II. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION-Continued. 6. China. (1) Establishment of extraterritorial privileges. § 270. (2) United States treaties. § 271. (3) Regulations. § 272. (4) Shanghai municipal ordinances. § 273. (5) Prevention of opium trade. § 274. (6) Mixed court at Shanghai. § 275. (3) Municipal ordinances at Nagasaki. § 278. (4) Expulsion of convicts. § 279. (5) Warehouse regulations. § 280. (6) Abolition of extraterritoriality. § 281. 8. Morocco and other Barbary powers. § 282. 9. Turkey. (1) Origin and extent of extraterritoriality. § 283. (2) Article IV., treaty of 1830. § 284. Notes by Messrs. Davis and Adee. Report by Mr. Dainese, 1852. Report by Mr. Brown, 1857. Views of Mr. Cass, 1859. Position of Mr. Fish, 1869. Case of Kelly, 1877. Mirzan's case, 1879. Correspondence of 1884-1889. Case of Proios. Gurdjian's case, 1890; Mr. Blaine's offer. Correspondence of 1900-1901. (3) Practice of European powers. § 285. Germany. Great Britain. Italy. The Netherlands. Portugal. Switzerland. (4) Mixed courts in Egypt. § 286. Their jurisdiction and its limitations. 10. Practice of protection. (1) Policy of the United States. § 287. General rules. Native employees of consulates. (3) Morocco. § 289. (4) Consular jurisdiction. § 290. III. QUESTIONS OF ASYLUM. 1. The "right of asylum." § 291. 2. Early diplomatic privileges and their decadence. § 292. 3. Survivals of asylum in Europe. § 293. III. QUESTIONS OF ASYLUM-Continued. 66 (3) Chile. § 297. (4) Colombia. § 298. (5) Ecuador. § 299. (6) Hayti and Santo Domingo. § 300. (7) Mexico. § 301. (8) Paraguay. § 302. (9) Peru. § 303. (10) Venezuela. § 304. 6. Asylum in vessels. (1) Ships of war. § 305. (2) Merchant vessels. § 306. (3) Passengers in transit. § 307. 1. FOREIGN SOVEREIGNS. 1. THEIR PERSONS. $ 250. This perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and this common interest impelling them to mutual intercourse and an interchange of good offices with each other, have given rise to a class of cases in which every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete, exclusive territorial jurisdiction which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation. "First. One of these is admitted to be the exemption of the person of the sovereign from arrest or detention within a foreign territory. . "Second. A second case, standing in the same principles with the first, is the immunity which all civilized nations allow to foreign ministers.. "Third. A third case in which a sovereign is understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction is, where he allows the troops. of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions." Marshall, C. J., Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 137, 138, 139. As to the incapacity of the courts of one country to take jurisdiction of The subject of the immunities of foreign ministers is discussed hereafter. The Sultan of Johore came to England incognito, and lived in London under the name of Albert Baker. An action was subsequently brought against him for breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff alleging that she had known him as Albert Baker, and believed that that was his name, and that he had promised to marry her and had afterwards broken his promise. A motion was made in behalf of the defendant to stay all proceedings in the action, on the ground that he was the sovereign of an independent state in the Malay Peninsula, and that the courts therefore had no jurisdiction over him. As evidence of his sovereign character there was a letter written and signed on behalf of the secretary of state for the colonies, stating, in answer to an inquiry made by the court, that Johore was an independent state, and that the defendant was the sovereign ruler of it. The court held that this letter, sent by the secretary of state in his official capacity, was in effect a certificate from the Queen and rendered further inquiry as to the sovereign character of the defendant unnecessary. The character of the defendant as a sovereign prince being thus established, the court held that he had not forfeited the privilege of exemption from judicial process by coming to England and living there under a false name. The judges all concurred in the view that a foreign sovereign could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, unless he voluntarily submitted to it, and that he was not required to elect whether he would submit to the jurisdiction till the court sought to subject him to its process. Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, Court of Appeal, L. R. 1894, Q. B. D., I. 149; The provision of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, which makes the decree of the circuit court of appeals final where the jurisdiction depends on "the opposite parties" to the suit "being aliens and citizens of the United States or citizens of different States," does not apply to the case of a foreign sovereign who submits his case to the courts, such sovereign not being an "alien" or "foreign citizen" within the meaning of the statute. Colombia v. Cauca Co. (1903), 190 U. S. 524. 2. MILITARY FORCES. § 251. "Military forces enter the territory of a state in amity with that to which they belong, either when crossing to and fro between the main part of their country and an isolated piece of it, or as allies. passing through for the purposes of a campaign, or furnishing garrisons for protection. In cases of the former kind, the passage of soldiers being frequent, it is usual to conclude conventions, specifying the line of road to be followed by them, and regulating their transit so as to make it as little onerous as possible to the population among whom they are. Under such conventions offenses committed by sol diers against the inhabitants are dealt with by the military authorities of the state to which the former belong; and as their general object in other respects is simply regulatory of details, it is not necessary to look upon them as intended in any respect to modify the rights of jurisdiction possessed by the parties to them respectively. There can be no question that the concession of jurisdiction over passing troops to the local authorities would be extremely inconvenient; and it is believed that the commanders, not only of forces in transit through a friendly country with which no convention exists, but also of forces stationed there, assert exclusive jurisdiction in principle in respect of offenses committed by persons under their command, though they may be willing as a matter of concession to hand over culprits to the civil power when they have confidence in the courts, and when their stay is likely to be long enough to allow of the case being watched. The existence of a double jurisdiction in a foreign country being scarcely compatible with the discipline of an army, it is evident that there would be some difficulty in carrying out any other arrangement." Hall, Int. Law (4th ed.), § 56, p. 206. As examples of conventions, Hall cites those between Prussia and Hanover in 1816, and between Prussia and Brunswick in 1835, De Martens, Nouv. Rec. IV. 321, and Nouv. Rec. Gén. VII. i. 60. See, also, Bar, Private Int. Law, § 145; Fiore, Droit Int. §§ 513-514; Rivier, Principes, I. 333. These authorities, it may be observed, refer to organized forces exercising See Tucker v. Alexandroff (1902), 183 U. S. 424; Schooner Exchange v. Individual officers and men. A question as to the protection due to a military officer of a foreign government was raised in the case of the wellknown Austrian commander, Marshal Haynau. September 4, 1850, that officer, accompanied by two other persons, paid a visit of inspection to the brewery of Barclay, Perkins & Co., in London. Marshal Haynau had been the object of much execration in some of the English journals on account of his course as commander of the Austrian forces in Hungary, and when it became known that he was present, nearly all the laborers and draymen ran out with brooms and dirt, shouting "Down with the Austrian butcher," and uttering other alarming epithets. marshal was soon covered with dirt, and, perceiving some of the men about to attack him, he ran into the street to Bankside, chased by a mob and belabored with all sorts of weapons. He finally took refuge in a public house, where he was rescued by the police." Next a Annual Register, 1850, p. 110. The |