Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of governments with which a treaty exists to that effect. Opinion of Oct. 14, 1853, 6 Op. 148.

111. There is no express provision to that effect in existing treaties between the United States and Denmark. Ibid.

112. Engagements of extradition, whether of fugitives from justice or from service, stand in each case on particular stipulations of treaty, and are not to be inferred from the "favorednation" clause in treaties. Ibid.

113. Under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of June 5, 1854, the President cannot issue his proclamation giving effect to the treaty as to Canada alone in anticipation of the action of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward's Island; nor until he shall have received evidence, not only of the action of those provinces but also of the imperial Parliament. Opinion of Oct. 3, 1854, 6 Op. 748.

114. By the treaty of 1842 between the United States and Great Britain (article 10) the expense attending the proceedings in extradition is to be borne by the Government making the reclamation. Opinion of Aug. 23, 1855, 7 Op. 396.

115. But where, in consequence of conflict between the judicial authorities of the United States and those of a State, the latter aiming to prevent the extradition, the United States intervenes to maintain its own dignity in the premises, the special expenses of such intervention should be defrayed by the United States. Ibid.

116. By the terms of the treaty of 1853 with Mexico, called the Mesilla treaty, $7,000,000 were to be paid to the Mexican Republic on the exchange of ratifications, and three millions were to become due when the new boundary line should be surveyed, marked, and established. Opinion of Oct. 29, 1855, 7 Op. 582.

117. The "establishment" of the line consists of the official agreement of two commissioners, appointed, one by each Government, to survey, mark, and establish the line; and that agreement, when duly made, is conclusive against both Governments. Ibid.

118. According to the public law of the monarchies of Europe, the authority of ministers, and perhaps of international commissioners, expires on the death, deposition, or abdication of the prince; but not so as between the

American republics, in which the executive power is permanent and continuous, without regard to the governing person, and there is no interruption of the authority or renewal of the credentials of their public ministers on a change of President for whatever cause, provided such President continues to represent and exercise the appointing power of the Government. Ibid.

119. The United States observe, as their rule of public law, the recognition of governments de facto, and also of governing persons de facto, without scrutiny of the question of legitimacy of origin or accession. Ibid.

120. Hence, in this case, the Mexican commissioner, Mr. Salazar, being duly appointed by President Santa Anna, continued to be competent to act after the sequent accession of President Carrera, and his official agreement signed then, if otherwise regular and complete, definitively establishes the line as respects the Mexican Republic. Ibid.

121. To establish the line, it is not requisite that the maps contemplated by the treaty shall first have been made; that is not the establishment of the line, but only the record or history of its survey. Ibid.

122. The judicial authority of the United States commissioner to China is restricted to the five ports mentioned in the treaty with that nation, namely: Kwang-Chow, Amoy, Fuchow, Ning-Po, and Shanghai. Opinion of March 16, 1859, 9 Op. 294.

123. Under the treaty of 1851 with Peru, the United States are not bound to pay a corsul of the Peruvian Government the value of property belonging to a deceased Peruvian, on whose estate the consul was entitled to administer, which may have been unjustly detained and administered by a local public administrator. Opinion of Aug. 2, 1859, 9 Op. 383.

124. An award under the convention of 1863 with Peru, "payable in current money of the United States," may legally be paid either in Treasury notes or in specie. Opinion of July 12, 1864, 11 Op. 52.

125. The thirty-fifth article of the treaty of June 12, 1848, between the United States and New Granada, binds this Government absolutely to guaranty the perfect neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, on the demand of the proper party; and this obligation must be performed by any and all means which may be

found lawful and expedient. Opinion of Aug. Isthmus of Panama, a violation of the thirty18, 1864, 11 Op. 67.

126. The thirty-fifth article of the treaty between the United States and New Granada does not oblige this Government to protect the Isthmus of Panama from invasion by a body of insurgents from the United States of Colombia. Opinion of Nov. 7, 1865, 11 Op. 391.

127. The convention of February 10, 1864, with the United States of Colombia confers on the commission thereby created jurisdiction to determine, and it should determine, whether any and what claims had been presented to, but not decided by, the commission under the treaty with New Granada of Sept. 10, 1857. Opinion of Nov. 18, 1865, 11 Op. 402.

128. The provisions of the treaty of May 1, 1828, between the United States and Prussia, for the arrest and imprisonment of deserters from public ships and merchant vessels of the respective countries, applies to public vessels sailing under the flag of the North German Union and deserters from such vessels. Opinion of Aug. 19, 1868, 12 Op. 463.

