thorities of Massachusetts will give the claims of the company as presented by the French Government friendly consideration, and will bear in mind the benefits reaped by this Government as hereinbefore stated.

In a note dated July 12, the French Ambassador states that the State of Connecticut has also assessed taxes against the property of the Compagnie Française des Câbles in that State. I have the honor, therefore, to bring the matter to your attention in the same spirit in which it was brought to the attention of the Governor of Massachusetts.

I have [etc.]

File No. 811.73/21.

ROBERT LANSING.

The Executive Secretary of Connecticut to the Secretary of State. HARTFORD, August 3, 1915.

SIR: Governor Holcomb has directed me to acknowledge receipt of and to reply to your letter of the 26 ult., concerning taxation of the Compagnie Française des Câbles, with its enclosure of a copy of the memorandum of the French Ambassador.

For many years the statutes of this State have imposed a tax upon all telegraph companies doing business within the State. Previous to 1913 the basis of taxation was the number of miles of wire in use. In 1913 the law was amended so that the gross earnings of each company furnished the basis for the tax. Where the business of a company was not located wholly within the State, a proportion of the gross earnings which bears to the total the same ratio that the number of miles of wire operated in this State bears to the total number of miles of wire in use by the company gives the valuation upon which the tax is imposed. The rate of this tax is three per cent. Every such company is required once a year to make a return to the tax commissioner of the State giving its name and location, total gross earnings, whole number of miles of wire in use by it, and number of miles of wire used by it in the State. In the event that any such company fails to make this return, the State board of equalization, from such data as it can find, makes an estimate of the gross earnings upon which the tax should be paid. Every company is given the right to appear before the board of equalization and to be heard upon the amount of the valuation for taxation.

Until about two years ago the Compagnie Française des Câbles made no return to the tax commissioner, nor did the State board of equalization attempt to establish any valuation for taxation purposes in this State, the fact that this company was operating wires here never having been brought to the attention of the tax commissioner. The compagnie was then requested to make a return under the law, but refused to do so. The board of equalization, therefore, adopted as a valuation for taxation purposes the sum of thirty thousand dollars. This obligated the compagnie to pay to the State the sum of nine hundred dollars each year. The compagnie has never paid anything, nor have any steps yet been taken to compel it to do so. The tax commissioner, whose duty it is to see to the collection of this tax, is at present away on his vacation. Governor Holcomb has

93072°-F B 1915-26

directed that the matter be brought to his attention as soon as he returns, and that all available information be at once transmitted to you, with such suggestions or recommendations as he can make, with reference to the proper course for the State to adopt. As the law stands, the compagnie is liable for this tax, and it is the duty of the tax commissioner to collect. The only proper and legal method of obviating the payment is by act of the Legislature, exempting it from taxation. The Legislature of 1915 adjourned in May, and there will not be another session until January, 1917. The Governor will take up with the tax commissioner the matter of taking no steps to force payment of this tax until the Legislature has had an opporunity to determine whether or not it will exempt the compagnie. After this conference Governor Holcomb will at once inform you what the policy of this State will be in the interim before the meeting of the next General Assembly.

File No 811.73/20.

W. M. MALTBIE.

The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador. No. 1520.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington August 11, 1915. EXCELLENCY: Referring to previous correspondence and particularly to your excellency's note of May 28, 1915, and to this Department's reply under date of July 7 last, in regard to the request of the Compagnie Française des Câbles that it be exempted from certain taxes imposed by the State of Massachusetts, the Department advises you of the receipt of a letter, dated the 19th ultimo, from the Secretary to the Governor of Massachusetts with which he encloses a communication received by him from the Massachusetts Tax Commisisoner from which it appears that the Compagnie Française des Câbles is a foreign corporation having a place of business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, namely at Orleans and Lakeville; that under the provisions of the tax laws of Massachusetts foreign corporations are taxed on their tangible property situated within the Commonwealth (Chapter 516, Acts of 1909, section 2); that by the provisions of Chapter 458 of the Acts of the year 1913, poles, underground conduits and pipes, together with the wires therein or thereon are made subject to taxation as personal property by the local assessors; and that under the authority of these statutes the assessors of the town of Lakeville assessed the property of the Compagnie Française des Câbles situated within the town and are now moving for the collection of the tax. In consequence of this tax, the company raises the question as to whether it is, under the memorandum of agreement between the Governments of the United States and France, entitled to exemption from taxation in the State of Massachusetts. The tax commissioner states that it appears that local taxation is the only taxation in question and that the State of Massachusetts has always treated the business of the company as interstate business and not subject to the interference or control of the laws of that State; that no transit tax and no tax for the privilege of doing business has ever been levied upon the corporation in

Not printed.

the State and that the tax imposed is one solely upon property situated within the State.

In the opinion of the tax commissioner there is technically nothing in the conditions of the agreement of 1879 between the Governments of the United States and the French Republic which controls the right of taxation by the State of Massachusetts, but that the spirit. of the conditions and the act of reciprocity on the part of the Government of the French Republic in exempting from taxation the property of American cable companies doing business in France would seem to entitle the request of the Compagnie Française des Câbles to consideration.

