4. OTHER PUBLIC VESSELS. § 257. In a case involving the question of jurisdiction of a civil action against a Belgian mail packet which had been assimilated, by a special treaty stipulation, to a man-of-war, the English court of appeals said: “As a consequence of the absolute independence of every sovereign authority and of the international comity which induces every sovereign state to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, each and every one declines to exercise by means of any of its courts, any of its territorial jurisdiction over the person of any sovereign or ambassador of any other state, or over the public property of any state which is destined to its public use, or over the property of any ambassador, though such sovereign, ambassador or property, be within its territory, and therefore, but for the common agreement, subject to its jurisdiction." The Parlement Belge (Feb. 27, 1880), L. R. 5 P. D. 197, 217. See, also, 5. OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY. § 258. The judicial authorities, as thus disclosed, uniformly place the exemption of a foreign man-of-war from the local jurisdiction on the ground of its being the public property of a sovereign, engaged in public business. This principle has been applied to other public property. In 1878 an attempt was made in the English courts to prevent by injunction certain persons in England from putting on board Japanese vessels of war, building in that country, some shells which were manufactured in Germany and which were to be taken. to Japan. An injunction having been granted without prejudice to any question that might be raised, an application was made to the court on behalf of the Mikado and his envoy extraordinary in London for permission to remove the shells. This application was allowed. James, L. J., said: "The Mikado of Japan, who is a sovereign prince, bought in Germany a certain quantity of shells, which shells were lawfully made in Germany, although they were, as alleged, made upon the same principle as something which is the subject of a patent in this country. Those shells were bought by the Mikado for the purpose of his Government. He brought them into this country on the way to Japan, and he asks to be allowed to remove them from this country, that is to say, he asks that he shall not, by reason of something which was done between the plaintiff and some other persons, be interfered with in his removal of them to his own country. It seems to me that to refuse him that leave would be a very dangerous proceeding. If a tribunal of any foreign country were to deal with the ammunition of a British manof-war under those circumstances, or to refuse to permit the captain of a British man-of-war to remove his ammunition and shells, or anything else, I think that our country would consider it a very serious matter, and possibly demand reparation." Brett, L. J., said: "The Mikado has a perfect right to have these goods; no court in this country can properly prevent him from having goods which are the public property of his own country." Cotton, L. J., said: "This court has no jurisdiction, and, in my opinion, none of the courts in this country have any jurisdiction, to interfere with the property of a foreign sovereign, more especially with what we call the public property of the state of which he is sovereign as distinguished from that which may be his own private property.” Vavasseur v. Krupp, L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 351, 354, 359, 360, July 3, 1878. An attachment was obtained against the United States of Mexico, in the courts of the State of New York, in respect of certain movable property of the Mexican Government, with a view to secure by that means satisfaction for certain claims. Under instructions of the Attorney-General of the United States, the United States district attorney at New York appeared, and, calling attention as amicus curiæ to the court's want of jurisdiction, moved that the attachment be vacated. The motion was granted, the court saying that a foreign state could not be sued without its consent, and that, so far as jurisdiction was concerned, there was no difference between the sovereign and his property. Hassard v. United States of Mexico (1899), 61 N. Y. S. 939, 29 Misc. Rep. A copy of this opinion was communicated by Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to “So far as jurisdiction is concerned, there is no difference between suits "This principle [of the exemption of the sovereign] extends so far that a sovereign state, by coming into court as a suitor, does not thereby abandon its sovereignty and subject itself to an affirmative judgment upon a counter claim. People v. Dennison, 84 N. Y. 272; United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 490." (Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc. 511, 512.) See Valarino r. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 576, holding, as cited in Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc. 511, that the exemption, since it is the sovereign's, cannot be waived by his representative, without the former's assent. It was suggested that money deposited by a coal dealer in New York, with the Italian consul-general there, as security for the fulfillment of a contract to supply the Italian squadron with coal, was not liable to attachment in the consul-general's hands, at the suit of any private creditor of the depositor, "so long as the contract remains unfuifilled, or at least so long as Italy chooses to assert any rights in respect to it." Reference was also made to the provision in the treaty with Italy, touching the inviolability of consulates. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nicoll, June 19, 1893, 192 MS. Dom. Let. 385.) II. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. § 259. Owing to diversities in law, custom, and social habits, the citi zens and subjects of nations possessing European civilization enjoy in countries of non-European civilization, chiefly in the East, an extensive exemption from the operation of the local law. This exemption is termed "extraterritoriality." It is generally secured by treaties and in some instances is altogether based upon them, and its exercise is usually regulated by the legislation of the countries to whose citizens or subjects the privilege belongs. Under this system jurisdiction is exercised by foreign officials, most frequently the diplomatic and consular officers, over persons of their own nationality. See United States Consular Regulations (1896), §§ 612-653; Instructions Oct. 30, 1896, Mr. Olney asked that an estimate be submitted to Congress Nukualofa, Tonga, it being desired to extend the jurisdiction of this As to consular jurisdiction in Corea, see Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to For a collection of treaty provisions of the United States in regard to "The treaty also confides unusual powers to the consuls, they being made the exclusive judges of disputes among American citizens. This power is to be considered rather of a mediatory than of an authoritative character. It is only to be exercised in cases which will not admit of being delayed until the return of the parties to the United States, or in cases in which upon such return the courts of the United States could not exercise jurisdiction; and even in such cases it is to be exercised to no greater extent than the occasion may absolutely require. In all cases where you may be called upon under the treaty to decide disputes, you will, with the consent of the parties, endeavor to obtain the aid of some of your countrymen, if any suitable persons of that description are within your consulate. In your proceedings on such occasions, you will take as your guide the manner of proceedings in like cases in the United States, as far as circumstances permit. You will also observe those principles upon which our judicial institutions are founded; and will follow the laws of the United States and the decisions of our courts as far as they may be known to you. You will make a proper record of your proceedings and will report them to this Department." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Waters, consul for Zanzibar, Muscat, erty and their houses shall be inviolate. Should any consul, however, commit any offence against the laws of the kingdom, complaint shall be made to the President, who will immédiately displace him." It is to be observed that the foregoing instruction antedates by twelve years the statute of 1848, by which the judicial character of the consular jurisdiction was expressed and defined. The judicial functions of ministers and consuls of the United States, so far as they exercise such functions, are primarily regulated by treaties and statutes. The provisions of those treaties and statutes comprehend the territorial jurisdiction of the countries to which they apply, including their ports and navigable waters as well as their lands. The system thus established for the exercise of jurisdiction over American citizens, by methods different from those that are prescribed in the United States, is constitutional. In re Ross (1891), 140 U. S. 453. "Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration a question which has arisen with reference to the Government established de facto in the Fijian Islands, namely, whether beyond the limits of the new state, British subjects, so long as the new state is not recognized, can be accepted as citizens of it, and exempted from British jurisdiction in respect of acts done by them or engagements entered into with them. A reference has been made to the law officers of the Crown, who have advised Her Majesty's Government that British subjects beyond the limits of the new state, not yet duly recognized, should not be accepted as citizens of the new state, nor be held exempted from British jurisdiction for acts done by them on British territory or on board ships which ought to be navigated under the British flag.' And further that they should not be held exempt from British jurisdiction for engagements entered into with them in cases where the validity or construction of such engagements would properly and in ordinary course be triable before a British tribunal. They are further of opinion that Her Majesty's Government may interfere with the acts and engagements of British subjects within Fiji, and may declare certain acts and engagements to be legal or illegal in the case of British subjects within Fiji.” Earl of Kimberly, colonial secretary, to the governors of Australian colonies, Aug. 14, 1872, Parl. Pap. C. 983, April, 1874, 22-23. See sec. 30, act of June 22, 1860, investing with judicial functions consuls and commercial agents of the United States at islands or in countries not inhabited by any civilized people, or recognized by any treaty with the United States. (12 Stat. 72, 78.) The consular courts of the United States at Honolulu have the exclusive right of determining disputes occurring among the crew of a |