129. The annual installments of interest due to the United States under the convention with Spain of February 17, 1834, may, by virtue of the legal-tender act of February 25, 1862, chap. 33, be paid in Treasury notes, if the Spanish Government chooses to offer them in payment, there being no express provision in the convention that the money shall be paid in coin. Opinion of June 10, 1869, 13 Op. 85.

130. A citizen of the North German confederation, who becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, must have an uninterrupted residence of five years in the United States before he is entitled to the immunities guaranteed by the treaty with that confederation of February 22, 1868. The recital contained in the record of the naturalization proceedings, that he had resided continuously in this country for more than five years, is not conclusive as to the fact so recited. Opinion of Jan. 21, 1871, 13 Op. 376.

131. The passenger tax of $2 per head levied in the year 1849 and subsequent years by the State of Panama, a province of the Republic of New Granada, under authority from that republic, upon the captains of all vessels embarking or disembarking passengers in that State, was in substance and effect, so far as it affected citizens of the United States passing across the

fifth article of the treaty between the United States and New Granada of December 12, 1846, which provided that the right of way or transit across the said isthmus "should be open and free to the Government and citizens of the United States," &c. Opinion of Dec. 28, 1871, 13 Op. 547.

132. By the first article of the convention of September 20, 1870, between the United States and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the right of an American citizen to change his nationality and become a citizen of Austria is recognized; but he must have had a residence of five years in that country, besides being naturalized there, before the United States are bound to consider him as such. Opinion of Dec. 21, 1872, 14 Op. 154.

133. So much of article 30 of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, of the 8th of May, 1871, called the Treaty of Washington, as relates to the transportation of merchandise in British vessels, without payment of duty, from one port or place within the territory of the United States to another port or place within the same territory, examined and construed. Opinion of Oct. 13, 1873, 14 Op. 310.

134. Under the provisions of that article a British vessel may, during a single voyage, ship merchandise at two or more ports of the United States in succession on the river Saint Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the rivers connecting the same-the merchandise being destined for other ports of the United States, and to be carried part of the way through Canada by land, in bond-and after thus completing her cargo sail to the port or place in Canada where the land-carriage is to begin. Ibid.

135. Such vessel may also, after taking a cargo of merchandise abroad at a Canadian port, to which the same had been transported from a port of the United States part of the way overland in bond and part of the way by water in the manner above indicated, sail thence to two or more ports of the United States on the above-mentioned waters, in succession, during a single voyage, and deliver at each port whatever part of the cargo is consigned thereto. Ibid.

136. By virtue of the second article of the treaty with Sweden of April 3, 1783, and the eighth and seventeenth articles of the treaty

with Sweden and Norway of July 24, 1827, the provisions of article 4 of the treaty with Belgium of July 17, 1858, exempting steam-vessels of the United States and of Belgium, engaged in regular navigation between their respective countries, from the payment of duties of tonnage, anchorage, buoys, and lighthouses, became immediately applicable, mutatis mutandis, to steam-navigation between the United States and Sweden and Norway. Opinion of Oct. 24, 1874, 14 Op. 468.

137. Hence, since the 17th of July, 1858, the steamers of the Norse American line (being Swedish and Norwegian vessels), plying regularly between Norway and the United States, have not been liable to the payment of the above-mentioned duties at American ports; and the owners thereof are entitled to have refunded to them any moneys they have paid to the customs officers of the United States for such duties subsequent to that date. Ibid.

138. Provisions of the ninth article of the treaty with the Hanseatic Republics of December 20, 1827, together with the provisions of the fourth article of the treaty with Belgium of July 17, 1858, considered with reference to the question whether the North German Lloyd Steamship Company is entitled to a refund of the tonnage tax collected in ports of the United States on that company's steamers, whose home port is Bremen; and held, upon the facts presented, that the steam-vessels of Bremen plying regularly between that port and the United States have, during the entire period subsequent to the date of the ratification of said treaty with Belgium, been exempt from such tax in American ports by force of the ninth article of said treaty with the Hanseatic Republics: Held, also, that where the tax has been exacted and collected from such vessels in American ports, at any time within that period, it should be refunded. Opinion of Feb. 20, 1875, 14 Op. 530.

139. The right "to sit as judges and arbitrators in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews," given to consuls, viceconsuls, &c., by article 13 of the treaty with Sweden and Norway of 1827, is limited to the determination or arbitrament of disputes and controversies of a civil nature, and does not extend to the cognizance of offenses. Opinion of Dec. 14, 1876, 15 Op. 178.

