« AnteriorContinuar »
the learned judge, afterward Lord Stowell, concluded that the change of destination had caused the vessel's guilt to cease.
Articles 17 and 19 draw a fine, and it seems to the writer, a proper distinction between the treatment of the neutral vessel and any other, whether of the blockading state, of the enemy or, in the case of blockade of an occupied port, of a vessel belonging in that port. The neutral vessel is made liable to capture only within the area of the blockading squadron's operations, beyond which, either in the case of attempted ingress or egress, she can consider herself Bafe, provided the pursuit has not begun within the area of blokade. The two articles in question, to be sure, are not exactly intended to deal precisely with the same condition, but there is nothing evident in their wording which precludes such a conclusion to be drawn and the line of speculation just set down is given as a hint of a possible complication that might arise.
Vieved separately, each is an excellent statement of the principle involved. The obvious intention of Article 17 is to say that a neutral vessel is liable to capture only while in delictu, and Article 19 is evidently a blow at the Anglo-Saxon dictum that a vessel is subject to apprehension at any time during a continuous voyage. It embodies the decision in The Imina more nearly perhaps than the stricter European theory.
Article 20 is a compromise between Anglo-Saxondom and Europe. German, Spanish, French, anil Italian writers have in general agreed that a vessel may be seized when traversing or attempting to traverse the line of investment, in the port blockaded, or at the moment of attempted egress. They add that if the neutral vessel, when it seeks to violate a blockade, is pursued by a vessel of the investing squadron and tries to escape by flight, it may be pursued and captured on the high seas, before its entry into a port or jurisdictional waters of a neutral state.17 English and American jurists and writers, on the other hand, maintain that the vessel is not safe from pursuit until she has reached her port of destination and that putting into an intermediary port, either through force or voluntarily, does not
17 See Hautefeuille, Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, tom. II, Fauchille, op. cit., p. 355 : Gessner, Le droit de neutres sur mer, p. 228 ; Spanish decree, November 26, 1864, art. 6; Perels, Manuel de droit maritime, p. 307.
THE HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT
papers of the
When the old government gave place to the new in 1789 the state
of the old Congress were placed in the hands of Roger Alden and Henry Remsen, the former having those which related to domestic affairs, the latter those relating to foreign affairs,' The papers were turned over to the Secretary of State when his department was created, excepting those pertaining to the Treasury and War Departments which were delivered to the heads of those departments. (Sec. 7, Act of September 15, 1790.) When John Jay assumed temporarily the direction of the Department of State he put Remsen in charge of the foreign affairs of the Department and Alden in charge of its domestic duties; and when Jefferson entered upon the office of Secretary of State he confirmed this arrangement, and the heads of these subdivisions held equal rank. His estimates for the expenses of his Department in 1790 were for “ The Home Office” and “ The Foreign Office;” but after Alden's resignation on July 25 of that year the arrangement of a single chief clerk, which the law had originally contemplated, was effected, and the two divisions of the Department were merged under Remsen. In 1802 William Thornton was put in charge of the Patent business of the Department and that became the first distinct and permanent subdivision. He took the title of Superintendent soon after his appointment, but there was no statutory recognition of the designation until the appropriation act of 1818 provided for his salary as superintendent. The first specific appropriation for the salaries
1 Am. Journal of Int. Law, July, 1908, p. 605.
of the secretary and officers (clerks) of the Department was for the year 1792 and amounted to $6,300 ; 4 for 1793 it was $8,150;" for 1794, $9,661.67; 6 for 1795, $11,721.79.? The compensation of the chief clerk had been fixed by law at $800, but the Act of 1794 gave him an additional allowance of $200.8 No clerk could be paid more than $500 under the law, until the Act of 1795 permitted the Secretaries of State, Treasury. and War to vary the compensation according to the services performed, keeping the whole expenditure within the appropriation, but no chief clerk was to receive more than $1,000.9 In 1797 the appropriations had risen to $16,497.64.10 In 1799 the salary of the Secretary was increased to $5,000,11 and in 1801 there was an appropriation of fifteen per cent over the amount appropriated in 1799 to the clerks in the several departments.12 Following this provision, on June 25, 1801, the clerks addressed Secretary Madison asking him to apportion the extra allowance among them.13 The extra allowances occasionally provided by law were the only compensation received by the clerks beyond their regular salaries, and the custom which prevailed in England among the clerks in the Foreign Office of receiving pecuniary gifts from foreign ministers never became the practice in Washington. The expectations of such gifts in London are indicated by the following letter to Rufus King, American Envoy at London, dated January 15, 1800 :
The Clerks of the Foreign Office present their respects to Mr. King and have taken the liberty of directing the Bearer Mr. Turner to wait upon His Excellency for the Christmas gratuity usually given to them by the Foreign Ministers.14
41 Stat. 226. 01 Stat. 327. 61 Stat. 342. 71 Stat. 406. 81 Stat. 392. r1 Stat. 443. 10 1 Stat. 498. 11 1 Stat. 729. 12 2 Stat. 117, 119. 13 Madison Papers, Library of Cong. MSS. 14 Dept. of State, MSS., Passport Letters, I.
As the organic act of the Department provided that the chief clerk should be appointed by the head of the Department (Sec. ?, Act of July 27, 1789), so were the inferior clerks appointed by him and directly responsible to him. The power of the President as the head of the executive branch of the government was not interfered with by this arrangement, however, as he might still direct the secretary to appoint or remove clerks whenever he should choose to do so.
This power has been exercised freely by some Presidents and not at all by others, the frequency and extent of the use depending upon the varying dispositions of Presidents and circumstances which seem to call for the exercise of the power. Two examples will suffice to illustrate.
The first is from Andrew Jackson:
The President with his respects to the Secretary of State, begs leave to draw his attention to a regulation adopted by the President at the commencement of his administration, to wit, that where any officer under the Government contracted debts and failed to pay them, but took the benefit of the insolvent debtors act, he should be forthwith removed report has been made that such violations of the rule has been made in the patent office; you will cause the necessary inquiries to be made, in your Department, and report the same to me, that such clerks may removed — The enquiry will only be to debts contracted under the present administration and not before.
August 1st, 1831.15
WASHINGTON, August 6, 1831. Sir:
Lemuel W. Ruggles Esq., clerk in the “ Patent Office," is hereby dismissed from office as it has been reported to me that he has taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act for debts contracted during my administration. The heads of Departments are charged to report all clerks, who are guilty of the same conduct, to the President for dismissal.
Very Respectfully, Secretary of State 16
ANDREW JACKSON. A second example was furnished in 1885 when Thomas F. Bayard, the Secretary of State, required the chief clerk, Sevellon A. Brown, to resign, saying that the President had directed him to make the request.
15 Papers from the President, 1825 to 1832, Dept. of State, MSS. 18 Papers from the President, 1825 to 1832, Dept. of State, MSS.