The Washington herald., 1917-02-19
Not Public Ministers.


According to such evidence, therefore
do Consuls in Christian countries possess
such diplomatic and representative char
| acter as to be reckoned Public Minis
ters? By the weight Of the generally
| accepted opinion OF the authorities Con-
| suls In Christian countries today are not
clothed with the Diplomatic or Repre-
sentative power fully and are not, in
the sense in which the term Is used in
the Constitution and Revised Statutes Of
! the United States. Public Ministers, Con-
seduently they are not entitled to claim
lnviolability OF person and the other priv
| ileges OF Public Minister
The status of Consuls Is on the one
hand below that of Public Ministers and
Ambassadors, and above that of their
| countrymen within the same territory who
are private aliens
In the absence OF special stipula tions,
consul Is not regarded as exempt from
the civil or criminal Jurisdiction OF the
locality where he performs his duties.
But as provided by the United States
consular regulations OF 1895, a consul IS
exempt from the quartering of soldiers
upon him: from service in the militia:
from jury service. and in some cases
from personal imposts. and the consular
archives are inviolable.
"A consul is under the special protec-
Il
which he has a right to claim from his
own State and from the State which has
recognized him.
TT then becomes pertinent To tnoutr.
how State which receives a consul who
Is entitled to such special protection, even
though he may be within the civil and
criminal Jurisdiction OF the locality where
he is serving, is to fulfill tho acknowl-
edged demand OF International law In his
regard7
should Moderate Law.
The first demand is naturally that
the State receiving the Consul is to
assert the authority of its local law
where such an act may be necessary
1t Is obvious that when it becomes
necessary to assert such authority the
officers charged with such a duty
should in every instance bear in mind
the distinguished character Of the Con-
sui as the public functIonary of
friendly foreign power. and so moder-
ate the ordinary processes of law in
his case as to avoid needlessly out
raging the dignity or reputation Of
the officer or the dignity of the for
eign power which he represents.
The United States has not only as
sumed the obligation thus laid upon 1t
by international law to protect for
eign Consuls upon its territory. but it
has consistently and firmly insisted
that foreign States should observe this
obligation in the case or American
Consuls within their boundaries.
The duty of protection under Inter
national law is even more clear when,
under circumstances warranting 1t, this
protection Is especially asked for a
Consul by that Consurs own govern
ment.
The right of the Consul to claim
protection from the State receiving
him and the obligation of that State
to furnish such are clear. Similarly
it is obvious that the Consul has the
right to claim protection from his
own State which sent him and that
this State has an obligation to furnish
him this protection. 1t follows necs-
sarily that when the State receiving
the Consul fails to protect him, the
State that sent him may claim Justly
reparation by indemnity as we'll as by
other means"