tional complications arose during Washington's second administration over the attempt made by Citizen Genet, then minister from France to the United States, to establish prize courts in our ports for the condemnation of prizes taken by French vessels of war; the principle just enunciated was formulated at that time, and has ever since been maintained as an integral part of the law of this country.2 will entertain jurisdiction even wages under a contract which is against the protest of the consul. generally strict in its character, This branch of the subject will be and framed according to the laws found discussed in the following of the country to which the ship cases: The Catherina, 1 Pet. Adm. belongs; framed also with a view 104; The Forsoket, 1 Pet. Adm. 197; to secure, in accordance with those The St. Oloff, 2 Pet. Adm. 428; The laws, the rights and interests of Golubchick, 1 W. Roberts, 143; the ship-owners as well as those of The Nina, L. R. 2 Adm. 428, and master and crew, as well when the Eccl. 44; S. C. on appeal, L. R. 2 ship is abroad as when she is at Priv. Co. 38; The Leon XIII, 8 home. Nor is this special characProb. Div. 121; The Havana, 1 ter of the case entirely absent when Sprague, 402; The Becherdass Am- foreign seamen sue the master of baidass, 1 Lowell, 569; The Pawa- their ship for ill-treatment. On shick, 2 Lowell, 142. general principles of comity, Admiralty Courts of other countries will not interfere between the parties in such cases unless there is special reason for doing so, and will require the foreign consul to be notified, and, though not absolutely bound by, will always pay due respect to, his wishes as to taking jurisdiction." "Of course, if any treaty stipulations exist between the United States and the country to which a foreign ship belongs, with regard to the right of the consul of that country to adjudge controversies arising between the master and crew, or other matters occurring on the ship exclusively subject to the foreign law, such stipulations should be fairly and faithfully observed. The Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatchford, 438, reversing s. c., 4 Ben. 413; see s. c. on application for mandamus, Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152. Many public engagements of this kind have been en tered into between our government and foreign States. See Treaties and Conventions, Rev. Ed. 1873, Index, 1238. "In the absence of such treaty stipulations, however, the case of foreign seamen is undoubtedly a special one, when they sue for 2 Glass vs. Sloop Betsey, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1794, 3 Dallas,6,16, PER CURIAM. "No foreign power can of right institute, or erect any court of judicature of any kind, within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as may be warranted by, and in pursuance of treaties. It is, therefore, decreed and adjudged that the admiralty jurisdiction, which has been exercised in the United States by the Consuls of France, not being so warranted, is not of right," and referred to in Wharton's Digest, vol. I, p. 2. The courts of the United States and of the several States are clothed with complete jurisdiction to administer justice on any and every occasion that can possibly arise between litigants whether citizens or foreigners. Before the proper court any person, whether he be a foreigner or a citizen, can seek and obtain redress for injuries received or rights withheld; it is only through such courts that justice can properly be adininistered; one exception to this general rule, however, is where consuls of foreign countries have by treaty stipulations been clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine certain classes of cases in which citizens of their respective countries are interested; in those cases the courts of this country lose their jurisdiction, and the power of the consul to hear and determine the cause is exclusive.3 The Belgenland, U. S. Sup. Ct. | to the jurisdiction of the court the 1884, 114 U. S. 355, BRADLEY, J. Weiburg vs. The St. Oloff, U. S. Dist. Ct. Pa. 1790, Fed. Cases, 17,357, PER CURIAM. Same case, 2 Peter's Adm. 428. The Burchard, U. S. Dist. Ct. S. D. Ala. 1890, 42 Fed. Rep. 608, TOULMIN, J. Held that American seamen shipped on a German vessel from Buenos Ayres before the German consul could not, on arrival Mobile and before they were discharged, libel the ship for wages, as the German consul had exclusive jurisdiction under treaty of 1871. Also held that, if they had been discharged, the United States courts would have had jurisdiction after they ceased to be seamen of the vessel. at See also Feol vs. Salamoni, U. S. Dist. Ct. Ga. 1886, 29 Fed. Rep. 534, SPEER, J. treaty of 