direct and personal taxation, whether federal, state or municipal." But if they are citizens of the country where they reside, or become owners of property, or engage in trade there, they are then to be subject to the same taxes and imposts, and, save in matters appertaining to their consular functions, to the same jurisdiction as citizens of the country who are proprietors or merchants. (Cushing, Opinions U. S. Att'ys Genl., vol. 6, p. 409; vol. 8, p. 169; Constitution of the U. S., arts. 1 and 3; Davis v. Packard, 7 Peter's Rep., p. 276; Valarino v. Thompson, 3 Selden, Rep., p. 577; Mannhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binney, Rep., p. 138; U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 1, pp. 77, 88, 272; vol. 2, p. 82; vol. 5, p. 394; vol. 10, p. 993.)

§ 13. The duties of consuls are regulated, in a great measure, by the laws of their own country, subject, of course, to the general principles of international jurisprudence. Thus, although, according to the doctrine laid down in the preceding paragraphs, they can exercise no contentious jurisdiction over their fellow countrymen without the express permission of the state in which they reside, they are, nevertheless, allowed a sort of voluntary jurisdiction-a power of arbitration in certain kind of disputes, more especially those relating to matters of commerce. For example, in difficulties between the captain and seamen of a merchant vessel of his own country, the consul may be empowered by his own state to discharge a seaman for cruel treatment or other sufficient cause, and such discharge, though not binding upon the tribunals of the place of his residence, would be so upon those of his own country. The same may be said of commercial disputes between the captain and supercargo, between them and the consignees, or between the consignees themselves. But these special powers of a consul belong rather to the municipal laws of his own state, than to international jnrisprudence. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 249; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 149; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 2. § 34; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §78; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, §2; Heffter, Droit International, § 247; Moreuil, Manuel des Agents Con., pt. 3, tit. 2; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 9.)

§ 14. As consuls, in christian countries, do not enjoy the privileges of ex-territoriality, and have no jurisdiction over their own countrymen, (unless conceded by treaty,) which is recognized by international law, it follows that all exercise of such jurisdiction, even by consent of parties, produces no effect in foreign tribunals, whatever it may have in those of their own state. Thus, marriages and divorces by consuls, are not valid in international law, nor, as a general rule, even in their own countries, for, as the consul has no ex-territoriality, and is not an officer of the local government, the marriage contract, or its dissolution, is not made by the lex loci, either of the country where the parties are, or of that to which they belong. It has, therefore, been held by the Attorney General of the United States, that an American consul, in a christian country, has no power to celebrate marriages between either foreigners or Americans. As will be shown hereafter, a different rule applies to consuls in the east. In proceedings in admiralty, when the courts are adjudicating cases of prize, or other questions of maritime and international right, consuls are permitted to appear in behalf of the interests of their countrymen; so, also, in cases of the administration of estates of their countrymen, or in which their countrymen are interested; but in all such cases they intervene by way of advice, or in the sense of surveillance, but not by way of jurisdiction. (De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, p. 686; Miltitz, Des Consulats, pt. 2, pp. 408, 414, 425; Santos, Traité du Consulat, tome 1, p. 21; tome 2, p. 52; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 23, note; Cushing, Opinions U. S. Atty's Genl., vol. 7, p. 18; vol. 8, p. 98; British Statutes, 12 and 13 Vic., c. 62; Kent v. Burgess, 11 Simons Rep., p. 361.)

§ 15. Consuls are usually allowed to grant passports to subjects of their own country living within the range of their consulates, but not to foreigners. They, however, are usually required to put their visé upon the passports of foreigners who embark from the place of their consulate, to go to their (the consuls').country. But this, again, is a matter of local law of their own state. Passports, to be valid, should be given by the proper minister of the country of the person using them, or, at least, by the minister of that country at the court of the state

in which they are to be used; usage has, nevertheless, extended the same effect to passports issued by consuls, within their consular jurisdiction. (Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §78; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 258; Fynn, British Consul's Handbook, pp. 36, 55; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 9; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, pp. 610, et seq.)

§ 16. Consuls are frequently required to give certificates relating to matters of fact connected with the commerce of their fellow countrymen, and of merchant vessels of their own state. Such certificates, under seal, receive full faith and credit in the courts of the country where such fact is collaterally called in question. The laws of most states make it the duty of their consuls to take acknowledgment of deeds for the conveyance of real estate, the depositions of witnesses in civil causes, etc.; but the legal effect to be given to such acts must, in general, be determined by municipal law. (Heffter, Droit International, § 247; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 258; Instructions to British Consuls, 1846, sec. 16; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §78; De Clercq, Guide des Consulats, pp. 619, et seq.)

