magistrates of this country, in the case of British vessels, has been brought to its notice by Her Majesty's government, promptly made such complaints the subject of inquiry and correction. "On the 19th of February, 1873, Her Majesty's minister at this capital brought to the attention of the Department a case, occurring at Galveston, Texas, in which the master of the British ship Bcephalus had been arraigned before a local State magistrate, who happened, also, to be a United States commissioner, upon the complaint of one Thomas Moffit, a seaman of that vessel, for an alleged assault. commenced while the ship was at sea and continued after her arrival at that port. The case was referred by this Department to the Attorney-General, and that officer instituted an immediate investigation. It was found, upon inquiry, that the magistrate in question had instituted the proceedings in his capacity of justice of the peace, an office which he held under the laws of the State of Texas, and not as United States commissioner, and that upon being advised by the United States district attorney for that district that it was not a matter of which either the authorities of the United States or of the State should take cognizance, the master being amenable to the laws of the nation to which his vessel belonged, the complaint was at once dismissed by the magistrate. In the same note the British minister complained of certain proceedings of two United States commissioners at New Orleans with reference to the discharge of seamen from a British vessel at that port, the seamen in question being citizens of the United States and claiming the interposition of the local authorities on that ground. These officers were also instructed that such interference with the police regulations established by Great Britain for the government of their merchant-vessels was contrary to the policy of this Government, and that even in cases where the right of the local magistrates to assert the jurisdiction was undoubted, its exercise should be avoided. These instructions have been adhered to, and there has since been no recurrence at that port of the interference then complained of. "In another case, which occurred at Charleston, S. C., and which was brought to the attention of the Department by Sir Edward Thornton in a note of the 6th of May, 1874, in which it appeared that John Bogan, a seaman of the British ship Amelie, complained before a United States commissioner of ill treatment received at the hands of the captain of that vessel. It turned out, upon inquiry, that the commissioner was not advised of the nationality of the vessel when he issued his warrant of arrest, and, that as soon as the fact was disclosed to him that the occurrences complained of took place upon a British vessel, he promptly advised the United States district attor ney of that circumstance, and, upon the advice of the latter officer, immediately dismissed the complaint. “In these several cases, occurring in the United States, it must also be noticed that the proceedings were taken by petty or inferior magistrates, who may not reasonably be supposed to be learned in the law, while in the case of the Lathley Rich, at Hong-Kong, the proceedings were commenced before a nisi prins court, and ultimately heard and determined on appeal before the supreme court of the colony, and the same is true of some cases which occurred at Melbourne. "The instances thus given, taken in connection with the practice and doctrine laid down by Mr. Justice Betts in the United States court for New York, sitting in admiralty, to which I adverted in my No. 476 to you, serves to show the uniform regard in which these principles of international comity and convenience have been held by the Government of the United States. "It is therefore with regret that I notice the absence of a reciprocal respect for these principles in the administration of the local courts of Great Britain, and particularly in Her Majesty's colonies, in their proceedings towards American merchant-vessels. 66 Bearing in mind the views expressed in my former instruction, (No. 476,) it is desired that you will take the earliest favorable opportunity of bringing to the attention of Her Majesty's Government the case of the Lathley Rich, now transmitted in connection with the general question of the jurisdiction referred to, and you will represent to Earl Derby the interest felt by this Government in the adop tion of such measures by that of Great Britain as will prevent a recurrence of such cases, and be effective, especially as regards the colonial courts, in putting a stop to this exercise of jurisdiction, at ̧ once injurious to the interests of the vessels which may be the subjects of it, and the possible cause of international inconvenience to two nations so largely interested in the commerce of the world as are those of the United States and Great Britain." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Schenck, March 12, 1875, For. Rel. 1875, "The state of international law on the subject of private vessels in foreign ports. . . may be said to be this: So far as regards acts done at sea before her arrival in port, and acts done on board in port, by members of the crew to one another, and so far as regards the general regulation of the rights and duties of those belonging on board, the vessel is exempt from local jurisdiction; but, if the acts done on board affect the peace of the country in whose port she fies, or the persons or property of its subjects, to that extent that state has jurisdiction. The local authorities have a right to visit all such vessels, to ascertain the nature of any alleged occurrence on board. Of course, no exemption is ever claimed for injuries done by the vessel to property or persons in port, or for acts of her company not done on board the vessel, or for their personal contracts or civil obligations or duties relating to persons not of the ship's company." Dana's Wheaton, § 95, note 58. Treaties and leg islation. (3) AUTHORITY OF CONSULS. § 206. By various treaties between the United States and other powers, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon consuls over disputes between the masters, officers, and crews of vessels of their respective nations, including questions of wages. To this jurisdiction an express exception is usually made as to offences that disturb the peace or tranquillity of the port." In June, 1844, the crew of the Prussian ship Borussia, while at New Bedford, Massachusetts, refused to obey the master. July 7, 1845, the Prussian minister at Washington, complained that the judicial authorities of the United States in Massachusetts, when appealed to for assistance in enforcing the decision of the Prussian consul-general, pursuant to Art. X. of the treaty with