this view, the Imperial Government having always adhered to the position "that the obligation of notifying the imperial consular officers concerned extends, if not to all official proceedings of American local authorities on board German merchant vessels, at least to all such as affect the interests of the vessel or its service." Various precedents were referred to in which the United States had, it was maintained, admitted that the provisions of the treaty governed the case of an attachment. The Imperial Government, it was said, conceded that an attachment must in most cases be executed without delay, but this was not thought to lend support to the opinion of the Attorney-General, since in the opinion of the Imperial Government “a notification given immediately after entering upon " the execution of an official proceeding would be deemed sufficient where loss of time in giving previous notice would defeat the object of the process. The concurrence of the United States in this view was requested." The Department of State again consulted the Attorney-General, who adhered to the previous opinion of his Department." "I have the honor to state that I have given careful consideration to your letter of November 19 and to the note from the German embassy which you inclose, with its accompanying papers, relative to the construction of Article XII. of the convention of 1871 between the United States and Germany. The language of that article is that the judicial authorities and custom-house officials shall in no case proceed to the examination or search of merchant vessels without having given previous notice to the consular officers of the nation to which the said vessels belong, in order to enable the said consular officers to be present.' The concluding paragraph of the article provides for giving such notice when statements by officers or members of a crew are to be made in court or before a magistrate, in order to prevent error or false interpretation which might impede the correct administration of justice. "The view of Mr. Griggs (letter of February 26, 1901), to which the embassy's note refers, was that the service of a writ of attachment upon a vessel is not within the language or the intent of this article of the treaty, especially since immediate service of such writ is often the very essence of the right of a claimant or creditor. The note of the German embassy, while claiming that the service of attachments is covered by the language of Article XII., concedes generally that when the object of the proceedings can otherwise not be attained, or be attained but partially, the obligation to give previous notice is so far qualified, and that the proximity of a vessel's departure justifies the a Count Von Quadt, German chargé, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Nov. 8, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 163. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. von Holleben, German ambassador, Jan. 6, 1902, For. Rel. 1901, 164. failure to notify before the attachment is effected, provided due notice is subsequently given. "On review of the entire subject, I concur in the conclusion announced in my predecessor's letter of February 26, 1901, viz, 'that the reasons are obvious why the service of an ordinary attachment was not intended to be and was not in fact embraced in the proceedings which require previous notice under Article XII of the treaty.'” Mr. Knox, At. Gen., to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Dec. 28, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 165. See Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to the governor of Virginia, Nov. 2, 1897, 222 MS. Dom. Let. 177; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Baron von Richenau, Nov. 2, 1897, MS. Notes to German Leg. XII. 97; Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Baron von Richenau, Nov. 9, 1897, MS. Notes to German Leg. XII. 98. Germany, Dec. 11, 1871, Art. XIII. By section 24 of the act of December 21, 1898, touching advance wages and allotment of wages to seamen, the provisions were declared to be applicable to foreign as well as to American vessels, and like penalties were imposed in both cases. A reservation, however, was made with regard to the conflicting stipulations of treaties. The German Government took the ground that the application of the section to German vessels would conflict with Article XIII. of the treaty of December 11, 1871. Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, Oct. 12, 1899, 240 MS. See, supra, the correspondence with France, in 1885, as to Art. VIII. of Italy, May 8, 1878, A seaman of an Italian bark at Savannah, Ga., applied to a justice of the peace to obtain payment of wages and a discharge, under sections 4546 and 4547 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, alleging as the ground on which his discharge was asked that he had been assaulted on board ship by the master. A summons was issued, but the master declined to appear, on the strength of Article XI. of the consular convention between the United States and Italy of September 18, 1878, which confers upon the consular officers of the contracting parties exclusive cognizance of "questions of whatever kind that may arise, both at sea and in port, between the captain, officers, and seamen, without exception," on merchant vessels of their respective nations. The justice of the peace then issued his certificate to the clerk of the United States district court, under section 4547, Revised Statutes, but the clerk, on the ground of the provisions of the treaty, declined to issue any process. Subsequently the seaman also filed a libel in the United States district court for the recovery of his wages. The court likewise refused to issue any process. In so holding, however, the court intimated an opinion that if the libel, instead of being confined to the question of wages, had contained a prayer for the discharge of the seaman on account of assault, the decision might have been different, it being doubted whether the consular jurisdiction under the treaty applied to "an unjustifiable assault by the master upon the seaman on board ship, an assault which would indi- · cate settled hostility and probable repetition while in port." The Italian legation called this dictum to the attention of the Department of State and suggested that it be corrected in order to prevent any “unlawful interpretation" of the treaty. The Department of State replied that, as the jurisdiction of the consul was sustained, the decision of the court brought the dispute to an end, but that if the case had been otherwise, the only mode of obtaining a correction of the court's judgment would have been by appeal. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ferrara, Italian chargé, Jan. 10, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 646, citing For. Rel. 1883, 9-31. The opinion of the court is printed in For. Rel. 1887, 643–646. The Italian chargé enclosed with his note a copy of a letter of the district See, however, New York Daily Register, March 13, 1875, cited in For. That questions of jurisdiction are primarily of judicial cognizance, see Questions having arisen as to the interpretation of Article XI. of the convention with Italy of May 8, 1878, a supplementary article was concluded February 24, 1881, by which it was provided that "in case any disorder should happen on board of vessels of either party, in the territorial waters of the other," the local tribunals should not. "on any pretext interfere except when the said disorders are of such a nature as to cause or be likely to cause a breach of the peace or serious trouble in the port or on shore; or when, in such trouble or breach of the peace, a person or persons shall be implicated, not forming a part of the crew." In 1900 the courts of Florida took cognizance of the crime of murder committed by a seaman on the Italian brigantine Pieta, while at anchor in Pensacola Bay. The Italian ambassador protested against the action of the Florida authorities, the Italian consular agent reporting that the tranquillity of the port was not disturbed by the crime. The Department of State declined to accept this interpretation of the treaty, and referred to Wildenhus's case, 120 U. S. 1. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Baron Fava, Ital. amb., July 19, 1900, MS. In 1879 the Attorney-General was requested to take such steps as might Feb. 8, 1868, and Art. X. 66 "A question has recently arisen between this Government and that of Italy in regard to the proper construction of Article X. of the convention of February 8th, 1868, between the United States and Italy. The question may best be stated by a brief synopsis of the case out of which it arose. The American bark C. II. Foster, while on a voyage from New York to Pozzuoli, loaded with petroleum, was obliged by stress of weather to cast overboard a part of the cargo in order to save the vessel and remaining freight. On her arrival at Pozzuoli, the captain went before the United States consul at Naples and extended his protest in accordance with the facts. A copy of this document was duly forwarded by the consul to the customs authorities and was at first received without any objection. When the vessel was ready to sail, however, it was insisted by the local officers that this mode of proof was not competent in cases of jettison, and the question having been brought to the notice of the Department, correspondence ensued between the two Governments as to the true interpretation of the article in question. This correspondence has resulted in a concurrence of views between this Department and the Italian council of state, the Government of Italy conceding that the construction of the article contended for by this Government is the correct one. The Italian minister for foreign affairs in a note of the 3d of February 1879 to the minister of this Government at Rome, says: The council of state to which the question was submitted has expressed the opinion that Article X. of the consular convention between Italy and the American Union should be broadly interpreted, that is to say, in the sense that the evidence of captains and crews given before their consuls and the written depositions relating thereto be accepted by the custom-house as legal proof of damage, until evidence to the contrary before the judicial authority, as is practiced in the case of depositions taken before presidents of tribunals of commerce and pretors.' "Article X. of the consular convention of May 8th 1878 is similar in its provisions to Article X. in the convention of February 8th, 1868, upon which the foregoing construction was given. "It is deemed proper to bring the conclusion thus arrived at to your notice in order that it may serve as a guide to your official conduct in any similar cases that may arise within the jurisdiction of your consulate." XIII. Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to U. S. consuls in Italy, circular, May 14, 1880, MS. Circulars, II. 482. The right "to sit as judges and arbitrators in such differences as Sweden and Nor- may arise between the captains and crews," given to way, 1827, Art. consular officers by article 13 of the treaty with Sweden and Norway of 1827, is expressly qualified by the clause "unless the conduct of the crews or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity of the country," which includes all acts amounting to actual breaches of the public peace. It seems that a more enlarged jurisdiction is conferred upon consuls by some other treaties; e. g., with France, February 23, 1853; with the German Empire, December 11, 1871; with Italy, February 8, 1868. Taft, At.-Gen., 1876, 15 Op. 178. There is nothing in the treaty between the United States and Sweden and Norway which precludes the courts of Philadelphia County from taking jurisdiction of an indictment for assault and battery committed on board a Norwegian bark lying in the port of Philadelphia. Com. v. Luckness, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 363. Referring to your note of the 13th of February last, in regard to the case of Jacob Jacobsen, a seaman of the Norwegian bark Livingstone, at Philadelphia, to mine of the 19th of April and to subsequent conversation on the subject, I have the honor to state that I have given the matter careful consideration in connection with the views and suggestions of your note and the provisions of the XIIIth article of the treaty of 1827, between the United States and Sweden and Norway. The stipulations contained in the last clause of that article . . . are those under which it is contended by you that jurisdiction is conferred on the consular officers, not only in regard to such differences of a civil nature growing out of the contract or engagement of the seaman, but also as to disputes and controversies resulting from personal violence and involving offences for which the party may be held amenable under the local criminal law. "This Government does not view the article in question as susceptible of this broad interpretation. The jurisdiction conferred upon |