they can in any degree supersede, the requirements of the laws of the State of which the testator was a resident or where the bulk of his property may be situated as it is well known that it is under the latter laws the estate must be settled." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Woodward, March 15, 1879, 127 MS. Dom. As to consular jurisdiction in divorce cases, see Mr. Comanos, acting consul-general at Cairo, to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, September 10, 1884. This dispatch enclosed a copy of an order issued by Mr. S. Wolf, consul-general, February 27, 1882, entertaining an action of Habil Naggiar for divorce a vinculo matrimonii from his wife." The American consular courts in Turkey alone have the right to decide who are the heirs of a deceased American citizen in that country, including the question of who was his wife. Mr. Leishman, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, No. 593, Oct. 6. 1903, enclosing copy of a note of Tewfik Pasha, Turkish minister of foreign affairs of Oct. 5, 1903, stating that the council of ministers had decided that it belonged to the jurisdiction of the United States consulate to determine who was the wife of Leon Manoukian, a deceased American citizen. A question of inheritance was involved. (74 MS. Desp. from Turkey.) "Your despatch No. 510 of November 12, 1887, has been received and read with great interest. The novel and important question to which it relates appears to be completely answered by you, and in your conclusions the Department entirely concurs. It may be accepted, therefore, as the opinion of this Department that the powers of the consular courts over lunatics, are, in this respect, analogous to those of courts of chancery. Those powers extend to the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics. A court of chancery may appoint a committee of the person and a committee of the estate, and may give directions touching the estate of lunatics. A court of chancery may appoint a committee of the person and a committee of the estate, and may give directions touching the expenditure of the funds belonging to the lunatic for the support and maintenance of himself and those dependent upon him. "With the care of pauper lunatics, courts of chancery of course can have nothing to do. That is a matter to be governed by such regulations as each particular community may see fit to make for the relief of their poor. "If, therefore, the case should arise of an American citizen in China becoming insane and having no funds whatever of his own, the a MSS. Dept. of State. question would not have to be dealt with as one affecting the jurisdiction of the consular courts, but as one relating to the care of an American citizen suffering from a severe bodily disease. "The Department has in its control no regular fund out of which the expenses for the maintenance of lunatics, or their transportation to the United States, could be paid. No appropriation has ever been made, so far as I am advised, for this purpose, and indeed the question seems never to have been suggested. I think, however, in an extreme case the Department would probably be willing to draw on the emergency fund for necessary expenses in such an extreme and obvious case of humanity; but it is unnecessary to anticipate an event which may never occur. Should the necessity of dealing with such a case arise, consuls must be guided by the facts of the particular case in affording such relief as may be in their power." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, Jan. 10, 1888, MS. Prior to the conclusion of the treaty with Samoa, it was held that section 30 of the 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, prescribed and limited the judicial powers of the American consul at Apia. In this relation, the Department of State said: "Questions involving the title to land are not within the jurisdiction of the consul. It is thought, however, that in the case of a right of possession as between landlord and tenant, if such a relation exists there, or when two persons are claiming possession adversely to each other of the same land under a contract or agreement, the consul might exercise jurisdiction." Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, consul at Apia, Under sections 4085 and 4127, Revised Statutes, United States consuls appointed to reside in Morocco and other Barbary States may entertain civil suits against citizens of the United States there resident in respect of causes of action which arose elsewhere. Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Mathews, consul at Tangier, July 8, As to the question of the jurisdiction of the Moorish tribunals in cases Appeals to the A consular court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and all the jurisdictional facts must be alleged in the libel or petition; otherwise it will be insufficient. In cases of appeal from the consular and ministerial courts of China and Japan to the circuit court of the United States for the district of California, the record on appeal must show an allowance of the appeal. A citation is necessary, unless the appeal is allowed in open court, though it may be questioned whether a citation is not always necessary, if the consular court has once adjourned after rendering a decree, there being no terms of such courts. Steamer Spark v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawyer, 713. See, also, Forbes v. Scannell, 13 Cal. 242. "I have received your No. 332, of March 11, 1887, in which you discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the United States minister to China. As a "I concur with you in the opinion that there is no appeal from