"The question of the care and relief of destitute seamen is one in which this Government has from the earliest years of its history evinced the liveliest interest. As early as 1792 Congress provided by law for such relief to American seamen found destitute in foreign ports, and again in the years 1803, 1840, 1856 and 1872, respectively, acts of Congress were passed in relation to the same subject. These several laws enacted by the legislature have received the most liberal interpretation by the executive and judicial branches of the Government, and the relief thus provided is now extended to all American seamen found destitute in foreign countries, regardless of the nationality of the vessel upon which they may have last served; and to all seamen, of whatever nationality, who are found thus destitute, immediately after having served on an American vessel.” Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Chev. Tavera, Austro-Hungarian min., Aug. 13, 1877, MS. Notes to Austria, VIII, 155 See, to the same effect, Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Choate, amb. to England, No. 639, May 24, 1901, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXXIII. 612. A Swede, serving as a seaman on an American vessel, was arrested at Port au Prince on a charge of murdering a Haytian policeman in a drinking house. As it was stated that he had gone ashore without leave, he might, said the Department of State, "be reclaimed as a deserter, but this right is subordinated to any claim which the justice of Hayti may have upon him for violation of the laws of Hayti. If so accused, he has no exceptional right as an American seaman. Were he an American citizen, he would be entitled to all the rights and guarantees of procedure due to any American citizen under treaty stipulations. Being a Swede, his interests in respect of nationality are under the care of the proper representative of his country, to whom, as a matter of courtesy, you may, without objection, communicate the view above stated." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Hayti, July 31, 1885, In 1891, shortly after the attack on the sailors of the U. S. S. Baltimore at Valparaiso, Chile, two British subjects named Patrick Shields and Andrew McKinstry, who were serving as firemen on board the American merchant steamer Keweenaw, claimed to have been maltreated on shore by the police of Valparaiso, while the steamer was lying in that port. It was alleged that the reason for their maltreatment was that they were supposed to be American citizens. Claims for their alleged maltreatment were presented to the mixed commission under the convention between the United States and Chile of August 7, 1892. The commission rejected the claims, on the ground that the claimants were British subjects, its jurisdiction being limited to claims of citizens of the United States and citizens of Chile. Subsequently, the cases became the subject of conference between the Secretary of State of the United States and the Chilean minister at Washington. It was agreed, after an examination of the cases, that the claim of McKinstry was unfounded. It appeared, besides, that Shields had died in 1895, that he had never been naturalized in the United States, and that his heirs were English. In a memorandum communicated to the Department of State by the Chilean minister it is stated that the Secretary of State had intimated that, under these circumstances, the United States had no direct interest in the matter, but wished, at the instance of the British Government, to cooperate in finding a satisfactory solution for the interested parties. May 24, 1897, a protocol was signed by the Secretary of State and the Chilean minister, by which it was agreed that the Chilean Government should pay to the former the sum of $3,500 on "equitable considerations," such payment to constitute a complete and final settlement of the claim. For. Rel. 1891, 217 et seq.; For. Rel. 1900, 66-71; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1478. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 44, of the 25th ultimo, relative to the subject of Chinese sailors enlisted on American merchantmen. You state that the customs authorities of Hawaii have exacted of the captains of American vessels a fee or fine of $25 for each Chinese coming there as a seaman in the service of the ship, claiming that it was for watching him while there; but that on your request the authorities have decided to refund the money so exacted, and to discontinue the imposition of such a fee in the future. You suggest a fear, however, that in case the captain of an American vessel should desire to discharge a Chinese sailor in Hawaii the authorities may require the captain to give a bond that the discharged sailor shall only. work on rice or sugar plantations, or that the vessel will return him to the country whence he came; and you ask my instructions in the premises. "In the late case of In re Ross (140 U. S. 472) decided by the Supreme Court May 25, 1891, Mr. Justice Field, having under consideration the status of an alien enlisted on an American ship, said: "By such enlistment he becomes an American seaman-one of an American crew on board of an American vessel-and as such entitled to the protection and benefit of all the laws passed by Congress on behalf of American seamen and subject to all their obligations and liabilities. . . . He could then insist upon treatment as an American seaman and invoke for his protection all the power of the United States which could be called into exercise for the protection of seamen who were native born. He owes for that time to the country to which the ship on which he is serving belongs, a temporary allegiance. "So long as a Chinese remains an American seaman he is entitled to the same protecting care of the authorities of the United States as other American sailors. Our law recognizes the changed status of a Chinese while a sailor, and it has been held that a Chinese seaman coming into the ports of this country is not inhibited by the Chinese exclusion acts from temporarily landing on shore without any attempt to remain. (In re Moncan, 14 Fed. Rep. 44; In re Ah Kee, 22 Fed. Rep. 519.) But if such a person should not depart with his vessel or with some other vessel in the ordinary pursuit of his vocation upon the high seas, his presence in the country would become unlawful. And so, without respect to his status, so long as he remains a sailor a vessel could not be permitted to discharge a Chinese in one of our ports and leave him in this country in violation of our laws prohibiting the importation of Chinese laborers. "On the 25th of November last the British minister