tiations with foreign states, or to vindicate | positive laws of the nations concerned. his prerogatives. The Anne, 3 Wheat. 435, Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S. 13, 4: 428 6. Consuls are not intrusted with the power of authenticating the laws of foreign nations. Their certificate respecting such laws is entitled to no higher or different degree of credit than their certificate of any other fact. Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187, 2: 249 7. A vice consul duly recognized by our government is a competent party to assert or defend the rights of property of his fellow citizens, in any court having jurisdiction of causes affected by the application of international laws. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152, 5: 229 Cited in The Adolph, 1 Curt. C. C. 89, Fed. Cas. No. 86-The Elizabeth, Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 253, Fed. Cas. No. 4,350-The Conserva, 38 Fed. 434-Re Tartaglio, 12 Misc. 246, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1121-Re Fattosini, 33 Misc. 19, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1119-De Lacy v. Antoine, 7 Leigh, 446. 8. A neutral consul cannot, without the special authority of his government, interpose a claim for restitution in prize proceedings on account of the violation of the territorial jurisdiction of his country. The Anne, 3 Wheat. 435, 4: 428 Cited in The Adolph, 1 Curt. C. C. 89, Fed. Cas. No. 86-The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 178, Fed. Cas. No. 8,348. 9. An assurance that a claim should be paid could not be given by any minister of the United States, except upon the condition that it should become a treaty stipulation. Meade v. United States, 9 Wall. 691, 19: 687 10. A citizen of the United States, a resident of New York, who is consul general of a foreign government at New York, and is also authorized to communicate to the Secretary of State any matter in relation to that government in the absence of its minister, is not its diplomatic representative or minister during such absence, or entitled to the diplomatic privileges of a foreign minister. Re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 854, 34: 222 11. The United States consul has no authority, by virtue of his official station, to grant any license, or permit the exemption of a vessel of the enemy from capture and confiscation. The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489, 44: 592 Cited in The Adula, 176 U. S. 380, 44 L. ed. 513, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 432. Editorial note. [Jurisdiction and powers of consul. 45 L.R.A. 481.] b. Judicial Powers. Power to Hold Prize Courts, see Courts, 2. See also Evidence, 20. 12. Judicial powers are not incident to the office of consul, unless they are conferred by the treaty stipulations and the 23: 190 Cited in Re Ross (Ross v. McIntyre) 140 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 585, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897Dainese v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 73Re Aubrey, 26 Fed. 850. 13. The vice consul, in the absence of thority, cannot receive the proceeds of propspecific powers given him by competent auerty libeled. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152, 5: 229 14. There can be no jurisdiction within the United States of any court instituted by a foreign power, except under a treaty. Therefore French consuls cannot rightfully exercise jurisdiction in admiralty. Glass v. 1:485 The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6, Cited in Territory v. Delinquent Tax List, 3 Ariz. 91, 21 Pac. 888-Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa, 100, 76 Am. Dec. 122. 15. The American consular tribunal in Japan has jurisdiction to try and sentence an American seaman for the crime of murder committed on board of an American ship in the harbor of Yokohoma in that Empire. Ross v. McIntyre (Re Ross) 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, 35: 581 Cited in Opinion of Justices, 66 N. H. 660, 33 Atl. 1076. 16. The provision in the treaty of 1857 between Japan and the United States, that Americans committing offenses in Japan shall be tried by the American consul general or consul, and be punished according to American law, continued in force, notwithstanding the subsequent treaty with Japan of July 29, 1858. Ross v. McIntyre (Re Ross) 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, 35: 581 17. The guaranties which the Constitution affords against accusations of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment by a grand jury, and for a trial by a jury, when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for real or alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad, who are tried by consular tribunals. Ross v. McIntyre (Re Ross) 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, Cited in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 269, 45 35: 581 L. ed. 1099, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770—United States v. Ellis, 51 Fed. 810. 