the Treasury, Dec. 4, 1895, against the conditions existing at Havana, together with the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury forwarding it, the reply of the Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, and the note addressed by Mr. Olney to the Spanish minister at Washington on the subject. The protest of Dr. Wyman is also printed in the Cleveland Journal of Medicine, February, 1897, in his article on the Public Health Service in the United States. See, also, the report of the Committee on International Quarantine, adopted by the Pan-American Medical Congress, held in the City of Mexico, November 16-19, 1896. (New York Medical Journal, March 6, 1897.) See Marine-Hospital Service: Maritime Quarantine against Yellow Fever; reprint from Yellow Fever, its Nature, Diagnosis, etc., 1898. "The recent prevalence of yellow fever in a number of cities and towns throughout the South has resulted in much disturbance of commerce and demonstrated the necessity of such amendments to our quarantine laws as will make the regulations of the national quarantine authorities paramount. The Secretary of the Treasury in the portion of his report relating to the operation of the Marine Hospital Service calls attention to the defects in the present quarantine laws and recommends amendments thereto which will give the Treasury Department the requisite authority to prevent the invasion of epidemic diseases from foreign countries, and in times of emergency like that of the past summer will add to the efficiency of the sanitary measures for the protection of the people and at the same time prevent unnecessary restriction of commerce. I concur in his recommendation." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 6, 1897. For the appeal of the owners of the Norwegian steamship Nicaragua to the equitable consideration of the United States Government for losses resulting from being quarantined at Mobile, Ala., in consequence of bringing American citizens from Bluefields as an act of humanity, see S. Doc. 17, 56 Cong. 1 sess. As to the order of the Secretary of the Treasury of July, 1884, that no rags be received from infected ports, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to the consulate-general at Cairo, July 19 and 21, and Aug. 6, 1884; and Mr. J. Davis, Assist. Sec., to same, Sept. 1, 1884, MS. Inst. Egypt, XVI. 383, 384. May 16, 1900, the Surgeon-General of the United States MarineHospital Service instructed the supervising surgeon-general at San Francisco, in case the existence of bubonic plague was officially proclaimed there, to request certain transportation officials to refuse tickets to Chinese and Japanese, without a certificate signed by the marine-hospital officer." May 18 the existence of the plague was officially declared by the board of health. Thereupon the Surgeon a For. Rel. 1900, 743. For. Rel. 1900, 741. General, acting under the act of Congress of March 27, 1890, issued an order directing transportation companies to refuse transportation to Asiatics without certificates." Notice of this order was communicated to the Japanese consul-general at San Francisco by the president of the board of health, who stated that the board was actively cooperating with the United States authorities to prevent the exit of Chinese and Japanese who failed to present a certificate that the bearer had been inoculated with the Haffkine prophylactic against bubonic plague.' The consul-general protested against this discriminatory treatment of his countrymen, which he maintained was not warranted by existing conditions; and the subject was brought by the Japanese legation at Washington to the notice of the Department of State as a violation of treaty rights. The Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service stated that no orders had been issued by his Bureau requiring preventive inoculations; that its action was confined to inspections and restraints of travel, as temporary emergency measures, in regard to Asiatics, the plague having been found to exist only among the Chinese in Chinatown, where also dwelt a number of Japanese; and that the representative of the Bureau at San Francisco had been instructed to make no race discrimination. The Japanese legation also complained that the health board of Colorado had imposed a general quarantine against Chinese and Japanese who should be without certificates that they had not been exposed to the plague for the preceding six months. The Japanese legation subsequently inquired (1) whether the United States Government would give an official assurance that, as it had no intention to discriminate against Japanese subjects, and as the action of the local medical officials had been declared by the Federal district court to have been illegal, the facts might be considered as a sufficient proof that the United States concurred in the views of the Japanese Government on the question of treaty rights; (2) whether the United States Government, in communicating the legation's complaint to the governor of Colorado, intended to suggest to him to refrain from any further action inappropriate to a reasonable solution of the question, and whether he had raised any objection. The Department of State replied: 1. That the Government of the United States could with pleasure assure the Japanese Government that in the enforcement of the quarantine measures at San Francisco there was no intention to discriminate against Japanese subjects; that the rights of Japanese, as defined in art. 1 of the treaty of 1894, were subject to the proviso of a For. Rel. 1900, 742. c For. Rel. 1900, 737-744. e For. Rel. 1900, 746. art. 2 that the stipulations of the preceding article should "not in any way affect the laws, ordinances, and regulations with regard to trade, the immigration of laborers, police, and public security, which are in force or which may hereafter be enacted in either of the two countries;" that the decision of the Federal district court was based upon the ground that the discrimination against Asiatic races was unconstitutional, and not upon any ground of treaty right, but that, as the reasoning of the decision was in line with the Japanese contention, the course of the United States, unless the Supreme Court should in some future case determine the question differently, would, as regarded its own acts and its representations to State authorities, coincide with the view of the Japanese Government as to the treaty rights of its subjects in the matter under discussion. 2. That it was the intention of the Department to make to the governor of Colorado the suggestion mentioned, and that no case had since arisen requiring his action; and that the United States Government, while for constitutional reasons unable to give guaranties against the recurrence of cases like that in Colorado, would use its efforts to prevent their occurrence there or elsewhere. " a "Referring to your note of June 13 last in relation to certain quarantine measures of San Francisco and Colorado, and to the explanatory statement in connection therewith which you handed to me on the 14th instant, I observe that, in view of the explanations heretofore furnished by the Department, there remains apparently only one point on which you ask further satisfactory assurances, namely: That some action may be taken to protect Japanese subjects against the recurrence of discriminatory quarantine measures. This assurance I am happy to be able to give you; not, indeed, in the precise form in which it is requested, but in a way which will substantially and effectually accomplish the end in view. "It is in the nature of things impossible to prevent by Federal legislation the enactment of improvident and unconstitutional laws by local authorities, whether State or municipal. But it is entirely feasible to afford prompt and complete redress against such regulations whenever their enforcement is sought to the detriment of personal rights. The individual affected may at once avail himself of the writ of habeas corpus before the Federal courts and obtain his deliverance from any illegal imprisonment, confinement, or restraint. 66 a Memorandum of Oct. 13, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 756. Complaint was made last summer of the discriminatory enforcement of a bubonic quarantine against Japanese on the Pacific coast and of interference with their travel in California and Colorado, under the health laws of those States. The latter restrictions have been adjudged by a Federal court to be unconstitutional. No recurrence of either cause of complaint is apprehended." (President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 3, 1900.) He may also avail himself in such cases of the writ of injunction to prevent the enforcement of such illegal regulations. This was done in this very affair in the case of Wong Wai . Williamson (103 Fed. Rep., 1); and the act of Congress, which was passed in consequence of the exigencies of the McLeod case, was adopted, not with a view to prevent the passage of illegal local legislation and regulations, but to nullify their effects by empowering the Federal courts, on proper application, to deliver and discharge from the operation of such laws all persons injuriously affected by them, thereby nullifying them for all practical purposes. The remedy thus afforded was and is equally applicable in all cases where quarantine regulations restrain personal liberty (including freedom from interference with the right of personal locomotion or the exercise of any restraint upon the person) in breach of constitutional or treaty rights. “The remedies already afforded are, therefore, complete; and since it is physically impossible by any act of legislation to prevent at all times and in all places illegal action of local authorities, the demands of civil justice and of national good faith are reasonably met when ample and speedy remedies for the redress of such grievances or of wrongs of any kind are afforded by the laws. "In case, however, of the passage of local regulations alleged to be in violation of a treaty, the Department would, if the same would be brought by you to its attention, cause the matter to be investigated, and if proper would request the Attorney-General to cooperate in taking the necessary legal steps to enforce the due observance of treaty obligations.' Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Takahira, Japanese leg., Nov. 26, 1901, As to proceedings taken for the adjustment by the Hawaiian authorities By the second international conference, held at the City of Mexico, it was recommended that all measures relating to international quarantine should be wholly within the control of the national governments; that each government should establish in its ports two kinds of detention, (a) that for inspection or observation, and (b) that for disinfection; that quarantine regulations be so framed as to interfere no more than may be necessary with travel and commerce; that the several governments endeavor to cooperate with each other to this end; that notice be given by health organizations in each country to the diplomatic and consular representatives of the other countries of the existence of cholera, yellow fever, bubonic plague, smallpox, or any other serious outbreak; and that it should be made a duty of the sanitary authorities in each port to note on the bill of health of each departing vessel the transmissible diseases there existing. A resolution was also adopted looking to the calling at Washington of a general convention of the representatives of the health organizations of the several republics and of the establishment of a permanent international sanitary bureau at Washington. Second Int. Conf. of Am. States, S. Doc. 330, 57 Cong. 1 sess. 16. By the act of April 12, 1900, it was provided that quarantine stations should be established at such places in Porto Rico as the Supervising Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service of the United States should direct, and that the quarantine regulations relating to the importation of diseases from other countries should be under the control of the Government of the United States (31 Stat. 75-80). (3) PILOTAGE. $192. The statutes of New York impose compulsory pilotage on foreign vessels inward and outward bound to and from the port of New York by way of Sandy Hook. Homer Ramsdell Co. v. La Compagnie Générale Trans-Atlantique (1901), 182 U. S. 406. In the waters of the United States the regulation of pilotage has been left to the legislatures of the several States. The international code for preventing collisions was first adopted by act of Congress of April 29, 1864, now incorporated in section 4233 of the Revised Statutes, and was made applicable generally to the "vessels of the Navy and of the mercantile marine of the United States." By the act of March 3, 1885, 23 Statutes at Large, 438, Congress adopted the Revised International Regulations and made them applicable to "the navigation of all public and private vessels of the United States upon the high seas and in all coast waters of the United States," except such as are otherwise provided for. By section 2 all inconsistent laws were repealed, except as to the navigation of such vessels within the harbors, lakes, and inland waters of the United States. Held that Gedney Channel, a dredged passage about 1,100 feet wide, which constitutes the main entrance to New York Harbor, was as much a part of the inland waters of the United States, within the meaning of the act of 1885, as the harbor within the entrance, the intention of Congress being to allow the original code to |