Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

As to harbor regulations at Yokohama, see For. Rel. 1878, 486.
Concerning land regulations at Nagasaki, see For. Rel. 1875, II. 798, 802.
As to regulations concerning the sale of opium to foreigners, see For.
Rel. 1879, 609.

For regulations for the licensing of pilots and their approval by the
United States legation, see For. Rel. 1879, 617.

For correspondence concerning quarantine regulations in Japan and their
enforcement, see For. Rel. 1879, 657, 665, 670; For. Rel. 1880, 679.

(3) MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AT NAGASAKI.

§ 278.

A municipal council was formed at Nagasaki, Japan, composed of foreign consuls and prominent foreigners of different nationalities residing in the "foreign quarter." The council owed its existence to the voluntary action of the "land renters" among the foreign population, and regulations or ordinances were made by the council for general police purposes, including the licensing of public houses and places of entertainment. The question was raised by the United States legation in Japan whether actions could be maintained in the United States consuls' courts against American citizens for penalties for nonobservance of these municipal ordinances. Mr. Fish, who was then Secretary of State, while affirming the position he had always taken as to the limitations upon the power of the minister to make regulations (a power not belonging under the statutes to consuls), said that he conceived the question of the municipal ordinances to be different. He likened the ordinances in question to those made by municipal corporations in the United States for the preservation of the peace, morals, and good order of the community. It was true, he observed, that in the United States the municipal authorities acted under charters granted by the supreme legislative power of the State; but instances, he said, were not wanting" in which similar powers have been exercised by inchoate communities suddenly formed within the jurisdiction of the United States, and who, for the time being, finding themselves situated outside of any organized State or Territory, have been led by the dictates of prudence and necessity to form themselves into a voluntary political organization, frame codes of laws for the preservation of order and good government and the protection of the lives and property of the individuals composing such communities, and to establish tribunals for the administration and enforcement of such laws;" and the laws so enacted and administered had, so far as was known, been sanctioned by the Executive and the courts. Whether the ordinances in question were made by the foreign residents in the exercise of a power conferred upon them by the Jap

anese Government in the concession, or whether, in the absence of such a direct grant, they were tacitly sanctioned by that Government, it would, said Mr. Fish, seem to follow that they should be accepted as "the municipal law of the community," and as such their observance might be enforced by proceedings in the consular courts. American citizens, in common with the other foreign residents, enjoyed, said Mr. Fish, all the rights and privileges of such residents, and shared in the common protection afforded to persons and property resulting from ordinances of the character of those in question, and while they received the benefits of a regulated police they should not be free from charges for its support or from its control. In conclusion, however, it was observed that, in view of the imperfect information of the Department as to the source and origin of the powers claimed by the municipal council, it was not intended to give definite and final instructions till further information should be obtained.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, Jan. 20, 1876,
For Rel. 1876, 350; S. Mis. Doc. 89, 47 Cong. 1 sess. 197.

For the municipal regulations in the foreign quarter of Shanghai, China,
see S. Mis. Doc. 89, 47 Cong. 1 sess. 188-197.

(4) EXPULSION OF CONVICTS.

§ 279.

“I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch of the 21st of June last, No. 58.

"The seventh article of the treaty with Japan, of 1858 (12 Stat. 1057), provides that certain persons convicted of felony, or twice convicted of misdemeanor, shall lose their right of permanent residence in Japan, and the Japanese authorities may require them to leave the country. Our consular authorities are to determine a reasonable time for the convict to settle his affairs, not exceeding one year. When that time shall expire, the convict becomes an outlaw, not entitled to any of the benefits of our treaties with Japan. Such a state of circumstances, however, if known, will be apt to induce the convict to avoid the position in which the treaty between the two countries will have placed him. If he persists in remaining, the Government can not protect him against the consequences of his own determination.

"Consular courts have arrogated to themselves the power of banishing American convicts to the United States, and, as in the instance reported by you, to China. This is a form of punishment not known to our law, and if it has been overlooked, it has not been approved by this Department.

[blocks in formation]

"The principles upon which we resist the deportation of foreign criminals to the United States, and which may well estop us from sending American criminals to China, do not appear to afford any reason why we should not bring home, for punishment, our citizens who have been guilty of crime upon the high seas, or in countries where we reserve the jurisdiction for trial and punishment to our own tribunals."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. De Long, min. to Japan, Sept. 10, 1870, MS.
Inst. Japan, I. 354.

"American consuls can in no case refuse jurisdiction over American citi-
zens." (For. Rel. 1894, 377, citing For. Rel. 1879, 698.)

"The Department has consequently disapproved sentences of deportation whenever they have been pronounced by consuls of this Government as being a mode of punishment not recognized in this country." (Mr. Payson, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Buren, Nov. 23, 1878, For. Rel. 1879, 697.) It appears, however, that the Department of State, in an instruction of April 16, 1873, approved the sentence of the consular court that John Rogers should be imprisoned at hard labor for the term of one year and that he forfeit his right of residence in Japan." (For. Rel. 1894, 378.)

