« AnteriorContinuar »
that it has been decided by an American Federal court (Circuit Court of the United States of America for the District of New Jersey) that the American authorities in arresting the said sailors acted in violation of the treaty between Norway and the United States—which decision, as your excellency will be aware of, has not been appealed from. In view of this fact it seems proper that the expenses incurred on account of the proceedings in the case ought to be paid by the American Government and not by the detained sailors themselves—who committed no wrongful act-nor eventually by the Norwegian Government on their behalf.
In its letter of 14th of February last the State Department made the observation “that provision for the detention of witnesses to insure their appearance when their testimony is required, similar to that made by the laws of New Jersey, is common to the jurisprudence of most if not all countries." In reply to this observation my Government has instructed me to state that such provision is quite unknown to the jurisprudence of the northern European countries and, it is presumed, also to the jurisprudence of most European countries. In those countries permission to detain witnesses is granted only in the cases in which witnesses refuse to give evidence or refuse to be sworn.
Adding that my Government deems that the compensation in this case ought to amount to at least $400 to each of the three sailors, I venture to ask that your excellency, considering the facts set forth above, will kindly cause this compensation to be granted by the American Government, and also that the sailors' expenses for legal assistance during the habeas corpus proceedings, $1,587.78 (as stated per inclosed vouchers), be refunded at the same time.
I inclose for your excellency's information the following documents, relative to the habeas corpus proceedings:
1. Copy of commitment.
5. Copy of the Norwegian consul general in New York's petition of intervention.
6. Copy of brief which was furnished to the judge before the hearing. 7. Certified copy of order of discharge. Furthermore I inclose: 8. Copy of agreement between Trygve Andersen and Mr. Pierre P. Garven.
9. Bill from Messrs. Thompson & Ballentine, attorneys and counselors at law, New York, amounting to $1,097.67.
This bill is accompanied by10. Bill from Messrs. MacLear & Fort, counselors at law, New Jersey, amount. ing to $490.11.
11. A cutting from the New York Sun, March 7, 1911, in which is repo ted the judge's decision in the case, etc.
Expressing the hope of receiving a favorable answer, I avail myself of the opportunity to renew to your excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
LUDWIG AUBERT, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim.
LEGATION OF NORWAY,
Washington, D. C., December 29, 1911. His Excellency Hon. P. C. Knox,
Secretary of State, etc. MR SECRETARY OF STATE: In a note to Mr. Aubert, dated September 23, 1911, the Acting Secretary of State has suggested that the question of indemnity growing out of the fact that three sailors from the Norwegian ship Ingrid had been arrested and imprisoned upon commitment issued by an officer of the Second Criminal Court of Jersey City on the 4th of February, 1911, in violation of the treaty of commerce existing between Norway and the United States, ougat to be brought before the United States courts before resort could properly be had to the presentation of a diplomatic claim. In the same note the Acting Secretary of State has stated that the attorney general of the State of New Jersey had expressed the opinion that the members of the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Hudson are the persons responsible under the conditions presented in this case, and that the prosecutor of pleas of the county might be joined with them in a civil suit.
On this occasion I beg to point out that the illegal writ by which these sailors were committed to imprisonment was issued by an officer of the Second Criminal Court of Jersey City on the date of February 4, 1911, and even though other American authorities may be implied in the illegal proceedings in this matter, this circumstance can not obscure the fact that the officer of the criminal court who issued the unlawful order of imprisonment was under the obligation, when acting in his official capacity, to respect and observe the treaties of the United States. Copy of the commitment was annexed to Mr. Aubert's note to your excellency of July 28, 1911.
Furthermore, I beg to state that the three seamen, being destitute of means, and an unlawful arrest being considered in Norway as well as in the United States a matter of high importance, the Norwegian Government found itself under the necessity of guaranteeing the expenses involved in instituting habeas corpus proceedings before the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey in order to obtain the release of the unlawfully-arrested seamen. The circuit court recognized that the imprisonment was in violation of the treaty and ordered the release of the seamen.
As regards the question of indemnity to the three seamen for the unlawful imprisonment inflicted upon them by the said criminal court, the advice to seek remedy in a civil suit before the courts of this country would not help them much, as they do not possess the necessary means to take such action. The seamen therefore consider this advice an equivalent to a refusal of justice.
In this connection I beg to state that if any action is to be taken against the second criminal court of Jersey City for its violation of the treaty it will evidently devolve upon the United States Gov. ernment to take such action.
I furthermore venture to state that various messages transmitted to Congress show that it is in conformity with American practice that an American citizen who has been wronged by a foreign authority seeks redress through the American Government. Many instances might be cited in which the American Government has
claimed and obtained redress from foreign Governments for arrest and other wrongs done to American citizens by foreign authorities in violation of international law or treaty.
The same principles have also been followed when there has been question of wrongs done to foreign subjects by an American authority. In this respect I need, I am sure, but to call to your excellency's attention the many cases in which the American Government, in obeyance to the general feeling of justice prevailing in the United States, has, upon representation made by a foreign Government, granted indemnities to foreign subjects unlawfully arrested or otherwise wronged by American authorities. Especially I venture to call your excellency's attention to the case mentioned in Senate Documents No. 256, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, and No. 29, Fiftysixth Congress, second session, which case offers close analogies to the present case.
According to instructions received from my Government, I have the honor to ask your excellency kindly to give the question of indemnity for the unlawful arrest of the three sailors from the Norwegian ship Ingrid renewed consideration, in order to bring it to the best possible solution.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 21, 1913. Mr. H. Bryn, Minister of Norway.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your memorandum of May 31, 1913, in which you refer to your note of December 29, 1911, in regard to the presentation of a claim by your Government against this Government on account of the action of the authorities of Hudson County, N. J., in holding for their appearance as witnesses in a criminal case in that county, in violation of treaty provision between the United States and Norway, as your Government contends, three members of the crew of the Norwegian ship Ingrid. The department has given this matter most thorough and careful consideration, but does not find that there is any legal liability on the part of this Government to pay an indemnity as requested in the legation's note of July 28, 1911, of $400 to each of the sailors and the sum of $1,587.78, the amount expended for legal services in connection with habeas corpus proceedings which were instituted to obtain the release of the seamen.
As you will recall, the facts and circumstances connected with this claim are briefly stated as follows:
On February 1, 1911, a cargo of dynamite exploded at Jersey City, causing considerable damage to the Ingrid, which was lying in the harbor near the place where the accident occurred. A short time after the explosion had taken place, three members of the crew of the Ingrid were arrested by the New Jersey authorities and confined in the Hudson County jail, they being considered important witnesses in the case involving the responsibility for the explosion in the harbor. The consul general of Norway in New York conferred with the local authorities regarding the matter and asked that the
H D-63-2-Vol 158- -57
seamen be released, but the authorities refused this request, basics their refusal on certain provisions of the law of New Jersey, which they represented, authorized the detention of the men as witness. At the instance of your legation, the department brought the col plaint of the seamen to the attention of the governor of New Jerser, who in reply advised the department that it seemed plain to him that it was necessary to detain the men for the present, in order that jus. tice might be successfully administered in the serious matter of the explosion. On March 6, 1911, an order for the release of the sailors was issued by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Distrid of New Jersey, in which habeas corpus proceedings had been instituted. It thus appears that the men were detained about a ment: being held for this length of time as witnesses in default of furnishing bonds in the sum of $500 each.
Under date of September 23, 1911, the department advised your legation that the governor of New Jersey, to whom the claim presented by you had been referred, had informed the department that the attorney general of New Jersey had expressed the opinion that the members of the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Hudson were the persons responsible under the conditions presented in the case (if legal liability attached to any of the officials concerned in the matter) and that the prosecutor of pleas of the county might be joined with them in a civil suit. The department suggested that, in view of this opinion, the seamen should exhaust their legal remedies in the appropriate courts before resort could properly be had to the presentation of a diplomatic claim in their behalf.
It seems clear that the local New Jersey authorities acted in goed faith and with due observance of the forms of law in holding the seamen as witnesses. The measures taken to detain these men were such as citizens of this country whose testimony it should be deemed important to have with a view to insuring the proper administration of justice might be subjected to in a given case. If a Government may not use against aliens, as well as against its own nationals, the recognized methods of procuring the attendance of witnesses in criminal cases, including that of binding witnesses by recognizance to appear and give testimony, then its criminal procedure may at times be rendered wholly ineflective.
However, as previously observed, in the particular case under consideration, the Federal courts at Trenton, N. J., directed the release of the seamen of the Ingrid on application being made to it for that purpose through proper judicial proceedings. It appears therefore that the alien seamen of the Ingrid, although temporarily detained under the order of an inferior State tribunal, were promptly discharged on application to the proper department of this Görernment, and that there has been no violation of the rights which were asserted in their behalf by your Government under the following treaty provision, contained in Article VII of the treaty of amity and commerce concluded April 3, 1783, between the United States and Sweden:
All and every the subjects and inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sweden, as well as those of the United States, shall be permitted to navigate with their vessels, in all safety and freedom, and without any regard to those to whom the merchandise and cargoes may belong, from any port whatever.
The department has noted the statements in your note of December 29, 1911, to the effect that the seamen of the Ingrid who were detained by the New Jersey authorities do not possess the necessary means to pursue such legal remedies as might be open to them in an action for alleged false imprisonment against the responsible New Jersey officers. The department can not consider this fact as affording a basis for the presentation of a diplomatic claim, nor as in any way affecting the rule of international law that a claimant against a foreign Government is not usually regarded as entitled to diplomatic intervention by his own Government until he has exhausted his legal remedies in the appropriate tribunals of the country against which he makes the claim. The department has taken this precise stand, both in a case of a claim presented against this Government by another nation in behalf of one of its nationals, and in the case of a citizen of this country desiring to present a claim against a foreign Government.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. For the Secretary of State:
J. B. MOORE.
LEGATION OF NORWAY,
Washington, D. C., November 25, 1913. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: By a note from the Hon. J. B. Moore dated June 21, 1913, regarding the claim of indemnity for the unlawful arrest, at Jersey City in February, 1911, of three members of the crew of the Norwegian ship Ingrid, I was informed that the Departinent of State did not find that there was any legal liability on the part of the Government of the United States to pay an indemnity as requested in this legation's note of July 28, 1911, of $100 to each of the sailors and the sum of $1,587.78, the amount expended for legal services in connection with habeas corpus proceedings which were instituted to obtain the release of the seamen.
Acting under instructions from my Government I have the honor to inform your excellency that the statements made in the Department of State's above-mentioned note of June 21, 1913, have failed to alter my Government's views of the case, as have been set forth in the legation's previous notes to the Department of State regarding the same.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary of State, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
H. BRYN. His Excellency Hon. W. J. BRYAN,
Secretary of State, eto.