18. It is no valid objection to a trial of a felony by a consular tribunal, that the trial takes place without an indictment by a grand jury, and that the accused cannot have a jury on the trial of the offense. Ross v. McIntyre (Re Ross) 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, 35: 581 19. The provisions of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 730, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 585, that the trial of all offenses committed on the high seas shall be in the district where the offender is found or into which he shall be first brought, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the consular tribunal to try a similar offense committed in a foreign port in which that tribunal is established, where the offender is not taken to the United | manner, as other foreign residents, owing a States. Ross v. McIntyre (Re Ross) 140 U. temporary allegiance to the state; and a S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897, 35: 581 trading consul, in all that concerns his trade, Cited in The Marie, 49 Fed. 288-The Wel- is liable in the same way as a native merhaven, 55 Fed. 81. chant. Hall v. Coppell (Coppell v. Hall) 7 Wall. 542, 19:244 108 Wis. 242, 84 N. W. 181. Editorial notes. 20. The same civil and criminal jurisdic-cited in Re Iasigi, 79 Fed. 752-Scott v. Hobe, tion is given by treaty with the Ottoman Empire, concluded June 5, 1862, to consular courts of the United States which is enjoyed by other Christian nations. The laws or usages of Turkey must be shown, to define this jurisdiction. This court cannot ordinarily take judicial notice of foreign laws and usages. Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S. 13, 23: 190 21. The enforcement by writ of habeas corpus of the treaty rights of a person arrested for an offense committed on board a foreign vessel in a United States port is properly taken in the name of the consul of the foreign country. Mali v. Keeper of Common Jail (Wildenhus's Case) 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383, 30: 565 Cited in Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 507; 40 L. ed. 789, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689. Federal Question as to, see Appeal and First Claiming on Appeal, see Appeal and From Foreign Attachment, see Attachment, Jurisdiction of Suit by Citizen against Consul, see Courts, 838. Assaults or outrages upon. 6: 521 Amenability to local tribunals. 6:521 [Exemptions and privileges of consul. 45 L.R.A. 579.] III. Compensation; Reimbursemnt. Pay of Army Officer while in Diplomatic 25. Interest on public moneys deposited, in respect to which the consul was a trus tee, belonged to the United States. He was not required to put the sums out at interest, but, if he did so, the accretion belonged to the government. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33: 625 Cited in State v. Walsen, 17 Colo. 177, 15 L.R.A. 458, 28 Pac. 1119-Vansant v. State, 96 Md. 130, 53 Atl. 711-Maloy v. Bernalillo County, 10 N. M. 660, 52 L.R.A. 131. 62 Pac. 1106-Thompson v. Territory, 10 Okla. 420, 62 Pac. 355-State V. McFetridge, 84 Wis. 524, 20 L.R.A. 239, 54 N. W. 1. of 42: 767 26. A disbursement for lights by a vice consul at Bangkok, Siam, upon the King's Power of Congress to Confer Jurisdiction of birthday, when approved by the Department Suits Affecting, see Courts, 1175, 1176. of State, is deemed to be a charge within the United Concurrent and Exclusive Jurisdiction of discretion that department. Suits by or against, see Courts, 1386-States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 18 Sup. Ct. 1391. Rep. 374, Effect of Termination of Office of Consul on Right to be Discharged from Arrest by Habeas Corpus, see Habeas Corpus, 234. Privilege from Foreign Attachment, see Writ and Process, 94, 99. Waiver of Privilege, see Writ and Process, 108. See also supra, 10. 22. A sovereign committing the interests of his nation with a foreign power to the care of a minister cannot intend to subject him in any degree to that power; and a consent to receive him implies consent that he shall possess those privileges which his principal intended he should retain. The Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch, 116, 3: 287 Salaries. Claims for Salaries, see Claims, 114, 116. See also supra, 4. 27. By U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1675, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1150, as amended by the act of March 3, 1875, an envoy extraordinary and a minister plenipotentiary to Turkey is entitled to $10.000 a year unless such salary is otherwise specially provided for. Wallace v. United States, 133 U. S. 33: 571 180, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251, 28. The president having raised the grade of the legation to Turkey to a plenipotentiary mission by his appointment of claimant to such office in 1882, and Congress hav23. [A secretary of legation is entitled ing, before the appointment, provided for the to all the immunities of a minister. Res- office an annual salary of $7,500, claimant publica v. De Longchamps (Ct. O. & T. Phila.) 