Where a person expelled by Japan under Art. VII. supra, returned to that country without permission, he remained subject to the consular jurisdiction, both civil and criminal. Japan might again exercise her right under the treaty to expel him, but so long as she refrained from doing so the treaty provisions as to consular jurisdiction applied no less to him than to other American citizens. (Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Abercrombie, June 22, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 390.) "The expulsion [under Art. VII., supra] can neither be decreed nor executed by our consul. . . . I infer from your dispatch that Lake has been arrested and is now confined under your order for refusing to leave the country. . . . Lake's expulsion must be effected by the Japanese authorities and they can not call upon you to assist in accomplishing it. You should therefore release him and abstain from all participation or interference in the proceedings which those authorities may take for his expulsion, except to see that he is not subjected by them to harsh treatment further than may be necessary to compel him to depart." (Mr. Strobel, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Abercrombie, consul at Nagasaki, Feb. 16, 1894, 144 MS. Inst. Consuls, 388.)

(5) WAREHOUSE REGULATIONS.

§ 280.

In the summer of 1898 Mr. Edward Lake, a citizen of the United States, complained of the action of the Japanese customs officials at Nagasaki in refusing him the privilege of transshipping 300 sacks of American flour to his vessel, called the Adventure. He had sought the privilege under an export entry in which he stated that the destination of the Adventure was uncertain." He subsequently made

another entry in which, in place of the word "uncertain," he inserted the word "Chefoo and ports." It appeared that the vessel had been lying at Nagasaki for some years and was used as a storeship under the cover of export clearances. The Japanese authorities at length declined to repeat the privilege unless the vessel should actually clear, maintaining that otherwise the customs regulations would be evaded and that the Government would be deprived of warehouse charges. The minister of the United States at Tokio held that the case was not one for diplomatic interference, unless an intention should be shown to cause the vessel to sail within a reasonable time and a clearance should be applied for for that purpose. The Department of State approved this decision, saying: "The enactment of suitable warehouse regulations by Japan is obviously a right enjoyed in common with all commercial nations, and its refusal to sanction a proceeding in clear evasion of such regulations, inasmuch as Lake & Company's evasion appears to have been to transship to a vessel lying in port goods with the intention not of clearing or shipping, but of making use of her as a storeship, does not call for any protest on the part of this Government."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, Oct. 8, 1898, For. Rei. 1898, 432.

(6) ABOLITION OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY.

§ 281.

By article 24 of the treaty of commerce and navigation between France and Japan, signed at Paris, August 4, 1896, it was provided that the treaty should not take effect in less than three years after its signature. Consequently, the treaty could not become operative before August 4, 1899, which was eighteen days after the date (July 17) fixed for the going into effect of the American and other revised treaties. In this way it appeared that French citizens would, from July 17 to August 4, enjoy by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause all the rights of other foreigners under the new treaties in matters of commerce and navigation, and besides extraterritoriality and freedom from taxation under the old treaties. As article 18 of the treaty between the United States and Japan, of November 22, 1894, provided that on July 17, 1899, consular jurisdiction should "absolutely and without notice cease and determine," and as articles 2 and 14 of the same treaty guaranteeing most-favored-nation treatment related only to matters of commerce and navigation, the United States held that a claim for continuance of American consular jurisdiction up to August 4 could not be maintained, but that American citizens were entitled to all privileges of trade and navigation that would be enjoyed by French citizens from July 17 to August 4.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Herod, chargé d'affaires, April 25, 1899,
For. Rel. 1899, 468.

It appears that the Austro-Hungarian like the French treaty did not go
into operation till August 4, while all the others took effect on
July 17. (Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State,
June 17, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 468.)

For rescripts and instructions issued by the Emperor of Japan and the
ministers of state respecting the operation of the new treaties,
together with the comments of the vernacular press on the same
subject, see Mr. Buck, min. to Japan, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State,
July 7, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, 469-476.

For a notification issued by the U. S. legation to American citizens
in Japan on the going into effect of the new treaties, see Mr. Buck,
min. to Japan, to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, July 11, 1899, For. Rel.
1899, 476.

"The closing year has witnessed a decided strengthening of Japan's
relations to other states. The development of her independent
judicial and administrative functions under the treaties which
took effect July 17, 1899, has proceeded without international fric-
tion, showing the competence of the Japanese to hold a foremost
place among modern peoples." (President McKinley, annual mes-
sage, Dec. 3, 1900.)
American vessels (of the Pacific Mail S. S. Co.) are amenable to Jap-
anese law to the same extent that a Japanese merchant vessel
would be amenable to American law in American waters." (Mr.
Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Gowey, Sept. 5, 1899,
169 MS. Inst. Consuls, 185.)

66

"The treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Japan on November 22, 1894, took effect in accordance with the terms of its XIXth Article on the 17th of July last, simultaneously with the enforcement of like treaties with the other powers, except France, whose convention did not go into operation until August 4th, the United States being, however, granted up to that date all the privileges and rights accorded to French citizens under the old French treaty. By this notable conventional reform Japan's position as a fully independent sovereign power is assured, control being gained of taxation, customs revenues, judicial administration, coasting trade, and all other domestic functions of government, and foreign extraterritorial rights being renounced.

"Comprehensive codes of civil and criminal procedure according to western methods, public instruction, patents and copyrights, municipal administration, including jurisdiction over the former foreign settlements, customs tariffs and procedure, public health, and other administrative measures have been proclaimed. The working of the new system has given rise to no material complaints on the part of the American citizens or interests, a circumstance which attests the ripe consideration with which the change has been prepared."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »