Halleck holds that they may be punished for their criminal offences by the laws of the state in which they reside, or sent back to their own country for trial, at the discretion of the government which they have offended. A distinction is made, however, between personal offences and official acts done under the authority, or by the direction, of their own governments. The latter are matters for diplomatic arrangement between the respective states, and are not justiciable by the local courts.' Consuls are subject to local taxation and to the payment of customs dues. Their places of residence are regarded as their domicile to the extent that, in time of war, their goods on the high seas are subject to belligerent capture if their domicile is such as to give them the hostile character. Consular Jurisdiction. In certain Eastern countries, whose standards of law and morals differ materially from our own, an extensive jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, is exercised by the consuls of the principal Western powers. It was obtained in the first instance by treaty stipulation, and by later treaties has been modified and extended, from time to time, as the ex

the French consul - general by the consular convention between the United States and France of 1788 (Pub. Trs. 219-annulled by act of 1798-1 Stat. 578.)-Letombe's case, I Op. Att.-Gen. p. 77, Lee (1797). In a suit brought against a consulgeneral of France for transactions of a public nature, and in which he acted as the commercial agent of his country, the President of the United States has no constitutional right to interpose his authority, but must leave the matter to the tribunals of justice.-Ib. Foreign consuls are bound to appear only in the Federal courts; the Constitution and laws, contemplating the responsibility of consuls, having provided these tribunals, in exclusion of the state courts, in which they shall answer. - Villavaso's case, I Ibid. 406, Wirt (1820). The President cannot interfere in such

a case, but where a privilege is claimed a plea may be entered to the jurisdiction of a state court, or, if in a national court, the consul may bring the question before the Supreme Court.-Ib.

'I Halleck, p. 313. For cases in which insults to, or attacks upon, consuls have been made the subject of complaint in the cases of the British consul at Imoa in 1873, see For. Rel. U. S. 1874, pp. 102-105, 142, 143, 157–164; Ibid. 1875, part i. pp. 127, 128; the American consul at Acapulco, Ibid. 1587. pp. 406-409; Ibid. 1878, p. 580; Ibid. 1879, p. 802. As to immunity of consular archives, see vol. xx. Revue de Droit Int. p. 505; for cases of asylum in consulates, see case of Daniel Poso, For. Rel. U. S. 1875, part i. p. 57; see also Ibid. 1876, p. 321; Ibid. 1877, pp. 398, 399.

igencies of commercial intercourse made such changes either necessary or desirable. The effect has been to withdraw foreigners almost completely from the operation of the local laws, and to subject them to the jurisdiction of the consuls of their respective states.'

The extent of this jurisdiction is defined, and its exercise regulated, by treaties with the several Christian powers who maintain consular representatives at their commercial ports. These treaties are carried into effect by the municipal laws of the signatory states, which determine, at the treaty port, or within the limits of the treaty concession, the extent and character of the consular jurisdiction. "This jurisdiction is subject, in civil cases, to an appeal to the superior tribunals of their own country. The criminal jurisdiction is usually limited to the infliction of pecuniary penalties, and, in offences of a higher grade, the consular functions are similar to those of a police magistrate, or juge d'instruction. He collects the documentary and other proofs, and sends them, together with the prisoner, home to his own country for trial." Such jurisdic

Historically, it is undoubtedly true, as shown by numerous authorities quoted by Mr. Warden in his treatise on "The Origin and Nature of Consular Establishments," that the consul was originally an officer of large judicial as well as commercial powers, exercising entire municipal authority over his countrymen in the country to which he was accredited. But the changed circumstances of Europe, and the prevalence of civil order in the several Christian states, have had the effect of greatly modifying the powers of the consular office; and it may now be considered as generally true that, for any judicial powers which may be vested in the consuls accredited to any nation, we must look to the express provisions of the treaties entered into with that nation, and to the laws of the states which the

consuls represent. Dainese vs.

Hale, 91 U. S. 13. The exterritoriality of foreign consuls in Turkey and other Mohammedan countries is entirely independent of the fact of diplomatic representation, and is maintained by the difference of law and religion, being but incidental to the fact of the established exterritoriality of Christians in all countries not Christian.-VII Opinions of Attorney-General, p. 342. Rights of private exterritoriality having ceased to exist in Christendom, foreign consuls have ceased, mostly, to be municipal magistrates of their countrymen there; but they still continue not only international agents but also administrative and judicial functionaries of their countrymen in countries outside of Christendom. - Ibid.; I Ortolan, 285.

tion was obtained for consuls of the United States by treaties made at different times with Turkey, China, and Japan, and with Siam and Madagascar. Suitable laws have been passed by Congress to give effect to their provisions. By the act of July 1, 1870, the operation of the statute was extended "to any country of like character with which the United States may hereafter enter into treaty relations." The jurisdiction conferred upon United States ministers and consuls by the act of June 22, 1860, is both civil and criminal, but is restricted in its exercise to citizens of the United States. Consuls are authorized to hear, and finally decide, civil causes in which the amount involved, exclusive of costs, does not exceed five hundred dollars. When the amount exceeds that sum, or in his opinion the case involves legal perplexities, the consul is authorized to summon not less than two, nor more than three, citizens of the United States, who are to be selected, by lot, from a list previously submitted to the minister and approved by him. If the consul and his advisers concur in opinion, their decision is final. If they fail to agree, or if the amount at is

vii. §§ 30-40; Pardessus, Droit Commercial, pt. vi. tit. vi. chap. ii. § 2; chap. v. §§ 1, 2, 3. A consular court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and all the jurisdictional facts must be alleged in the libel or petition; otherwise it will be insufficient.Steamer Spark vs. Lee Choi Chum, I Sawyer, 713.

1 Act of July 1, 1870 (§ 4129, Rev. Stat.). It cannot be contended that every consul, by virtue of his office, has power to exercise the judicial functions claimed in this case; for it is conceded that this is not the case in Christian countries. And while, on the other side, it is also conceded that in pagan and Mohammedan countries it is usual for the ministers and consuls of European states to exercise judicial functions as between their fellow-subjects or citizens, it clearly appears that the extent to which this power is exercised

depends upon treaties and laws regulating such jurisdiction. The instructions given by the British Foreign Office to their consuls in the Levant, in 1844, as quoted by Mr. Phillimore, do not claim anything more. Dainese vs. Hale, 91 U.S. 13. Where consular courts are clothed with criminal jurisdiction, the rule applies that a sentence of imprisonment cannot be legally executed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court which pronounced it, unless authority there to execute the sentence is conferred by the legislature.-Case of three convicts at Smyrna, XIV Opinions of Attorney-General, p. 522, Williams (1875). See also I Dig. Int. Law, § 125: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1878, p. 518; and an article by Sir Travers Twiss in vol. xxv. of the Revue de Droit International, pp. 213-220.

sue exceeds five hundred dollars, either party may appeal to the minister. In China and Japan the decision of the minister is final in all suits when the amount at issue does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars. Cases involving a greater amount may be appealed to the United States Circuit Court for the district of California, whose decision in the case is final..

Consuls are also authorized to hear and decide criminal cases, and, in the event of conviction, to impose penalties of not more than ninety days' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. In cases not involving a higher penalty than one hundred dollars' fine, or sixty days' imprisonment, their decision is final. Whenever the consul is of opinion that an important question of law is involved in the decision of a case, or deems a greater punishment necessary than he is authorized to inflict, he may summon as advisers, in cases not capital, not less than one, nor more than four, American citizens to assist him in his decision. In cases involving capital punishment not less than four such assistants must be summoned. In the event of disagreement the case, with evidence and opinions, is forwarded to the minister for decision. His decision is final, except in cases arising in China and Japan, from which an appeal may be taken, as in civil cases, to the United States Circuit Court in California. The jurisdiction of the minister is appellate, except in capital cases, or when the consul is a party; and, finally, ministers and consuls are enjoined to exert all their official influence to induce litigant parties to adjust their differences by arbitration.'

A somewhat similar jurisdiction is exercised by the consuls of other powers in the East.'

1 Sections 4083 - 4128 Revised Statutes of the United States.

II Phillimore, pp. 312-316; Walker, Sci. Int. Law, p. 230; I Halleck, pp. 330-343; Bluntschli, § 269; Heffter, §§ 244-248; I Twiss,

§ 223; Hall, p. 321, note; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 148; Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776– 1887, note on consuls, pp. 12791285.

66

References. Most existing works upon the subject of diplomacy are of foreign origin. Many of them either appeared originally in French, or are accessible in French translations. The most important of these are, for the period of Grotius, Nys, “Origines de la Diplomatie," and, for its later history and practice, Ch. de Martens, "Le Guide Diplomatique," and "Causes Célèbres du Droit des Gens" (1827), and the “Nouvelles Causes Célèbres," published by the same author in 1844. See also the "Traité Complet de Diplomatie," par un Ancien Ministre; Schuyler, "American Diplomacy"; and the Rights and Duties of Diplomatic Agents," by E. C. Grenville - Murray. The following works upon the functions and duties of consuls may be consulted with advantage: "Dictionnaire ou Manuel Lexique du Diplomate et du Consul,” by Baron F. de Cussy; Miltitz, "Manuel des Consuls"; Borel, "De l'origine et des Fonctions des Consuls"; Mensch, "Manuel pratique de Consulat "; Neumann, "Handbuch des Consulatswesens"; and Henshaw's and Warden's works on the duties of consuls. As the exercise of consular jurisdiction is based upon treaty stipulations, it is necessary, in conducting inquiries upon this subject, to consult the treaties themselves. For this purpose, see the collections referred to at the end of chap. viii. For a very full account of the diplomatic and consular policy of the United States, see Schuyler, "American Diplomacy and the Furtherance of Commerce." For a general discussion of the subject of consular jurisdiction, see vol. x. Revue de Droit International, pp. 285-322; xi. ibid. pp. 45-79; xv. ibid. pp. 88-91, 279–281, 502–503; xxvii. ibid. pp. 313-326; I Twiss, §§ 223, 253–264; II Phillimore, §§ 272-277; IV Pradier - Fodéré, §§ 2122-2138; Bluntschli, §§ 216, 269; Heffter, § 247; I Halleck, pp. 331-347; Dana's Wheaton, § 110, note 68; II Int. Law Digest, § 125.