§ 17. Although within the general duties and rights of consuls to watch over the interests of their own countrymen, it must be remembered that they can afford no protection against due process of the laws of the country where they reside, and any attempt to evade or resist their execution would constitute an offense, for which the offending consul may be dismissed or punished. The only protection he can afford, even to his own countrymen, in such cases, is to see that the laws are properly administered; and if injustice is done to his fellow-countrymen, by depriving them of the ordinary right of trial, or by distinguishing unfavorably between them and citizens of the state where he resides, and to which the tribunals belong, he should make representation to his own government, to whom it belongs to require explanation and satisfaction. He has no diplomatic

authority to demand either the one or the other. Nevertheless, by a judicious but firm proceeding, and the exertion of his personal and official influence with the local authorities,

he may do much toward securing the just rights of his countrymen, or in mitigating the severity of their punishment for offenses committed. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 258; British Statutes, 17 and 18 Vic., c. 104; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 13; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 78; Bello Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 7, §2; Moreuil, Manuel des Agents Con., pt. 3, tit. 2; Mensch, Guide du Consulat, pt. 1, ch. 6; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 18. Some states permit, and others forbid, their consuls to trade. As already stated, a consul engaged in trade is, in all that concerns that trade, subject to the local laws, and to the local jurisdiction, in the same way as a native merchant. Their consular character gives them no privileges in trade, either in peace or war. "The character of consul," says Lord Stowell, "does not protect that of a merchant, united in the same person." It is certainly a very objectionable practice to permit consuls to engage in trade, and has so been regarded by the best writers on international law. It necessarily brings them in competition, and not unfrequently in conflict, with the merchants of the place where they reside, and consequently weakens or destroys their official influence. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 251; Santos, Traité de Consulat, pp. 171, 196; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 74, 79; Bello, Derecho Internacional, art. 1, cap. 7, § 1; De Cussy, Reg. Consularies, pt. 1, sec. 3.)

§ 19. The public character of consul has frequently been the subject of judicial decision in the prize courts and municipal tribunals of France, Great Britain and the United States. The cases of the Marquis de la Fuente Hermosa, decided by the Cour Royale de Paris, in 1842, and that of M. Soller, decided by the Cour Royale de Aix, in 1843, are leading cases in France; those of Barbuit and Cretico, in England. The courts of the United States have generally followed the English decisions on this subject. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 261–271; Barbuit's Case, Talbot's Cases in Equity, p, 281; Clarke v. Cretico, 3 Burr Rep., p. 1481; Viveash v. Becker, 3 Maule and Sel. Rep., p. 297; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. Rep., p. 26; Arnold v. U. Ins. Co., 1 John. Rep., p. 363; Griswold v. Waddington, 16 John. Rep., p. 346.)

§ 20. Rights, privileges, and immunities, are sometimes conceded to consuls by treaty stipulations, which they are not entitled to by the general law of nations. Thus, by the convention between France and the United States, in 1853, certain rights of jurisdiction and exemption, not accorded by international law, are given to the consuls of the contracting powers. But such treaty stipulations are binding only upon those who are parties to the agreement. The same may be said of municipal laws, which give special privileges to foreign consuls; they have no effect beyond the limits of the state which passes them, unless specially adopted or permitted by others. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 22, note; U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 8, p. 230; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 1, § 14; Heffter, Droit International, § 248; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 3.)

§ 21. As already remarked, the powers, privileges and immunities of European and American consuls, in Mohammedan and unchristian dominions, are very different from those of consuls in christian countries. This has resulted, in part, from their having there retained the general diplomatic character and prerogatives of jurisdiction, which, in earlier times, they possessed everywhere, and, in part, from the stipulation of treaties. Thus, the Sultans of Turkey have conceded, to the consuls of christian powers, authority to exercise jurisdiction over their fellow-countrymen in Turkey, which, by the general rule of international law of christian states, belongs to the territorial sovereign. Such jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, being conceded to the consuls over their countrymen, to the exclusion of the local magistrates and tribunals, it depends upon the laws of their own states how it shall be exercised, and what penalties or punishments may be imposed or inflicted. In civil cases, this jurisdiction is ordinarily subject to an appeal to the superior tribunals of their own country, and in criminal cases, the prisoners are sometimes sent home for trial and punishment, especially if the punishment exceeds the infliction of pecuniary penalties. This, however, depends upon the laws of their own country regulating such proceedings. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 2, § 11; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 272, et seq.; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 83;