VII. POWERS AND DUTIES. 1. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS. § 717. 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. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 73, p. 28. "To remove a misconception which seems to have partially taken place, you are advised that no judicial authority belongs to your office, except what may be expressly given by a law of the United States and may be tolerated by the government in whose jurisdiction you reside. On the contrary, all incidents of a nature to call for judicial redress must be submitted to the local authority, if they can not be composed by your recommendatory intervention." Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to consuls and commercial agents, circular, It is inadmissible for a consul to take persons from a vessel of his nationality arriving in port and subject them to examination at the consulate on suspicion of their being implicated in a crime committed in his country, even though they be afterwards discharged. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, British min., March 3, 1883, A United States consul in China is required, within the range of his duties, to obey the official order of the minister of the United States in China. If this order is reversed by the Department of State, the reversal is communicated through the minister, until which time the order binds. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to China, Feb. 6. 1884, MS. Inst. China, III. 537. In certain treaties it is provided that requisitions for surrender of fugitives from justice may be made by consular officers in the absence. of diplomatic representatives. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 92, p. 36. A consul of the United States has no authority to appoint a curator for an American corporation, which may at the time have in the country in which he resides no competent official upon whom legal service can be made in case of "legal attacks" upon it. Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, No. 123, Feb. 5, 1894, MS. "The viséing of passports, by national consuls in a foreign country, is generally regarded as a domestic function, regulated by the laws and requirements of the consul's country. Several European powers prohibit visés to the passports of certain classes of aliens. Russian consuls, for instance, will not authenticate any paper in behalf of a Jew for use in Russia; and Turkey refuses to legalize the passports of any naturalized person of Armenian birth. There is no way by which this Department can procure a visé in such cases. The Turkish minister uniformly refers all applications for visés to 'the Ottoman consuls. "In the supposition that Mr. Minassian emigrated and became naturalized without imperial permission, his only effective remedy would seem to lie in a petition to the Sultan to sanction his change of allegiance and permit him to revisit his native country." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Agnew, May 3, 1895, 202 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bogigian, April Unless by statute or treaty a foreign consul can exercise no municipal jurisdiction in the United States. In re Aubrey, 26 Fed. Rep. 848. A consul, though a public agent, is clothed with authority only for commercial purposes. He has a right to interpose claims for the restitution of property belonging to subjects of his own country, but it is not competent for him, without the special authority of his government, to interpose a claim on account of the violation of the territorial jurisdiction of his country. The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445; The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177. See, also, as to the extent of the powers and privileges of consuls, Viveash v. Becker, 3 Maule & Selwyn, 284. While consuls, when there is no other representation, and when duly recognized, are competent parties to assert or defend the rights of property of their fellow-citizens or subjects in a court of admiralty without special procuration, they can not receive actual restitution of the property in controversy without a special authority. But a viceconsul, duly recognized by our government, is a competent party to assert or defend the rights of property of the individuals of his nation, in any court having jurisdiction of causes affected by the application of international law-in this case a court of admiralty. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152. See, also, The London Packet, 1 Mason, 14. A consul, in an enemy's country, has no authority by virtue of his office to grant a license or permit which will have the effect of exempting a vessel of the enemy from capture and confiscation. Rogers v Amado, 1 Newberry's Adm. 400. A consul of the United States in a neutral country has no authority by virtue of his official station to grant a license or permit to a vessel to exempt it from belligerent capture by the naval forces of his own country for attempting to enter a blockaded port. The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 20 S. Ct. 489. 2. CORRESPONDENCE. $ 718. With the exception of correspondence with the Treasury Department concerning accounts, and such other correspondence as law or regulation may require him to have with other departments or officers, the consul is required to conduct no official correspondence with any department of government except through the Department of State. This rule is especially applicable to communications from subordinates of other departments. Such communications should not be answered without first obtaining the Department of State's permission. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 134, p. 48. See, also, id. §§ 132, 133. See Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Boutwell, Sec. of Treas., Jan. 21, 1871, 88 MS. Dom. Let. 69. In various treaties between the United States and other powers, it is stipulated that consuls shall have the right to correspond with the local authorities in case of any infraction of treaty, and that, if the local authorities fail to give redress and there is no diplomatic representative, they may apply to the government of the country in which they exercise their functions. Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), § 85, p. 33. "In the practice of our Government there is no immediate connection or dependence between the persons holding diplomatic and consular appointments in the same country; but, by the usage of all the commercial nations of Europe, such a subordination is considered as of course. In the transaction of their official duties the consuls are often in necessary correspondence with their ministers, through whom alone they can regularly address the supreme government of the country wherein they reside, and they are always supposed to be under their directions. You will accordingly maintain such correspondence with the consuls of the United States in France as you shall think conducive to the public interest; and in case of any vacancy in their offices, which may require a temporary appointment of a person to perform the duties of the consulate, you are authorized, with the consent of the government to which you are accredited, to make it, giving immediate notice of it to this Department." Mr. Adams, Sec. of State. to Mr. Brown, min. to France, Dec. 24, 1823, In August, 1861, a Mr. Mure, of Charleston, South Carolina, was arrested in New York when about to embark for England, and was sent to Fort Lafayette on a charge of being a bearer of despatches from the Confederate authorities. Among the things found in his possession there was a sealed bag addressed to the British foreign office with labels signed and sealed by Mr. Bunch, British consul at Charleston. The bag was sent to Washington, where it was delivered to Mr. Seward. Mr. Seward sent it on by special messenger, who was instructed to deliver it to Mr. Adams, American minister at London, who was in turn to deliver it to its address in the condition in which he would receive it. Mr. Seward stated that he had not entertained the idea of breaking the seals, and he instructed Mr. Adams to express regret that circumstances had rendered necessary the arrest and detention of Mr. Mure, as well as the brief interruption of the correspondence of the British consul. Mr. Adams was also directed to say that, if the bag should be found to contain any papers of a treasonable character against the United States, it was hoped that they would be delivered up to him for the use of his government, and that the British consul at Charleston, if shown to be privy to their transmission, should be made to feel the severe displeasure of his government. September 9, 1861, Earl Russell stated that, on opening the bag at the foreign office, there did not appear to be any ground for suspicion that it had been improperly used. Earl Russell added that Her Majesty's government were advised that the suspension of the conveyance by post of letters between British subjects in the Northern and the Southern States was a contravention of the treaty on the subject between the two governments; and that Mr. Bunch had endeavored to palliate the evil by inclosing some private letters in his consular bag. Mr. Seward, writing to Mr. Adams, on October 22, 1861, took exception to Mr. Bunch's "substitution of his consular bag and official seal for the mail bag and mail locks of the United States, and of his own mail carrier for the mail carriers of the United States," and declared that, although in the particular case the proceeding was practically harmless and was not likely to be repeated, it was "not defensible on any ground of treaty or international law." Mr. Seward added that the interruption of the post, while it worked literally a nonfulfillment of a treaty stipulation, was due to the sudden violence of an insurrection, and that the suppression of correspondence between parties in the insurgent territory with persons in foreign countries was a measure essential to the suppression of the insurrection itself; and that he felt assured that the magnanimity of the British government might be relied on not to complain at one and the same time of a breach by the United States of the international postal treaty under such circumstances, and of the resort by the government to a measure which was indispensable to complete its ability to fulfill it. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, No. 63, Aug. 17, 1861, Dip. Cor. 1861, 114; Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Sept. 3, 1861, id. 134; Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Sept. 9, 1861, id. 139; Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, No. 108, Oct. 22, 1861, id. 147. "With reference to the permission given to the foreign representatives to correspond with their consuls in the ports of the insurgent. States by means of vessels of war entering their ports, I have to remark that circumstances have come to the knowledge of this Department which render it advisable that this permission shall hereafter be restricted to correspondence of the consuls of those powers only who, by the regulations of their respective governments, are not allowed to engage in commerce. I will consequently thank you to request the commander of any British vessel who may visit the ports adverted to to abstain from carrying letters for consuls who may be engaged in trade.” Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Lord Lyons, British min., Feb. 6, 1862, Dip. Cor. 1862, 253. In a note to Lord Lyons of October 18, 1861, Mr. Seward stated that "official correspondence of other powers with the agents of those powers in blockaded ports, as well as that of British authorities with their agents, might be sent by British vessels of war." (Dip. Cor. 1861, 174.) In respect to the censorship of foreign newspapers and periodicals addressed to American consular officers in Russia, the United States. will claim privileges equal to those which may be accorded to similar matter intended for the consular officers of other governments. Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoffman, chargé, No. 73, Oct. 1, 1879, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 100; Mr. Evarts. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hoffman, No. 101, April 2, 1880, id. 127; Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster, min. to Russia, June 4, 1880, id. 138; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peirce, chargé, No. 346, Dec. 15, 1896, MS. Inst. Russia, XVII, 524. H. Doc. 551-vol 5-7 |