1 Dall. 111, 1:59] 24. In civil and criminal cases, consuls are subject to the local law in the same can have no larger salary, and cannot recover the difference between that sum and the sum of $10.000 provided by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1675, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1150. Wallace v. United States, 133 U. S. 180, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251, 33:571 Cited in Belknap v. United States, 150 U. S. 594, 37 L. ed. 1193, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183. 29: Salary for services rendered prior to the approval of his bond, but after taking the oath, may be given to a vice consul, where the government accepted his services and afterwards approved his bond, although it is provided by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1698, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1175, that he must give bond before entering on the execution of his trust. United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 374, 42: 767 Cited in Glavey v. United States, 182 U. S. 604, 45 L. ed. 1252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891Glavey v. United States, 35 Ct. Cl. 260 Wilbor v. United States, 38 Ct. Cl. 2. 30. The salary of a vice consul appointed to exercise temporarily the duties of the consul general to Siam, who was also min ister resident, is to be computed on the basis of the salary of both those offices, where he performed the functions of both and the compensation of the two has been treated by United Congress as an indivisible unit. States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 18 Sup. Ct. 42: 767 Rep. 374, Fees. Claims for Fees Paid to United States, see Claims, 27. 31. After Algiers became a province of France, there was no provision for the appointment of a consul at that place with a salary. The provision in the act of 1810 thereupon became inoperative. Mahoney v. 19: 864 United States, 10 Wall. 62, Cited in Kinsey v. Kellogg, 65 Cal. 115, 3 Pac. 405. 32. Under the act of August 18, 1856, consuls to Algiers are entitled to such fees only as they may collect as compensation for their services. Mahoney v. United States, 19: 864 10 Wall. 62, 34. Fees for certifying invoices by a consul for free goods imported into the United States concern an official duty, and do not belong to such consul, but to the government. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33: 625 Cited in Phelps v. Siegfried, 142 U. S. 604, 35 L. ed. 1130, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391-Mosby v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 62. 35. Fees received for certificates of shipment of merchandise in transit through the United States to other countries, where the law did not require the consul to issue those certificates, belong to the consul, and not to the United States. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33: 625 Cited in United States v. Wilson, 168 U. S. 275, 42 L. ed. 465, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85. 36. Certifying extra copies of quadruplicate invoices of goods shipped to the United States before the regulations of 1881 is official service which can be performed only under the hand of the consul and his seal of office to the certificate; and the emolument there for is an official fee. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33: 625 Cited in Stahel v. United States, 26 Ct. Cl. 196. 38. Certifying, by a consul, the official character and signature of a notary public, was not a official service, and the fees therefor were his individually. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33:625 Cited in Stahel v. United States, 26 Ct. Cl. 196-Boyd v. United States, 31 Ct. Cl. 175. 39. A fee in the settlement of a private estate belongs to the consul individually. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 327, 33: 625 Cited in United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 349, 42 L. ed. 774, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 374. 