the general position, which, in christian countries, the consulate continues to occupy at the present day. The duties, and legal status of consuls, as will be shown hereafter, are somewhat different in the east, where, by virtue of express treaty stipulations, they have especial prerogratives and exercise a larger jurisdiction. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 245, 246; Miltitz, Manuel des Consuls, tome 3, ch. 1; Bynkershoek, de Foro Legat., lib. 5, cap. 10; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, §§ 147, 148; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 2, § 34; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 71, 72; Garden, De Diplomatie, tome 1, pp. 318, et seq.; De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, pp. 6, et seq.; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 244-247; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, § 1; Mareuil, Manuel des Agents Con., pt. 1, tit. 1; Mensch, Manuel du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 1.)

§ 3. The consular organization is usually divided into consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls, and consular or commercial agents. Some states have only the single office of consuls. Consuls-general exercise their functions over several places, and sometimes over a whole country, giving orders and directions to all consuls, vice-consuls, and commercial agents of their government within the same state. English vice-consuls are usually appointed by the consul, subject to the approbation of the foreign secretary of state. Other countries have adopted a different system of appointment. This depends entirely upon the institutions of the particular state, and is not governed by any rule of international jurisprudence. It is sufficient for the state, to which the consular officer is sent, to know that he has been appointed by the proper authority of his own government. By whatever names these officers are designated, their powers and duties, in christian countries, are, generally speaking, the same; these we shall now proceed to discuss under the general name of consul. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 253; Fynn, British Consuls Abroad, p. 6; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 75, 81, 82; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, §§ 13, 14; Martens, Precis du Droit des Grens, § 149; De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, pp. 27, et seq.; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, §1; Moreuil, Manuel des Agents Con., pt. 1, tit. 1; Mensch, Manuel du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 3; De Cussy, Reg. Consulaires, pt. 1, sec. 5; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 4. A consul receives a commission from the proper authority of his own government, a duplicate, or properly authenticated copy, being forwarded to the ambassador or minister of the same state, at the court of the country in which the consul is to officiate, in order that he may apply for the usual exequatur, to enable him to enter officially upon his consular duties. This is usually issued under the great seal of state, and made public for the information of all concerned. On arriving at his post, the consul usually furnishes the principal public authority of the place with a copy of his commission, stamped with his consular seal. On receiving his exequatur, he becomes entitled to exercise the authority, and enjoy the privileges, immunities, and exemptions due and pertaining to his office. Without such exequatur, or confirmation of their commission by the sovereign authority of the country to which they are deputed, they cannot enter upon the discharge of their functions; and, on its revocation by such sovereign authority, their official character immediately ceases. (Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, §1; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 246, 258; Fynn, British Consuls Abroad, pp. 34-55; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, §§ 13, 14; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, 876; De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, pp. 14, et seq.; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 2; De Cussy, Reg. Consulaires, pt. 1, sec. 1; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 5. Consuls have neither the representative nor diplomatic character of public ministers. They have no right of ex-territoriality, and therefore cannot claim, either for themselves, their families, houses, or property, the privileges of exemption which, by this fiction of law, are accorded to diplomatic agents who are considered as representing, in a greater or less degree, the sovereignty of the state which appoints them. They, however, are officers of a foreign state, and when recognized as such by the exequatur of the state in which they exercise their functions, they are under the special protection of the law of nations. Consuls are sometimes made also chargés d'affaires, in which cases they are furnished with credentials, and enjoy diplomatic privileges; but these result only from their character as chargés, and not as consuls. (Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv. 1, § 5; Martens, Precis du

Ch. X.- Consule and Commercial Agents. 243

Droit des Gens, § 148; Kent, Com. on Am Law, vol. 1, p. 44; Foelix, Droit Int. Privé, § 218; Flassan, Hist. de Dip. Francaise, tome 1, ch. 9; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Garden, De Diplomatie, tome 1, pp. 323, et seq.; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 73, 74; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 246; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 22; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, §4; Heffter, Droit International, § 248; Westlake, Private Int. Law, § 139; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad. 3.)

