is a matter "The raising of the consular flag in Mexico subject to municipal law, unless a privilege in respect to it should have been granted by treaty. We have no other privilege than that of equality with other nations, which will always be insisted on. It appears, however, that the authorities at the City of Mexico have overlooked a strict observance of the law, by allowing consuls to display their flags on holidays of their respective nations. This, it seems to me, is as much as may be needed. If, however, they should at any time think proper to withdraw this indulgence, it is clear that we can not insist upon its continuance as a matter of right." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, Feb. 16, 1874, For. Rel. 1874, 730. The right of consular agents of Austria to hoist their national flag in places where their sovereign has no legation is established by the fourth article of the consular convention of July 11, 1870, between Austria and the United States, and this right can not be impaired by any municipal ordinance prohibiting the exhibition of flags. Mr. Freylinhuysen, Sec. of State, to Gov. Pattison, of Penna., Aug. 27, 1884, 152 MS. Dom. Let. 304. Consuls, in erecting flag poles, may be required to conform to municipal regulations designed to keep the streets free from projecting signs and other fixtures. Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Halstead, No. 74, Feb. 3, 1900, 171 MS. Inst. Consuls, 2. 6. CEREMONIAL. $ 707. "Consuls have no claim, under international law, to any foreign ceremonial, and no right of precedence except among themselves, and in their relation to the military and naval officers of their own country. This precedence, as to officers of the same grade in the consular body of the place, depends upon the date of the respective exequaturs." Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 76, p. 29. See, as to the relations of consuls to naval officers of the United States, id. §§ 109-113, 440-442. With reference to the action of Commander Truxton, U. S. S. Jamestown, in sending an armed party and forcibly placing the American flag on the United States consulate at Honolulu at halfmast, on the occasion of the death of the Dowager Queen Kalama, Mr. Fish said: "The conduct of the consul on that occasion in not taking notice of a patent and notorious fact was wrong. The Navy Department has censured the conduct of Commander Truxton, which was an inexcusable indignity to the consul, and a violation of the rules and regulations of the service, which you ought to have denounced and rebuked. You were remiss in not protesting against it, if you could not have prevented it." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pierce, min, to Hawaii, No. 27, Oct. 21, 1870, MS. Inst. Hawaii, II. 203. Although the captains of United States army transports have no official standing, being merely masters of ships employed by the War Department, the Department of State recommended that the War Department adopt with regard to them, as a wise and prudent provision, Art. 169 of the Naval Regulations of 1896, which requires that "diplomatic and consular officers in charge of legations or consulates shall be notified of the arrival of the ship in port." Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, April 26, 1900, 244 MS. Dom. Let. 526. The Secretary of the Navy" thinks it inadvisable to indicate any correspondence of rank between consular officers and naval or military officers; for, while the honors prescribed for consular officers. of different grades are explicitly stated in the Navy Regulations, the Navy Department is unacquainted with any explicit determination of the correspondence of rank between consular officers and officers of the Navy or Army." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Gov. Allen (Porto Rico), May 23, 1900, 245 This letter also discusses the naval courtesies to be paid to the governor As consular officers have under international law no claim to any foreign ceremonial and right of precedence except among themselves and in their relations with the military and naval officers of their own country, there would "seem to be no necessity" for the governor of Porto Rico "to call in person upon all consular officers." Nor could it be said to be "appropriate" for him to do so; at most the only question that could properly be suggested would be whether it" was not deemed unfitting or inappropriate" for him to make such a call. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Gov. Allen (Porto Rico), May 23, 1900, 245 As to the relations of the agents of the Independent State of the Congo 66 7. UNIFORM. $ 708. "Diplomatic officers are forbidden by statute to wear any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress. Consular officers are not authorized by law to wear any uniform, and the prohibition imposed by statute on diplomatic officers is hereby extended to consular officers. It is provided, however, that all officers who served during the rebellion as volunteers in the Army of the United States and have been honorably mustered out of the volunteer service shall be entitled to bear the official title and upon occasions of ceremony to wear the uniform of the highest grade they held, by brevet or other commissions, in the volunteer service. They may also, on like occasions, wear, the distinctive army badge of the corps or division in which they served. These provisions are held to apply to consular officers whose service and discharge from the Volunteer Army bring them under its terms. R. S. secs. 1226, 1688." Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 452, p. 178. It was ruled that this precluded a consul who was an officer in the National Guard from wearing the uniform of his rank; and it was stating that the placing of his military title on his official card would be considered objectionable. (Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Olmstead, December 9, 1897, 223 Dom. Let. 279.) 66 8. PRESENTS. § 709. Under Article I, section 9, of the Constitution of the United States, no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." This applies to consuls and diplomatic agents. See supra, § 651. 9. ENGAGING IN BUSINESS. § 710. No consular officer whose salary exceeds $1,000 a year is allowed to engage in business, and the President may extend this prohibition to a consular officer whose salary does not exceed that amount, and may require him to give a bond not to violate the prohibition. It is unadvisable that interpreters, marshals of consular courts, and consular clerks, receiving a salary, should be allowed the privilege of trading, although exceptions may be made for good cause. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 37, p. 14, citing Rev. Stat. §§ 1699, 1700; and also 18 Stat. 486, to the effect that the consuls at Fayal and Auckland are exempted from the prohibition as to trading. See supra, § 697. For a report as to consular officers engaged in business in violation of law, see H. Ex. Doc. 90, 35 Cong. 2 sess. The United States sustained the right of consuls engaged in trade to take part in the deliberations of the consular body at Chefoo, China. (For. Rel. 1903, 82, 84.) "Sections sixteen hundred and ninety-nine and seventeen hundred of the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 1699. No consul-general, consul, or consular agent receiving a salary of more than $1,000 a year shall, while he holds his office, be interested in or transact any business as a merchant, factor, broker, or other trader, or as a clerk or other agent for any such person to, from, or within the port, place, or limits of his jurisdiction, directly or indirectly, either in his own name or in the name or through the agency of any other person; nor shall he practice as a lawyer for compensation or be interested in the fees or compensation of any lawyer; and he shall in his official bond stipulate as a condition thereof not to violate this prohibition. "SEC. 1700. All consular officers whose respective salaries exceed $1,000 a year shall be subject to the prohibition against transacting business, practicing as a lawyer, or being interested in the fees or compensation of any lawyer contained in the preceding section. And the President may extend the prohibition to any consul-general, consul, or consular agent whose salary does not exceed one thousand dollars a year or who may be compensated by fees, and to any vice or deputy consular officer or consular agent, and may require such officer to give a bond not to violate the prohibition." Act of April 5, 1906, section 6. VI. AMENABILITY TO LOCAL JURISDICTION. 1. CIVIL PROCESS. § 711. Consular privilege can not protect a consul as to mercantile matters engaged in by him independent of his official business. 1 Kent, 44: 2 Phill. (3d ed.), 335; Arnold v. Ins. Co. 1 Johns. 363; Indian Chief, 3 C. Rob. (Adm.) 25, 29. It was held that Barclay, an American consul residing abroad, who had entered into partnership with another person, was not privileged from foreign attachment. Caldwell r. Barclay et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, 1788), 1 Dallas, 305. In a suit brought against a consul-general of France, for transactions of a public nature, in which he acted as the commercial agent of his country, the President has no constitutional right to interfere, but must leave the matter to the tribunals of justice. Lee, At. Gen. 1797, 1 Op. 77. A consul can not be held personally liable on a contract which he enters into on account of his government, the credit being given to that government. Jones v. Le Tombe (1798), 3 Dallas, 384. In February, 1860, Mr. Colvin, United States consul at Demerara, filed there a petition in insolvency, and Mr. Daly, administrator-general of the colony, was appointed his trustee. By the local law Mr. Daly thus became entitled to all of Mr. Colvin's assets for the benefit of the latter's creditors. In the first instance, however, Mr. Colvin declined to include in his schedule of assets his claim against the United States for salary. The court ordered him to pay over to Mr. Daly his salary and fees up to March 31, 1860, and to place on his schedule his claim for salary from that date up to the time of his ceasing to act, which was July 1, 1860. On Dec. 18, 1860, Mr. Colvin obtained, on his own petition, a final order of discharge from all liabilities previously incurred and placed on his schedule. Subsequently Mr. Colvin asked the Treasury to pay to himself his salary from March 31 to July, 1860, notwithstanding its inclusion in the schedule of assets on the insolvency proceedings. The Department of State, when consulted, replied that as a general rule British consuls in the United States and American consuls in Great Britain and her colonies" are not regarded as public ministers and do not enjoy the privilege of exterritoriality" (Phillimore, Int. Law, vol. 2, p. 260; Wheaton's Elements, 304; Consular Regulations, 13, 236, 279); that, as a result, consuls, whether engaged in trade or not, were subject to all the local remedies as between creditor and debtor, including bankruptcy process in invitum, and a fortiori voluntary; and that in such proceedings he was" subject to the local jurisdiction and to all its lawful decrees appertaining to the debts and credits of the bankrupt, including the forced surrender of choses in action." Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to the Fifth Auditor of the |