40. Fees of a vice consul for administer ing upon personal estates are official, and not to be allowed to him, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1709, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1179, making it his duty to administer upon the estates, and the fees therefor are prescribed by the President. United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 18 Sup. Ct. Rp. 374, 42: 767 41. The consul of the United States at Hong Kong, in examining Chinese emigrants going to the United States on foreign vessels, does not perform a service required by law' or by the regulations, or any service specified in any tariff of fees, or any offi cial service. The fees received for such service, being paid voluntarily to the consul by the persons to whom it was rendered, became the private property of the consul, and not the money of the United States, although the consul attached his seal as evidence of his official character. United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33: 625 327, IV. Appointment. 42. Power to appoint a subordinate offi Of Bank, Authority of, see Banks, I. c, 2, b. Of Corporation, Liability of, see Corporations, 247. Due Process in Enforcing Liability of, see Constitutional Law, 687. Impairment of Contract Obligation as to Election of, see Constitutional Law, 1399, 1400. Fiduciary Relation of, see Corporations, V. d. Frauds by Corporate Director as Extraditable Crime, see Extradition, 5, 6. Limitation of Action to Enforce Liability of, see Limitation of Actions, 299-300. DIRECTORY PROVISIONS. Of Statute, see Statutes, II. 1. DIRECT PROFITS. DISBURSEMENTS. Of Army or Navy, see Army and Navy, VII. DISCHARGE. From Military Service, see Army and Navy, IX. In Bankruptcy, see Bankruptcy, XI.; Estoppel, 277. Of Debtor Without Consideration, see Contracts, 38. Of Liens, Performance of Agreement to Procure, see Contracts, 520. Of Execution in Federal Courts, see Courts, 1332, 1333. Of Guarantor, see Guaranty, V. On Habeas Corpus, see Habeas Corpus, 233237. Of Debtor from Imprisonment, see Imprisonment for Debt, 3-10. Under State Insolvency Proceedings, see Insolvency, V. Of Judgment, see Judgment, IX. b. Recovery of, against Infringer of Patent, Of Mortgage, see Mortgage, VI. see Damages, 296-301. Of Surety, see Principal and Surety, III. Of Principal as Ground for Discharge Of Trust, see Trusts, I. e. Right of Administrator to Account and have Discharge, see Executors and Administrators, 194. Sufficiency of Allegations of Discharge in Injunction Bill, see Injunction, 216. Sufficiency and Effect of Payment Generally, see Payment. DISCLAIMER. As Devesting Jurisdiction by Destroying Diversity of Citizenship, see Courts, 488. By Tenant, see Landlord and Tenant, 75, 76, 81. By Patentee, see Patents, XII. Revival of Bill for, see Abatement and Revival, 67, 68. By Grantee in Unacknowledged and Unrecorded Deed, see Cloud on Title, 32. Dismissal of Bill for, see Dismissal and Discontinuance, 18, 31. As Ground for Equity Jurisdiction, see Equity, 6. Loss of Deed as Ground for, see Pleading, 55. Bill for, by Creditor against Executor, see Pleading, 128. Praying for, in Amended Bill, see Pleading, 211. Necessity of Asking for, see Pleading, 876. DISCONTINUANCE. Of Action, see Dismissal and Discontinuance. Of Appeal or Error, see Appeal and Error, VII. j. Of Blockade, see Blockade, VII. Of Canal, see Canals, 10. I. In General. 1. When the facts are desired to assist a court of law in the progress of a cause, it should be affirmatively stated in the bill Of Insurance Policy, what Constitutes, see that they are wanted for such purposes. Insurance, 489. Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497, 9: 508 Cited in Owyhee Land & Irrig. Co. v. Tautphaus, 48 C. C. A. 537, 109 Fed. 549-Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transp. & Mfg. Co. 27 Fla. 62, 17 J. R.A. 43, 9 So. 653-Carroll v. Farmers & M. Bank, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 203. 2. The rule to be applied to a bill seeking a discovery from an interested party is that the complainant shall charge in his bill that the facts are known to the defendant, and ought to be disclosed by him, and that the complainant is unable to prove it by other testimony. Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497, Distinguished in Bell v. Pomeroy, 4 McLean, 9: 508 58, Fed. Cas. No. 1,263. Cited in Garrison v. Markley, 7 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 248, Fed. Cas. No. 5,256-Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphe, 23 Blatchf. 90, 23 Fed. 85-Plumb v. Bateman, 2 App. D. C. 170-Carroll v. Farmers' & M. Bank. Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 203 -Whitesides v. Lafferty, 9 Humph. 30. 3. If facts essential to the merits of a claim purely legal be exclusively within the knowledge of the party against whom that claim is asserted, he may be required in a court of chancery to disclose those facts. Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch, 69, 3: 271 Cited in Bell v. Pomeroy, 4 McLean, 58, Fed. Cas. No. 1.263-McCormick v. District of Columbia, 4 Mackey, 406, 54 Am. Rep. 284McLaren v. Steapp, 1 Ga. 378-Cook County v. Davis. 143 III. 155, 32 N. E. 176-Kendallville Refrigerator Co. v. Davis, 40 Ill. App. 624-Coquillard v. Suydam, 8 Blackf. 31-Lancy v. Rendlett, 80 Me. 175, 6 Am, St. Rep. 169, 13 Atl. G86. |