§ 6. Consuls are amenable, generally, to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the country in which they reside, and their property and effects are subject to the recourse of execution and process of the local courts. It was at one time contended that they should be exempt from criminal jurisdiction, but the position was neither sustained in practice, nor in the doctrines of text-writers. They, therefore, may either be punished for offenses committed by the laws of the state where they reside, or be sent back to their own country, at the discretion of the government which they have offended. A distinction, however, is made between personal offenses and official acts done under the authority and direction of their own government. The latter are matters for diplomatic arrangement between the respective states, and are not properly justiciable by the local courts. Consuls are subject to the payment of taxes, and municipal imposts and duties on their property or trade, and to the municipal charges incident to their personal status, and from which they are not exempted by the privileges of their office. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 246; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 2, § 34; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 43; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Bynkershoek, de Foro Legatorum, c. 10, 13; Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv. 1, § 5; Clark v. Cretico, 1 Taunton Rep., p. 106; Heffter, Droit International, § 248; Bello. Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7. § 4; Dalloz, Repertoire, verb. Consuls, § 1; Westlake, Private Int. Law, § 139; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 7. Consuls, says Phillimore, "have no claim to any foreign ceremonial or mark of respect, and no right of precedence, except among themselves, according to the rank of the different states to which they belong." But, as already

stated, the present tendency is to consider all sovereign and independent states as equal in rank, with respect to ceremonial and precedence, and consuls of foreign states, of the same rank in the consular hierarchy, should have precedence among themselves, according to the dates of their respective exequaturs. The rank which they hold among the officers of their own state, civil or military, is regulated by the laws of their own state, and is not a matter of international jurisprudence, nor does it come within the province of the state where they reside to interfere in any differences between officers of a foreign government, with respect either to relative rank among themselves, or to their authority over each other. (Heffter, Droit International, § 248; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 246; Fynn, British Consuls Abroad, p. 13; Martens. Precis du Droit des Gens, § 149; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, §§ 13, 14; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 85; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 8.)

§ 8. Although consuls do not enjoy the rights accorded by the law of nations to public ministers, they are, nevertheless, entitled to certain rights of comity, and to certain privileges of exemption from local and political obligations, which cannot be claimed by private individuals,-rights and privlieges which are incident to their office, and which result from their character as the duly appointed and recognized officers of a foreign state. Nor are these exemptions limited to the officers themselves; they extend, in a certain degree, to their houses and to public property in their charge. Thus, they may raise the flag, and place the arms of the country they represent over their gates and doors; and, although their houses are liable to domiciliary visit and search, the papers and archives of their consulate are, in general, exempt from seizure or detention, and soldiers cannot be quartered in their consular residence. And, in addition to those rights and privileges to which consuls are entitled by the general rules of international law, custom, in some countries, have added others of the same kind; and, in general, a consul is entitled to all those which have been allowed to his predecessors, unless a formal notice has been given that they will no longer be extended to his office, or to consuls of other states in the country where he resides. To grant privileges and

immunities to consuls of one country, which are not allowed to those of another, may give just cause of complaint. It, however, is necessary to distinguish between what they are absolutely entitled to by the rules of international law, and what is sometimes allowed as a matter of comity, or conceded by treaty stipulations. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 246– 248; Fynn, British Consuls Abroad, p. 17; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, tome 1, § 74; Garden, De Diplomatie, tome 1, pp. 323 et seq.; Heffter, Droit International, § 248; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 3, § 3; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 4; De Cussy, Reg. Consulaires, pt. 1, secs. 6, 7; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 9. It is conceded that, so far as the law of nations has established fixed rules with respect to consular exemptions, the subject is withdrawn from the domain of municipal jurisprudence, and the officer may claim all the rights and privileges which are accorded to him by that general and higher code under the protection of which his office is placed. But there has been much difference of opinion among writers on international law, respecting what rights and exemptions are accorded to consuls by that code. This difference of opinion, however, seems to have arisen, in a great degree, from not distinguishing between those which result from the personal status of the officer, and those which pertain to the office, and, with respect to the latter, between those which are conceded by treaty or municipal law, and those which are established by the positive law of nations, or the general rules of international comity. In considering their rights and privileges of exemption, consuls may be divided into three distinct classes: first, those of foreign birth sent to a country especially as consuls, who owe no allegiance to the state where they reside, and who hold no property, engage in no business, and have no residence there, other than their official one; second, those of foreign birth and allegiance, who hold property, engage in business, and have a fixed residence in the country; and third, those who are citizens and residents of the country in which they exercise the functions of the consular office, under a foreign government. It is manifest that the rights and privileges of these different classes of persons