a consular court in China to the United States minister in cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $2,500; but that the appeal in such cases is to be to the circuit court for the district of California. This is in my judgment the proper construction of the statutes. matter of judicial practice, the vesting of appeals in such cases in the circuit court for the district of California has been accepted by that court. In the case of The Ping-On, before Sawyer and Hoffman, JJ., in March, 1882 ( 7 Sawyer's Rep. 483), the question was vigorously contested, and it was claimed that sections 4092, 4093, 4094, and 4109, giving jurisdiction, were in this respect annulled by section 4107. But this position was rejected by Hoffman, J., who thus states the law: "The provisions of sections 4094, 4109 and 4092 clearly indicate the system Congress intended to adopt. "In suits for $500 or less, the decision of the consular court is final, unless the consul sees fit to call in associates and they differ in opinion. In suits for more than $500 and not more than $2,500 an appeal lies to the minister, whose judgment is final. In suits. for more than $2,500 the appeal lies to the circuit court for the district of California, and a similar appeal lies from the final judgment of the minister in the exercise of original jurisdiction when the amount involved exceeds $2,500. But this original jurisdiction is confined to cases where the consul is interested either as party or witness. It thus appears that Congress has seen fit to withhold, both from the consular court and from the minister, final jurisdiction in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $2,500, exclusive of costs, and to provide in such cases for an appeal to the circuit court for the district of California.' "I hold, therefore, that the right of appeal from the final judgment of consular courts in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $2,500 is in the circuit court for the district of California, and is, consequently, not in the United States minister." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, May 4, 1887, In 1868 the Pacific Mail Steamship Company asked the Department of state to set aside and declare null and void the proceedings of the United States consul at Kanagawa, Japan, who, sitting with three assessors, had rendered judgment against the company in an action for damages for collision, brought by the agents for the owner and master of the British steamer Osaca. The company had taken an appeal upon the merits from the judgment of the consul to the United States minister in Japan, who disallowed the appeal for want of jurisdiction on his part. The Department of State, replying to the company's protest, said that the United States consuls in Japan, in exercising judicial authority, acted as judges under a special law of Congress, which did not direct the President to review their judgments. The question of jurisdiction was one proper to be raised before the consul, and he was competent to pronounce upon it; and, had the question been so raised," it might have been thought proper for the Department of State, under the direction of the President, to review his decision upon this point and to affirm the same or set it aside after obtaining such information concerning facts as might be obtained from collateral inquiries, and such light upon the law as the Department could procure by reference to the AttorneyGeneral of the United States." But, while the act of Congress gave an appeal in certain cases to the minister in Japan, it made "no other provision for correcting errors which may be committed by a consular court. If the proceedings of the consul are absolutely null and void for want of jurisdiction in the consular court, as the respondents contend, then they probably have their remedy by action against the consul. The interests of commerce and of international peace require that judicial proceedings of consuls in Eastern countries should not be arbitrarily set aside or annulled by Executive interference, when there is no ground for a complaint that injustice has been done, or attempted to be done. The Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that the petition of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company in the present case must be disallowed, and the proceedings in the consular court be allowed to take their regular course." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Irwin, Aug. 18, 1868, 49 MS. Desp. to In October, 1893, the United States consular court at Tamatave, Mada- pany, a British corporation, against Mr. George Ropes, an American 66 (Mr. Mr. Hubbard, United States minister to Tokio, having communicated to the Department of State his opinion, rendered in the ministerial court of the United States of America for Japan, in the case of The People of the United States of America v. John Kernan, charged with murder, the Department of State replied that, as the "case can come before the Department for revision only on application for pardon, and as such an application can not be made until final judgment," the Department, since the case was remanded for a new trial, could do no more than express its satisfaction with the ability with which Mr. Hubbard had discharged his duties. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the Atty. Gen., Dec. 2, 1887, 166 MS. Dom. (5) CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. § 266. Criminal jurisdiction of United States consular courts being expressly restricted by section 4084, Revised Statutes, to offences committed by citizens of the United States in the countries in which the consuls vested with judicial powers are Its scope. |