1852 with the Hanseatic League giving the consul jurisdiction over seamen's wages' cases on vessels of the Hanse towns. The court overruled the plea and held as follows: "The plea to the jurisdiction of the court, like a demurrer, admits the truth of the allegations contained in the libel, to wit: That the libellants are citizens of the United States; that the voyage was as stated; that the voyage ended at New Orleans; and that the libellants earned wages as mariners, serving on board of the Shakespeare during the whole of said voyage. Now the court has come to the conclusion that the differences spoken of in the article cited from the treaty of April 30, 1852, and which are made subject to the judgment and arbitration of consuls, vice-consuls, commercial and vice-commercial agents, are differences of such a nature as might possibly, if aggravated, disturb the Leavitt vs. The Shakespeare, U. S. Dist. Ct. La. 1871, Fed Cas. 8167, DURELL, J. American seamen libeled a Bremen ship for wages after completing the voyage at New Or-order and tranquillity of the counleans and leaving the vessel. The try-differences which touch the captain, a German, set up as a plea discipline of the ship. Certainly, The powers of consuls to act as judges to the exclusion of the courts of the countries to which they are accredited are, the naked question of whether wages are due or not due, is not a difference which can disturb either the order or the tranquillity of the country. Again the court does not consider it to have been the intention of the United States in making the treaty of April 30, 1852, to subject its citizens in a question of wages claimed or earned on board of a foreign ship, to the judgment or arbitration of a foreign consul or commercial agent; and this opinion of the court is supported by the last clause of the article cited, to wit: 'But this species of judgment or arbitration shall not deprive the contending parties of the right they have to resort on their return to the judicial authority of their own country.' This clause contemplates the return of the complaining mariner to his own country, where he may appeal from the adverse decision given by his consul at a foreign port; thus evidently restraining the application of the provisions of the article to such of the mariners as are subjects or citizens of the country whose flag their ship bears. In the case before the court, the libellants are citizens of the United States. They are already at home, and they have a right to resort to the judicial authority of their own country. Let the plea be overruled and dismissed." Williams vs. Welhaven, U. S. Dist. Ct. Ala. 1892, 55 Fed. Rep. 80, TOULMIN, J. The libellant, a citizen of the United States filed a libel for wages and damages against the Norwegian steamship, the Welhaven. where the libel was filed interposed, claiming that the matter was under his consular jurisdiction pursuant to treaty with Norway and Sweden. The court sustained the consul's contention in a brief opinion, the whole of which is as follows: "It has been held that, where an act of Congress is in conflict with a prior treaty, the act must control, as it is of equal force with the treaty and of later date, (Steamship Co. vs. Hedden, 43 Fed. Rep. 17), hence the contention of libellant's counsel could be sustained if the statute which he invokes in this case (Rev. St. §§ 4079-4081) was in conflict with the treaty between the United States and Norway and Sweden, which must govern the action of the court in the matter under consideration, or if such statute had any application to the case at all. But my opinion is that it is neither; that it is not in conflict with the treaty; and that it has no application to a case of this character. The earnest desire of this court to afford to seamen every right and protection authorized by the law, and the sympathy I have with that class of people to which libellant belongs, strengthened by the able and impressive argument of his counsel, induced me to take for examination and careful consideration the matter and arguments submitted before a decision by the court denying the jurisdiction prayed for; but such consideration has only served to confirm the correctness of the decision of this court in the case of The Burchard, 42 Fed. Rep. 608, where it was held that the court had no jurisdiction The Norwegian consul at Mobile, ¦ in a case very similar to this one. as a general rule, confined to controversies to which seamen of vessels of their own nationality are parties, or to the administration of effects of citizens of their country dying in the country to which they are accredited. A number of instances in which these judicial powers have been conferred