In forwarding this opinion to the Department the Secretary to the Governor of Massachusetts suggests that the representative of the Compagnie Française des Câbles communicate and confer with the Massachusetts Tax Commission about the middle of December next in order that an amendment to the existing laws of Massachusetts may be formulated which would grant the exemption desired by the company.

Accept [etc.]

File No. 811.73/21.

ROBERT LANSING.

The Secretary of State to the Executive Secretary of Connecticut. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington August 13, 1915.

SIR: The Department has received your letter of August 3, answering, by direction of Governor Holcomb, the Department's letter of July 26, transmitting a copy of a memorandum of the French Ambassador in regard to the taxation of the Compagnie Française des Câbles by the State of Connecticut.

The Department has taken due note of your statement that the tax commissioner who has the matter in charge is absent on his vacation, and that when he returns, the Governor will take up with him the question whether he shall refrain from enforcing payment of the tax until the Legislature shall have had an opportunity to determine whether or not it will exempt the company from payment. Further advices from the Governor are awaited with interest. Thanking you for your attention to the matter,

I am [etc.]

For the Secretary of State:

A. A. ADEE.

PROTECTION BY THE UNITED STATES OF FRENCH INTERESTS IN

MEXICO.

(See Mexico.)

FRENCH PROTECTORATE IN MOROCCO

(See Morocco.)

FRENCH INTERESTS IN HAITI.

(See Haiti: Financial Affairs, under date of February 20, 1915, p. 514.)

GERMANY.

ARREST OF W. MÜLLER, GERMAN CONSUL AT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND SEARCH OF THE CONSULATE BY POLICE OFFICERS.

File No. 702.6211/206.

The Secretary of State to Attorney General Gregory.

[Telegram.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 17, 1915.

Department is informed by German Embassy of the receipt of a telegram from the German Consul at Seattle dated March 17 as follows:

Yesterday afternoon six o'clock police entered Consulate in order to search offices. I hear that two people are imprisoned because they offered me information concerning sale of submarines.

Department would be pleased to have an investigation made in this case and a report of the results which may be used as a basis of a note to the German Embassy on the subject.

File No. 702.6211/207.

W. J. BRYAN.

The German Embassy to the Department of State.

The German Embassy presents its compliments to the United States Department of State and has the honor to inform the Department that according to telegrams received from the Imperial Consulate in Seattle, Wash., a charge of conspiracy has been made against the acting Imperial Consul, Mr. W. Müller, and the Secretary of the Consulate, Mr. Schulz. They have been released on bail of $1,000 each. The police also made a search at the Imperial Consulate without showing any order or warrant.

The acts of the authorities of the State of Washington appear to be in contradiction with articles 3 and 5 of the consular convention between the German Empire and the United States of America of December 11, 1871.

GERMAN EMBASSY,

Washington, D. C. March 18, 1915.

File No. 702.6211/215.

The German Ambassador to Counselor Lansing.

GERMAN EMBASSY, Washington, March 28, 1915.

MY DEAR MR. LANSING, With reference to my letter of the 23d instant1 about the case of our Consul in Seattle, I beg to advise you

1 Not printed.

that the local authorities of the State of Washington are still holding Mr. W. Müller and Mr. Schulz under bail of $1,000 each. This is the case, though the Federal public prosecutor himself told Mr. Müller that the local authorities had no jurisdiction at all in the

matter.

Allow me further to bring your kind attention to Sec. 256 of the Judicial Code of the United States, in force January 1, 1912, which reads as follows:

The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several states: Eight Of all suits and proceedings against consuls.

I beg to suggest that the unpleasant matter may be settled as soon as possible and I am confident you will do all in your power in this direction.

Believe me [etc.]

File No. 702.6211/215.

J. BERNSTORFF.

The Secretary of State to the Governor of Washington.

[Telegram.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 5, 1915.

The German Ambassador has brought to the Department's attention information received by him regarding the arrest of the German Consul at Seattle and the Secretary of the Consulate on a charge of conspiracy, as defined by a statute of your State. The Ambassador represents that the action of the authorities appears in contravention of articles 3 and 5 of the consular convention concluded December 11, 1871, between the United States and the German Empire, and calls attention to section 256 of the judiciary act approved March 3, 1911, which vests jurisdiction in the courts of the United States, exclusive of the courts of the several States, in all suits and proceedings against consuls and vice consuls.

It appears to the Department from the information in its possession somewhat doubtful that the action of the local authorities has been at variance with the treaty provisions to which the Ambassador refers. Article 3 of the treaty confers on consular officers personal immunity from arrest "except in the case of crimes". Article 5 stipulates that consular archives shall be inviolable and that offices and dwellings of consuls shall also be inviolable and shall not be invaded by the local authorities except in the case of pursuit for crimes. It seems possible, however, that in instituting the proceedings in question the local authorities in Seattle may not have given consideration to the provisions of the judiciary act to which the Ambassador refers. In this relation I may invite your attention to a communication received by the Department from the Attorney General of the United States under date of February 24, 1914, in relation to a case wherein a prosecution for a statutory crime was instituted against a foreign consul in California. The case was dismissed by the court on a question of jurisdiction. In this communication the Attorney General said:

From a careful investigation of the authorities it would seem that there is no way to reach the Consul by criminal proceedings. It is settled that the