140. If the conduct of the captains or of the DIG- -31

crews, where differences arise between them, is such as to "disturb the order or tranquillity of the country" (which includes all acts, as against each other, amounting to actual breaches of the public peace), the right of the local authorities to interfere, in the exercise of their police and jurisdictional functions, is reserved in said article. Ibid.

141. Semble that a more enlarged jurisdiction is conferred upon consuls in some other treaties, as, e. g., in the treaty with France of February 23, 1853, in the treaty with the German Empire of December 11, 1871, and in the treaty with Italy of February 8, 1868. Ibid.

142. The term "fishery," in the legal parlance of the United States and Great Britain, primarily denotes one of that class of objects of property known as things incorporeal; and such is its signification as used in article 21 of the treaty of May 8, 1871, between those countries. Opinion of March 8, 1878, 15 Op. 661.

143. Accordingly the phrase in that article, "produce of the fisheries of the United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward Island," covers only the produce of incorporeal things so denominated belonging to those governments respectively. Ibid.

144. Canada and Prince Edward Island derive no right under the treaty to import into the United States free of duty fish, &c., caught by their subjects no matter where, nor do the United States derive thereunder a corresponding right against Canada and Prince Edward Island. Ibid.

*

145. The provision in article 21 of the treaty of Washington, of May 8, 1871, that "fish-oil * * being the produce of the fisheries of the United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward Island, shall be admitted into each country, respectively, free of duty," does not include cod-liver oil which has been purified and refined for medicinal purposes, whether it is put up in barrels or other kind of package. Such codliver oil is dutiable. Opinion of June 5, 1878, 16 Op. 601.

146. Under article 30 of the treaty of Washington, of May 8, 1871, and article 19 of the regulations made under the first-mentioned article to carry its provisions into execution, it is lawful to transport goods by means of British or American vessels from the ports of Chicago or Milwaukee to points in Canada, thence

through Canadian territory by rail, and from the termini of the lines of railway by either British or American vessels to the ports of Oswego and Ogdensburg. Opinion of June 10, 1878, 16 Op. 42.

147. The above-named ports are "ports on the northern frontier of the United States" within the meaning of said regulations. Ibid. 148. The tonnage tax collected from the steamer Smidt in the years 1868, 1869, 1870, and 1872 (it having arrived at the port of New York from Bremen four times in the year 1868, five times in 1869, twice in 1870, and four times in 1872), was exacted in contravention of the treaty of December 20, 1837, between the United States and the Hanseatic Towns; the ninth article of which treaty (containing the most favored clause), when read in connection with the fourth article of the treaty of July 17, 1858, between the United States and Belgium, providing that steam-vessels of the United States and the Hanseatic Towns in regular navigation between the United States and the Hanseatic Towns shall be exempt in both countries from the payment of duties of tonnage, &c. Opinion of Feb. 28, 1879, 16 Op.

276.

149. The word "regular" in that provision is used in contradistinction to occasional; it refers to steam-vessels which, alone or with others, constitute lines, and not to such as are regular in the sense of being properly documented. Ibid.

150. The exaction of tonnage duty, under section 15 of the act of July 14, 1862, chap. 163, upon Hanseatic vessels is not in contravention of treaty obligations arising out of the treaty between the United States and the Hanseatic Republics of December 20, 1827. Opinion of May 7, 1879, 16 Op. 626.

ULTRA VIRES.

See also CORPORATIONS.

A company, incorporated to hold certain buildings in the city of Baltimore as a commercial exchange and for other cognate purposes, cannot sell the said buildings to the United States, and so extinguish their corporate uses without the consent of the State of Maryland. Opinion of Sept. 8, 1856, 8 Op. 86.

UNITED STATES.

See also CLAIMS, XXIV.

1. The United States have such a claim to lands formerly used for a highway in Charlestown, by force of proceedings under the act of the legislature of Massachusetts of 30th of October, 1781, and for other reasons, that it ought to be defended. Opinion of Aug. 17, 1830, 2 Op. 363.

2. The rights of the United States will not be impaired by the receipt of such part of the dividend declared and payable on the stock of the Government in the Bank of the United States as the bank is willing to pay. Opinion of April 6, 1835, 2 Op. 710.

3. When a commissioned officer or other agent of the United States makes a contract with any person for their use and benefit, and with due authority of law, such officer or other public agent is not responsible to the party, whose only remedy is against the Government. Opinion of April 10, 1855,7 Op. 88.