complained to this Government that the authorities of the port of Baltimore had warned the captain of the British ship Oxford, lately arrived at that port manned by a Chinese crew, that any member of the crew who landed would under existing law be liable to arrest. The matter was called to the attention of the Treasury Department, which, on the 2d day of December, replied that it would instruct the collector of the port that as the Chinamen are seamen their temporary landing for the purposes of the vessel, without any attempt to remain in the United States, may be permitted, but that care is to be taken that they depart from the United States in the ship.' "The present law of this country excludes Chinese laborers, and its execution requires reasonable regulations. We can not deny the same right to any other government. The proper distinction is whether such regulations are a reasonable incident of such laws. The imposition of a fine or fee under the circumstances and for the purposes indicated in your dispatch does not seem to have been such a regulation, and I therefore learn with pleasure that it is proposed to discontinue it. This Government, however, can not object to a regulation prohibiting or regulating the discharge of Chinese sailors in Hawaii which is general in its application and is warranted by the laws of that kingdom." Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stevens, min. to Hawaii, Feb. 25, 1892, In December, 1893, some seamen belonging to the American schooner Henry Crosby were fired upon, under the impression that they were escaping criminals, by soldiers of the Dominican Republic. When the firing took place, the seamen were proceeding to the schooner in a yawl. Two of them were wounded, and as to one of these the Department of State said: "If Smith were an American citizen I should say that he was entitled to the intervention of this Department to secure an indemnity for his injuries. He is not, however, an American citizen, nor does he come within that statute which provides that a foreigner serving as a seaman on an American vessel shall be entitled to American protection, if he has declared his intention to become a citizen; for it does not appear that he ever made such a declaration." Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Goodrich et al., April 10, 1894, This position was reaffirmed in a letter of Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Seamen born in the Philippine Islands are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of any statute concerning seamen or any other statute of the United States. Griggs, At. Gen., Feb. 19, 1901, 23 Op., 400. wife. "I have received your No. 511, of the 16th ultimo. You therein inquire, with reference to the application of Joseph Case of seaman's or John Ratcliffe to have his wife registered at the consulate-general at Kanagawa, whether protection shall be granted in Japan to Japanese wives of seamen, not American citizens, serving on American vessels. The case as presented in your dispatch has had the Department's consideration. "The first question that arises is whether a British subject who has served seven years on an American national vessel, but who is not shown to have taken any steps toward naturalization, is to be regarded as an American seaman, and as such entitled to protection by the United States consular and diplomatic officers in the East. Section No. 170 of the consular regulations for 1888 goes far to settle this question. It provides that the term 'American seamen shall be held to include “(1) Seamen, being citizens of the United States, regularly shipped in an American vessel, whether in a port of the United States or in a foreign port; "(2) Foreigners regularly shipped in an American vessel in a port of the United States; "(3) Seamen, being foreigners by birth, regularly shipped in an American vessel, whether in a port of the United States or a foreign port, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States and have served three years thereafter on an American merchant vessel.' "It would seem from this that a foreigner, to come under this section, must have been regularly shipped in a port of the United States (as to which in the present case there is no evidence before the Department), or have declared his intention of citizenship; and even in such cases the citizenship so imputed is defined as within the meaning of the laws relating to the discharge, relief, wages, and extra wages of seamen.'. "It is true that in the case of John Ross (with which your legation is familiar), a British subject, serving on an American vessel, who, while on such vessel in the harbor of Yokohama, committed a crime, was held by the Department to be subject to consular jurisdiction at Yokohama; but between consular jurisdiction over an offense committed by a person while serving on an American ship and consular jurisdiction over such a person as a permanent landsman the distinction is great. The first relates to the flag and its incidents; the second relates to a person on shore as permanently detached from the flag. The United States can sustain jurisdiction in the first case on the ground that the flag imparts nationality. They can not sustain jurisdiction in the second case, because, except in cases in Mohammedan countries of protected foreigners, which exception is rigidly marked, the only way, outside of the flag, of obtaining national protection is by naturalization. In the present case it is not alleged that Ratcliffe has even attempted to obtain naturalization. "It is not necessary to discuss the question whether Ratcliffe's marriage at Hongkong in 1887 is, on the principles determined by the Department in this relation, to be regarded as valid in international law. Assuming its validity, the Department is clearly of opinion that the woman claiming on this marriage to be his wife is not entitled, as such, to the protection now claimed, even supposing he is entitled to such protection. Ratcliffe's only claim to protection would be his distinctive character as a seaman; and his wife can not be held to take this character for the purpose of protection any more than she could take it for the purpose of navigation." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hubbard, min. to Japan, Nov. 10, 1888, XVII. CORPORATIONS. § 485. See infra, §§ 984, 985. Corporations, under the treaties between the United States and Great Britain of 1783 and 1794, are entitled, in respect of security for their property, to the same rights as natural persons. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the United States and Mexico makes no distinction, in the protection it provides, between |