on consuls have been referred to in the notes appended to this section; special reference will be made in the next section. to two adjudications on the subject.1 § 449. The Elwine Kreplin, 1870; Wildenhus's Case, 1887. The treaty with Prussia of 1828 gives jurisdiction, under the conditions therein stated, to consuls of that country in controversies involving the wages of seamen on Prussian vessels; it also provides that the decisions of the consuls shall be carried into effect by local authorities.1 In the Elwine Kreplin' a United States District Judge, denied the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prussian consul at New York, and against his protest took cognizance of the claims of Prussian seamen against a Prussian vessel on the In addition to that case, I cite, as sustaining the decision in this, The Salomoni, 29 Fed. Rep. 534; The Marie, 49 Fed. Rep. 286; The Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatchf. 438; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897. I am, therefore, constrained to sustain the exceptions to the libel, and order that the libel be dismissed." Jordan vs. Williams, U. S. Cir. Ct. Mass. 1851, 1 Curtis, 69, Fed. Cas. 7528, CURTIS, J. Rights of United States consuls over seamen on American vessels in foreign ports discussed and general rules laid down. of the treaty of 1827 between the United States and the kingdom of Norway and Sweden, and the consul of that country has exclusive jurisdiction of any difference arising between him and the master of such vessel; and it matters not if such person is an American citizen, and shipped at an American port." In re Ross, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1891, 140 U. S. 453, FIELD, J. 4 For right of consuls to administer estates, see note on p. 348, post. $449. 1U. S. Treaties and Con. 1889, p. 916: Arts. X and XI; U. S. Treaties in Force, 1899, p. 515. 2 The Elwine Kreplin, U. S. Dist. Ct. E. D. N. Y. 1870, 4 Benedict, 413, 8 Fed. Cas. 4426, BENEDICT, J. (Reversed U. S. Cir. Ct. E. D.N. Y. The Marie, U. S. Dist. Ct. Ore. 1892, 49 Fed. Rep. 286, DEADY, J. The syllabus is: "Any person who, in pursuance of any arrangement or contract, for a long or a short period | 1872, 9 Blatchf. 438, WOODRUFF, J.) or voyage, is on board of a Norwegian vessel, aiding in her navigation, is a member of the crew of such vessel, within the purview of article 13 Writ of error dismissed sub nomine ground, as stated in his opinion, that the vessel could not be proceeded against in rem, so as to properly protect the rights of the seamen under any judgment that the consul might deliver. The Circuit Court reversed this decision, holding that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the lien, or jurisdiction to enforce it in our ports; furthermore, that the reciprocal rights given to consuls of the United States in Prussian ports formed the basis for the consular jurisdiction in our ports; that the power of the courts to enforce the lien was sufficient to justify a proceeding in rem, as well as in personam, to enforce the judgment; that the rights of the seamen would be protected under the consular decision in all respects, and the United States courts, therefore, had no right to interfere. The Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of error in this case although the main question was not before it. The extent of consular jurisdiction was also passed on by the Supreme Court in Wildenhus's Case, in which an attempt was made to transfer a seaman on a Belgian vessel, who had committed homicide, from the jurisdiction of the local authorities to that of the consul who claimed that he had exclusive jurisdiction of the case. Under the treaty with Belgium of 1880, the Supreme Court refused to surrender the prisoner to the consul on the ground that there had been such a breach of peace that it affected the community at large, and had invoked the power of the local government whose people had been disturbed thereby; that such an act by its nature created a disorder in the language of the treaty, thus taking this particular case out of the jurisdiction of the consul and placing it within the jurisdiction of the local tribunals. $450. Ex-Territoriality; consular courts established by the United States in foreign countries.-The last specific instance which will be referred to in this chapter in which the treaty-making power has been exercised in such 8 Wildenhus's Case, U. S. Sup. Ct. | Also reported sub nomine Mali vs. 1887, 120 U. S. 1, WAITE, Ch. J. Keeper of the Common Jail, etc. Affirming U. S. Cir. Ct. of N. J. 1886, 28 Fed. Rep. 924, WALES, J. 4 U. S. Treaties and Con. 1889, p. 80, see Arts. XI-XV; U. S. Treaties in Force, 1899, p. 51. |