Prussia of 1828, had failed to interfere on the ground that no law had been passed by Congress to give effect to the article. The Department of State on inquiry found that "the late Judge Story had arrived at the conclusion that he did not possess the power to give effect to the 10th article of the treaty, without an act of Congress;" and the Department," although by no means satisfied with the correctness of this opinion," stated that it perceived "no other means of obviating this evil, and of giving full effect to like decisions of His Prussian Majesty's consuls but the passage of a law framed for this express purpose." It was further stated that the whole subject would be submitted to Congress at its next session." Article 10 of the treaty with Prussia of 1828 provides that the consuls, vice-consuls, and commercial agents of each party "shall have the right, as such, to sit as judges and arbitrators in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their charge, without the interference of the local authorities," subject to the right of the contending parties" to resort, on their return, to the judicial authority of their country," and to the right of the consuls, vice-consuls, and a The authority of consuls under these stipulations is ministerial only, not judicial. (Cushing, At. Gen. 1857, 8 Op. 380.) Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Baron von Gerolt, Prussian min., Nov. 4, 1845, MS. Notes to German States, VI. 121.) commercial agents to require the assistance of the local authorities "to cause their decisions to be carried into effect or supported." The crew of a Prussian vessel sued in rem, in admiralty, in the-district court, to recover wages alleged to be due to them. The master of the vessel answered, denying the debt, invoking the protection of said treaty, denying the jurisdiction of the court, and averring that the claim for wages had already been adjudicated by the Prussian consul at New York. The consul also protested formally to the court against the exercise of its jurisdiction. The case was tried in the district court, and it appeared that the consul had adjudicated on the claim for wages. The district court decreed in favor of the libellants. It was held that the district court had no jurisdiction of the case. The Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatch. 438. As to the general effect of similar treaty stipulations in the United States, see Williams r. Welhaven, 55 Fed. Rep. 80. As to jurisdiction of offences affecting the peace or tranquillity of the port, see the cases given below in connection with particular treaty stipulations, and particularly Wildenhus's case, 120 U. S. 1, under the treaty with Belgium, infra, p. 303. "The act to enforce treaty provisions respecting disputes between masters and crews was approved June 11, 1864. It is not to take effect as to the ships or vessels of any nation, unless the President shall have been satisfied that similar provisions have been made by the other contracting party for the execution of the treaty, and shall have issued his proclamation to that effect. On the 10th of February, 1870, proclamation was made under this act as to the treaties with France, Prussia, and the other States of the North German Union, and Italy; and on the 11th of May, 1872, as to the treaty with Sweden and Norway. "This statute authorizes any court of record of the United States, or any judge thereof, or any commissioner appointed under the laws of the United States to take bail or affidavits, or for other judicial purposes whatsoever, to receive the application of the consular officer, to issue process against the person complained of, and if it shall appear, on his being returned before the magistrate, that he is not a citizen of the United States, and if a prima facie case shall be made out that the matter concerns only the internal order and discipline or the foreign vessel, and does not affect directly the laws of the United States or the rights and duties of any citizen, then the magistrate shall commit the seaman to prison to abide the lawful order or control of the master: provided the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the consular officer, and the seaman shall not be detained for more than two months after his arrest." Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Treaty Notes, Treaty Vol. (1778-1887), 1279. For the proclamation of Feb. 10, 1870, see 16 Stat. 1130; proclamation of The Department of State declined to issue a proclamation in the case of "Whatever embarrassment this [the absence of a proclamation under the act of June 11, 1864, supra,] might create in the way of affirmative action, such as ordering the arrest of a deserter, it is suggested that the operation [of Art. X.] of the treaty" with Prussia, of 1828, would," without the aid of any statute," forbid the interference of the local authorities in differences between masters and crews. "The treaty being the supreme law of the land executes itself, for this restraining purpose." Mr. E. Peshine Smith, Solicitor of Department of State, to Mr. Cadwalader, July 2, 1869, 81 MS. Dom. Let. 349. "There has never been the slightest doubt as to the entire legality of extraterritorial jurisdiction when acquired in foreign ports by treaty. The first treaties creating such rights were concluded in 1787 and 1788, almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Constitution, and were understood by the framers of the Constitution as compatible therewith. In the next sixty years several other extraterritorial treaties were concluded, but no law was even deemed necessary to the execution of those treaties until 1848, and then the statute aimed simply to codify the treaty rights acquired in a convenient form; it could not create them. And finally the circuit courts of the United States have fully sustained the constitutionality of the existing statutes." 66 Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gardiner, Mar. 16, 1883, 146 MS. Generally speaking, the consul has jurisdiction of all disputes on shipboard, not affecting the peace of the port, but as this right is not specially conceded by treaty, it could only be claimed and exercised by comity, and in the absence of any competent claim of jurisdiction by the local courts, unless indeed the right may spring from Art. XXXIII. of said treaty [of 1864 with Hayti], the most favored nation clause." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Hayti, July 31, 1885, MS. Inst. Hayti, II, 511, referring to the case of an American man who had been arrested at Port au Prince on a charge of murdering a Haytian policeman in a drinking house. The Austrian chargé d'affaires having claimed, under the most-favorednation clause, the benefit of the provisions of the treaties between |