4. But, in making contracts with any one claiming to act for the Government, it is the duty of the party contracting to inquire as to the authority of such agent or officer, without which it is doubtful whether the contract affects the Government. Ibid.

5. If a public officer, however, make a Government contract without authority, and which, therefore, does not bind the Government, such officer is himself personally responsible to the contracting party. Ibid.

6. But a public officer or other agent, though contracting for the Government, may, if he see fit, make himself the responsible party, either exclusively or in addition to the Government.

Ibid.

7. The United States may lawfully make title to land in one of the States by expropriation as of the eminent domain of such State, and with assent thereof. Opinion of April 24, 1855, 7 Op. 114.

8. The act of the legislature of Maryland empowering the United States to acquire land in said State, for the use of the Washington Aqueduct, is not in conflict with the constitution either of that State or of the United States. Ibid.

9. The acquisition of land by the United States, through the means of a statute process of expropriation, is a purchase," which,

[ocr errors]

if done in strict accordance with the form of the statute, may be certified by the AttorneyGeneral as vesting a valid title in the United States. Ibid.

10. In its internal organization, each government has public officers, administrative, judicial, or ministerial, which officers are the agents of the community for the conduct of its public or common affairs, and of many private affairs, and are individually responsible to their country, and in many cases to individuals, for acts of political or official misbehavior; but the Government itself is not responsible to private individuals for injuries sustained by reason of the acts of such officers in the private business with which they may be officially concerned, though as public agents, yet for individual benefit only; it is responsible only for such injury to individuals as may occur by acts of such officers performed in the proper behoof and business of the Government. Opinion of May 27, 1855, 7 Op. 230.

11. Thus, governments hold themselves responsible to individuals for injuries done to the latter by public officers in the collection of the revenue or other administrative acts of governmental relation; but not for the errors of opinion, or corruption even, of administrative, judicial, or ministerial officers, when such officers are administering their public authority in the interest of individuals as distinguished from the government. Ibid.

12. Hence, the State of California is not responsible to a citizen of the United States for injury which his vessel may have sustained by the unskillfulness of a pilot at San Francisco; and a fortiori that State is not responsible in such case if the vessel belonged to a citizen of the Peruvian Republic. Ibid.

13. Hence, also, the United States are not responsible to a citizen of the United States for the failure of a marshal to collect an execution; and a fortiori the United States are not responsible in such case if the execution belonged to a citizen of the Peruvian Republic. Ibid.

14. In such a case our courts of law are open to the individual who pretends himself aggrieved by the act of the pilot or that of the marshal; but the Government is not surety for their acts; and the Peruvian Republic has no rights of reclamation in the premises against

the United States for any imputed default either of its own officer or the officer of the State of California. Ibid.

15. Quære, whether the property in the West Point chain is or is not in the United States. Opinion of July 2, 1855, 7 Op. 311. 16. Jurisdiction is acquired by the United States by the consent of a State to the purchase of land within the same for constitutional uses of the Union. Opinion of Feb. 11, 1856, 7 Op. 628.

17. Phrases in legislative acts of the States retaining concurrent jurisdiction for certain purposes do not impair the Federal jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. Ibid.

UNITED STATES BANK.

1. Commissioners appointed under the act of February 25, 1791, chap. 10, incorporating the United States Bank, have no power as such to superintend the election of directors, or to interfere therein. Opinion of Oct. 18, 1791, 1 Op. 19.

2. Under the fourteenth section of the act of April 10, 1816, chap. 44, incorporating the Bank of the United States, the Treasury must receive its bills in payment of debts due to the United States. Opinion of April 15, 1819, 1 Op. 268.

3. A resignation of a director of the Bank of the United States is an inchoate act until the same has been accepted expressly, or presumptively by the appointment of another. Opinion of Feb. 2, 1831, 2 Op. 406.

4. The Secretary of War had authority to direct the president of the Bank of the United States to transfer the funds, books, and papers of the pension agency in possession of said bank to the president of the Girard Bank, and no valid reason has been assigned for disobeying the order. Opinion of Feb. 3, 1834, 2 Op. 594.

5. The Bank of the United States and its branches performed only the subordinate duties of paymasters of pensions, and sustain the same relation to the Secretary of War which the ordinary paymasters of the Army sustain to the same Department. They cannot look beyond the orders of the Department in order to question their validity, nor inquire into the manner in which its chief intends to dispose of the

« AnteriorContinuar »