As the consul-general had not, on previous occasions of a similar kind, been recognized by the Department of State in a diplomatic capacity, but had been corresponded with as consul-general of the Netherlands, it was thought proper to say to the person provisionally in charge of the consulate, when he signed, " for the minister, the chargé d'affaires, a. i.," that it was assumed that the title of chargé d'affaires was employed with reference to his "ad interim direction of the affairs of the consulate."

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bennebrock Gravenhorst, Sept. 24, 1898, MS. Notes to For. Consuls, IV. 424.

See supra, § 664.

A trading consul, in all that concerns his trade, is liable in the same way as a native merchant. The character of consul does not give any protection to that of merchant when they are united in the same person.

Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wall. 542.

"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. If his exequatur has been granted without limitations, he may claim the privileges and exemptions that are necessary to the performance of the duties of his office; but in all that concerns his personal status or his status as a merchant it is doubtful whether he can claim any

rights or privileges not conceded to other subjects or citizens of the state. He should, however, claim the same privileges and immunities that are granted to other merchant consuls in the same country."

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 74, p. 29.

By conventions with Belgium, Germany, Independent State of the Congo, Italy, Netherlands, Roumania, and Servia, consuls are exempt from arrest except for crime. By treaty with Turkey they are entitled to suitable distinction and necessary aid and protection. In Muscat they enjoyed the inviolability of a diplomatic officer. In Austria-Hungary and France a consul is to enjoy personal immunities; but in France, if he is a citizen of the country or owns property there, or is engaged in commerce, he can claim only the immunities granted to other citizens of the country who own property or to merchants. In Austria-Hungary and Roumania, if engaged in business, he can be detained only for commercial debts.

Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 81, p. 31.

In 1876 the dwelling of Mr. Bamberger, United States vice-consul at Genoa, was entered, and property there levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment against him. Mr. Spencer, the consul, was at the time at his post. By Article VI. of the consular convention between the United States and Italy of 1868, "consular offices and dwellings" were to be "at all times inviolable," and the local authorities were 66 not, under any pretext," to "invade them," nor to "examine or seize the papers there deposited." Although there was some difference between the English and Italian texts of the article, which might give rise to a question whether the immunity stipulated for consuls was to be enjoyed by a vice-consul when the latter was not charged with the consular functions, it was thought that the last sentence of Article VIII., which authorized the appointment of "vice-consuls and consular agents" and stipulated that they should enjoy, with certain specified exceptions, the privileges secured by the convention to "consular officers," was quite explicit and granted the immunity claimed.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, min. to Italy, No. 554, Dec. 6, 1876,
MS. Inst. Italy, II. 6.

2. IN EASTERN COUNTRIES.

§ 703.

"In non-Christian countries the rights of exterritoriality have been largely preserved, and have generally been confirmed by treaties to consular officers. To a great degree they enjoy the immunities of