Birmingham age-herald., 1894-09-11
Fully and Ably Discussed by Act
 ing Secretary Uhl.
THE CONSULAR JURISDICTION
Of a Representative of the United States in Another
 Land Reviewed.

Hon. John Russell Young, American min ister to China during the administration of President Arthur, giving his views con- corning the delivery to the Chinese author ities of two accused spies at Shanghai and insisting that thereby ''the American flag had been humiliated, '' was shown to Act ing Secretary of State Edwin F. Uhl today. He said the communication emanatlng from MT. Young, whose official residence in China and intimate acquaintance with the history and limitation of extra terri torial jurisdiction in that country, would naturally carry much weight. "And yet, said MT. Uhl, "the communication itself fails to infer the necessary character of the instructions, under which our repre- sentatives in China and Sapan can alone extend protection to the subjects of the other country during the sus- pension of diplomatic intercourse between the two governments. His statement that the governm ment had soemuly promised to protect, as we would American citizens, the Japanese in China, indicates misn- formation or misoonjectnre of the essential nature of those instructions. The right to exercise independent jurisdiction over foreigners in China and Japan rests wholly upon treaty stipulationB, and the protec- tion so conferred is an express conventional grant to particular individuals and cannot be expanded to include others by assimila- tion. By reason of the existing war be- tween China and Japan diplomatic inter course was interrup. e1 between the two governments, ana each requested of the United States the interposition of its good offices for the protection of the subjects oi each in the territory of the other.
 ''Our relation to those parties was that of strict neutrality, and of necessity protec- tion could only be exercised by our repre- sentatives at Tokio and Pekn as to friendly offices under official duty and in manner consistent with the position of impartial amity. The govern ment of the United States could not undertake to bring the subjects of each power within the jurisdic- tion of it's ministers or consuis, nor would 1t be justified in allowing its legations or consulates to be made an asylum for those claimed to be offenders against the law of the local government. Japanese suspects in China remain the subjects of Japan as they were before hostilltiss began. and must of necessity respond to the law of China when charged with offense against the same. So with the subjects of China in Japan. In assenting 10 the request of 9wilZerlapd that the agents of the United States in China should afford protection to Swiss citizens in the absence of Helvetic representation there, our agents as early as 1871 where instructed that they could not take judicial cognizance of charges against Swiss citizens. In CIICujdT dIuEeSsSQ kO tu6 TcpEtSSntdtIfco Ol this government in foreign countries by the department of state on the 18th of De- cember, 1871, appeared the following: You are informed that you are not ex- pected to become diplomatic or consular officer of the Swiss republic, which is pro- hibited by the constitution Of the United States. The intention is that you should merely use your good offices in be- half of any Swiss in your vicinity who might request them in the absence of a :; fati of Switzerland and with the consent of the authorities where you reside.
 "An instruction to our minister in China, dated July 20, 1872, contained the following: 'The protection referred to must necessarily be confined to the per sonal and unofficial good offices of such functiouaries, although when exercised to this extent merely eau this properly be done only with the consent of the Chinese government.'
 s.In fact, p said MT. Uhl, "this point was perfectly understood when the govern ments of China and Japan coinc' dently re- quested the protection of the agents Of the United States for their respective subjects, and the action of this government was nec- essarily confined to instructing our min isters and consuls in those countries to use their unofficial good offices with the assent ofthe government to which they were &C., credited in favor of the subjects of the other found within it's territory, with ex- press exclusion of the assertion of the right to entertain jurisdiction over them. In this way Japanese in China had expressly the same degree of friendly intervention conceded in their behalf as Chinese in Japan. And the Japanese government neither claimed nor expected it's subjects in China to receive any greater degree of pro- tectiou from the United States than 1t would recognize in favor of Chinese under the like protection in Japan.
 sIn asserting, as he does, that Ii Jap anese subject within the Shanghai Juris- diction was charged with crime the consul general, as judicial officer, could have weighed the evidence and determined the judgment, Ex-Minister Young seemed to have overlooked the fact that the judicial powers of our ministers and coDsuls iu China and Japan are by sections 4983 and 40S4, revised statutes, to be exercised only under the provisions of our treaties with those countries, and only over citizens of the United States therein and cases in V hich our citizens may be parties.
 ''It may be noted incidentally that MT. TsuDjiro Miyaoka, Japanese secretary of legation at tbis capital, in a recent inter- view, speaking of the reported action Of Consult General Jernigan, said that it was entirely in con nformity with the Japanese interpretation of the authority and power of neutral consuls in biliigerent country, and should Japan suspect any Chinese sub ject resident in Japan of being openly hos tile to the Japanese government, or believe that justice warranted his arrest, Japan would not recognize the jurisdiction Of any neutral consul over the subject. And in still later interview he is reported as say- ing: 80 far as the United States is con
 a1 kfu xss<.I o( ftu otf fksrAr fnxHy ord