the consuls is conceived to be limited to their right to sit as judges or arbitrators in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels, where such differences do not involve on the part of the captain or crew, a disturbance of the order or tranquillity of the country. When, however, a complaint is made to a local magistrate, either by the captain or one or more of the crew of the vessel, involving the disturbance of the order or tranquillity of the country, it is competent for such magistrate to take cognizance of the matter. in pursuance of the local laws; and under such circumstances in the United States, it becomes a public duty which the judge or magistrate is not at liberty voluntarily to forego. In all such cases it must necessarily be left to the local judicial authorities whether the procedure shall take place in the United States or in Sweden, to determine if in fact there has been such disturbance of the local order or tranquillity; and, if the complaint is supported by such proof as results in the conviction of the party accused, to visit upon the offender such punishment as may be denounced against the offence by the municipal law of the place. This is all that the judicial authorities at Philadelphia appear to have done, and I note with satisfaction from the report of my colleague, the Attorney-General, that Judge Pierce of the criminal court of Philadelphia County, before whom the case was finally tried, afforded every facility consistent with law, to the vice-consul of Sweden and Norway, to render effective such measures as that officer deemed it proper to inaugurate in the interest of the accused mate, and expressed his willingness to allow the vice-consul to take the case before the United States district court, if he so desired. "The trial appears to have been in every respect fair and impartial towards Mr. Lickness, the accused mate; and the punishment inflicted it must be admitted was very moderate. I need scarcely observe to you that in the United States, as in Sweden and Norway, a personal assault and battery involves a breach of the public peace and is held to be a disturbance of the order and tranquillity of the country. "In all cases in which it may become necessary and proper for the consular officers of Sweden and Norway to sit as judges or arbitrators in differences that may arise between the captain and crews of the vessels of their nation, this Government will cheerfully recognize such jurisdiction and will also find satisfaction in affording such aid, through its judicial and other officers, as may be necessary to cause their decisions to be supported and carried into effect." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Count Lewenhaupt, Swed. & Nor. min., July 30, 1880, MS. Notes to Swed. & Nor. VII. 204. Art. XIII. of the treaty of 1827, in excluding the interference of the local authorities, makes the qualification “ unless the conduct of the crews or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity of the country." In the case of two mates of the Swedish bark Fredrika and Carolina, who were fined by a justice of the peace at Galveston, Texas, on account of a “quarrel" that took place on board the vessel, the United States district attorney was instructed to take the necessary steps to have the proceedings dismissed, and the aid of the governor of Texas was invoked with a view "to guard against a repetition of similar proceedings." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grip, Swed. & Nor. chargé, May 6, 1876; Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Count Lewenhaupt, Swed. & Nor. min., May 17, 1877, MS. Notes to Sw. & Nor. VII. 92, 122.) As to the case of Captain Sorensen, of the Swedish or Norwegian ship Carl Angell, before the marine court of New York City, and to the opinion in Petersen v. Brockelmann, affirmed on appeal by the supreme court of New York, general term, see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Count Lewenhaupt, Oct. 25, 1877, MS. Notes to Sw. & Nor. VII. 134. The right of consular officers under the treaty with Sweden and Norway of July 4, 1827, 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" (Art. XIII.), applies to disputes as to wages. Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to the governor of Massachusetts, Aug. 20, 1892, 187 MS. Dom. Let. 624, acknowledging the latter's letter of Aug. 13; Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to gov. of Mass., May 3, 1894, 196 MS. Dom. Let. 586; Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Attorney-General, Jan. 9, 1895, 200 MS. Dom. Let. 186. This correspondence related to the arrest, at Boston, of Captain Tellefsen, of the Norwegian steamer Albert, by constable, who went on board the vessel to serve a summons issued by the municipal court of that city in a suit instituted by some of the seamen for wages. The captain having refused to accept the service, the constable forcibly arrested him. The captain, to secure his liberty, paid the claim, amounting to about $23, and also about $10 in costs, but afterwards sued the constable in the supreme court of the State, apparently for false imprisonment, and the jury, under instructions from the court, found for the defendant. The minister of Sweden and Norway then presented to the United States a claim for indemnity, amounting to about $130. The Department of State, in transmitting it to the governor of Massachusetts, said: "This language [of Art. XIII.] seems clearly to give jurisdiction of controversies about wages between captains and crews of Norwegian vessels to the Norwegian consul, and to exclude the jurisdiction of the local authorities over such controversies. Since treaties in this country are laws binding on all the courts, I can not but think that this treaty was not brought to the notice either of the municipal court . . . or of the judge who presided at the subsequent trial. I infer from the instructions given at the trial, of which the Norwegian minister has sent a copy to this Department, that the judge's attention was directed merely to the general question of local jurisdiction over foreign merchant ships in our ports. Viewed in this general light the instruction was undoubtedly correct, but I scarcely think the judge can have considered the question in the special light of the treaty." (Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to governor of Mass., May 3, 1894, 196 MS. Dom. Let. 586.) It seems that an appeal was afterwards taken from the verdict in favor of the constable. The Department of State requested the AttorneyGeneral if practicable to take such action as might be proper to protect the rights of jurisdiction conferred by the treaty. (Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Attorney-General, Jan. 9, 1895, 200 MS. Dom. Let. 186, enclosing copies of notes from the minister of Sweden and Norway of March 15 and 22, April 28, and May 22, 1894.) In the same communication the Department of State referred to another claim for indemnity in the case of the Swedish vessel Adele, whose master was arrested in December, 1893, at Brunswick, Georgia, on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, based on his detention of certain bags of clothing belonging to some seamen who had deserted because of the nonpayment of wages demanded by them. It seems that, although the provisions of the treaty were brought to the justice's attention, he ordered the master to be imprisoned till he should surrender the property. The decision of the justice was afterwards reversed by the superior court of Glynn County. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to governor of Georgia, Sept. 4, 1895, 204 MS. Dom. Let. 431.) The claim for indemnity, amounting to $295.64, was transmitted to the governor of Georgia. (Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to governor of Georgia, Sept. 4, 1895, 204 MS. Dom. Let. 431; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to governor of Georgia, Oct. 19, 1895, 205 MS. Dom. Let. 405, referring to a previous letter to the governor of Oct. 7.) The proceedings against the master of the Norwegian vessel Vestfold in 1884, on a complaint made by three seamen before a justice of the peace at Mobile, Alabama, in a dispute about wages, were, in view of the provisions of the treaty, "evidently void ab initio," and it was asked that such aid as might be proper be given to the Swedish and Norwegian vice-consul in having the judgment against the master vacated. (Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to the Attorney-General, Dec. 30, 1884, 153 MS. Dom. Let. 532; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to governor of Alabama, Dec. 30, 1884, id. 528.) Under Article XIII. of the treaty of 1827, between the United States and Sweden and Norway, providing that consuls shall have the right to sit as judges in differences between captains and crews of vessels belonging to their respective nations without interference of local authorities, the consul of Sweden and Norway, residing in Boston, has exclusive jurisdiction of a controversy as to wages between the captain of a Norwegian vessel lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal court of said city and one of the crew, also a Norwegian, who has left the ship because his term has expired. Telefsen . Fee (Mass.), 46 N. E 562. Fines, taxes, and seizures. 3. PROTESTS AGAINST ONEROUS EXACTIONS § 207. In 1873 complaint was made to the Spanish Government of the onerous burdens to which the trade of the United States was subjected by reason of the system of fines imposed by the customs authorities of Cuba. The same subject had been presented to the Spanish Government in 1870 and 1872. Complaint was made of the fines imposed on vessels for any variance between manifest and cargo, either in the weight or contents of packages, while the goods escaped all responsibility, as well as of fines imposed on vessels for want of a statement of the specific class of goods, although the generic class was stated in the manifest in conformity with the requirements of the Spanish laws, and the manifests were accepted and certified by the Spanish consul at the port of shipment. Complaint was also made of differences in the construction of the laws at the various ports in Cuba, of the onerous conditions imposed on appeals, and of the losses occasioned by the detention of vessels. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Gen. Sickles, min. to Spain, March 21, 1873, See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Gen. Schenck, March 22, 1873, MS. See Gen. Sickles, min. to Spain, to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, June 1, 1873, As to the fines imposed on the American bark Masonic, at Manila, in 1879, and the award of Baron Blane, as arbitrator, in favor of the United States, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1055–1069. In 1882 and 1883, a long correspondence took place between the United States and Spain in regard to the latter's consular tariff, and particularly to a tax of 40 cents a head imposed by Spanish consuls at Key West on cattle shipped to Cuba and Porto Rico, in addition to the usual consular fees for clearance and certification of papers. The United States protested against it as being virtually an export tax levied in the United States by Spain. Spain ultimately ordered the return of so much of the tax collected as was in excess of 10 per cent. Mr. J. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamlin, min. to Spain, Sept. 4, 1882, For. Rel. 1882, 478; Mr. Foster, min. to Spain, to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, Jan. 23, 1884, For. Rel. 1884, 474. See, for further discussion as to the Spanish consular tariff, and as to other Spanish charges, For. Rel. 1882, 455-459, 461, 463, 467, 470, 480, 486; For. Rel. 1883, 764, 771, 779, 791–795. "A controversy on a similar subject [to the cattle tax] took place a few years since between this Government and that of Hayti. A copy of the two principal instructions in regard to the subject from Mr. Evarts to the minister of the United States in that country is transmitted for your information. "The Haytian Government ultimately repealed the obnoxious tax." (Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamlin, min. to Spain, Sept. 22, 1882, For. Rel. 1882, 480.) "I have alluded in my previous messages to the injurious and vexatious restrictions suffered by our trade in the Spanish West Indies. Brazil, whose natural outlet for its great national staple, coffee, is in and through the United States, imposes a heavy export duty upon that product. Our petroleum exports are hampered in Turkey and in other Eastern ports by restrictions as to storage and by onerous taxation. For these mischiefs adequate relief is not always afforded by reciprocity treaties like that with Hawaii or that lately negotiated with Mexico and now awaiting the action of the Senate. Is it not advisable to provide some measure of equitable retaliation in our relations with governments which discriminate against our own? If, for example, the Executive were empowered to apply to Spanish vessels and cargoes from Cuba and Puerto Rico the same rules of treatment and scale of penalties for technical faults which are applied to our vessels and cargoes in the Antilles, a resort to that course might not be barren of good results." President Arthur, third annual message, 1883. See annual message of President Cleveland of Dec. 3, 1894, saying, among See, also, for further correspondence in relation to fines imposed on Fraud, when essential to sustain a custom-house confiscation, is only to be held to exist when plainly to be inferred from the facts. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Spain, Feb. 25, 1884; Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Spain, July 25, 1885. MS. Inst. Spain, XIX. 490; XX. 75. "The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Preston, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Hayti, of the 16th instant. |