Слике страница
PDF
ePub

1. Because by reason of his character as a foreign minister he is incapacitated to sue in the courts of the State; and

2. By reason of his not being within the designation of the Act, as he describes himself, “ an inhabitant of the District of Columbia.”

The act upon which this proceeding is predicated, provides : " That it may be lawful for any person, an inhabitant or resident of any part of the United States, whether of one of the States or of the District of Columbia or other territories, and who by the existing laws of this State may be entitled to sue out and prosecute mesne process, to have, use and prosecute the process by attachment,” &c.

The defendants deny the plaintiff's right to sue, because of his recognized immunity from arrests and responsibility to the tribunals of the country to which he is accredited. It is also contended that he cannot reasonably claim the jurisdiction of a court against whose proceedings he has this personal immunity. They also maintain that by the constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases.

The Court, in delivering their opinion, declare that the validity of these objections must be determined by an examination of the nature, the reason, and the extent of the ambassador's privileges in the courts of the country to which he is accredited. If this privilege can be waived at all, by his voluntarily submitting himself as a party in those courts, he must incur all the legal consequences and responsibilities of his assuming that position. If he has the right to institute a suit, he assumes, by doing so, all the responsibilities of an ordinary plaintiff in like cases, and must be deemed to have waived liis privilege to that extent. It is true, as all the authorities assume, that he is generally independent of the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the country in which he resides as minister. The general consent of nations has long since determined this immunity, upon unanswerable grounds of international policy. It is absolutely necessary to the free and undisturbed discharge of the duties of the ambassador as the representative of his sovereign. Too much facility and security cannot be afforded to him, in the exercise of functions which concern the Commerce, welfare, and peace of nations. It is reasonable that he should not be molested or harassed in the performance of duties of so much dignity and importance, where the interruption might as readily be instigated by vexatious or political motives, as proceed from justifiable causes.

But being thus protected, from reasons of public policy, does it follow that he is divested of all right of private redress, by a resort to our courts, where the door is open to all other suitors in civil cases? Cases may readily be conceived, involving no consequences affecting the dignity or public character of his mission. A public minister from abroad may, for convenience, or for necessary safety, have his funds on deposit with banks or bankers of the District. He may, without derogating from the dignity of his sovereign, have made investments in the corporate stocks and other securities of the country. He must, of necessity, contract to rent or lease a suitable dwelling for the accommodation of his family. He is in no manner restricted in private contracts that do not derogate from his mission or his public character. In the possible case of embezzlement or danger to his private funds or investments, or in any breach of contract on the part of others contracting with him on private account, would it not be unreasonable to say that he has no redress in the only tribunals which can afford him relief and indemnity?

The privilege of which we are treating is abundantly shown by all the authorities to attach to the representative character of the minister. But the same authorities are equally clear to the point that he may in certain cases renounce it.

The Court, after quoting the various cases that have risen, says, it seems to be a concession of all the authorities that in a matter having no relation to his public character and functions he is not entitled to the privilege growing out of official position. Thus, then, his privilege may be both forfeited and waived. Whether so far as to submit to personal arrest is another question, and no part of the present discussion. The waiver of his diplomatic character to that extent might be considered as involving the dignity of his sovereign and his mis. sion, and of course not within the exception. See the case of United States vs. Benner, 1, Baldwin, 234, before cited. But in the predicament of a voluntary plaintiff in a civil action, from the views above stated, and in a matter affecting his private interests, he is as fully "authorized to sue out mesne process" as any other suitor to whom the tribunals of the State are open.

So the case stands upon the general principles of international law. But the proposition thus established is again assailed upon the ground taken in argument that the constitution of the United States has delegated to the Supreme Court, or at all events to the courts of the Union, exclusive jurisdiction " in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls,” and, consequently, that the only resort of the parties designated is to these courts. Judge Story, in his " Commentaries on the Constitution,” ($ 1,652,) commends this particular provision upon the obvious impolicy of submitting to any other than the highest judicatory of the nation; a matter, touching as it does, the dignity and interest of the sovereign in the person of his representative. But in this, and the succeeding section, he is manifestly treating of process and proceedings against ambassadors, and their right of final resort to the Supreme Court in cases thus affecting them. In fact, ihe whole policy of this law of protection points to this personal privilege and immunity of the ambassador. He has the privilege to sue and be sued in the supreme judicature of the nation, and immunity against being called to answer elsewhere ; upon the obvious reasons before stated for such a policy. But that it is meant to be exclusive also in relation to suits to be brought by ambassadors and other public ministers may be safely denied.

The next question is, does the plaintiff come within the designation of those to whom the benefit of this Act of 1825, chapter 114, is available ; the objection being now that he is not a resident or inhabitant of any of the States, Territo. ries, or District of the United States, in contemplation of that Act?

The rule of international law of which we are treating, in order to give additional force to its policy, with regard to ambassadors, adopts a legal fiction, that they are to be taken for the person of those whom they represent; and by a still stronger paradox asserts, that "they are taken not to be within the territory of the State in which they are sent to reside." This legal fiction we have now to encounter, with the argument it suggests, that the plaintiff. being in contemplation of law out of the District of Columbia, and retaining his original domicil abroad, it becomes a legal impossibility that he can be deemed a resident or inhabitant within this Act of 1825; and as such entitled to the benefit of our attachment laws.

Apart then from the legal fiction is not the plaintiff " an inhabitant of the Dis. trict of Columbia ?” So far as the Court is informed he has no residence elsewhere. It is not shown or objected that he intends to return. For all that appears, the business of his sovereign or his own may detain him here indefinitely. İf, under these circumstances, he chooses to claim the District as his personal residence, who is to gainsay it. He declares in his affadavit that he is an “inhabitant” there, and we have nothing but this potential fiction to controvert it.

If I am right in the original proposition, that the privilege of the ambassador attaches only to his representative functions and character, and that cases may arise in which he may voluntarily renounce it; when such an occasion does occur, is not the fiction which gives vitality to this privilege at an end? The best answer I can give to it is, cessat ratio, cessat lex. It is the only answer that need be given

to the present objection. Remove the fiction and it is undeniable that the plaintiff is an inhabitant, personally present in the District of Columbia Now if he can make a case himself where the immunity ceases, and such a case is made when he voluntarily presents himself as a plaintiff in a state tribunal, what becomes of the fiction? It was assumed in law for his benefit and protection, and he has abandoned it.

On these premises, the plaintiff has brought himself and his case within the terms of the Act of 1825, chapter 114. And the motion of the defendants to quash the whole proceedings is overruled.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE AND REVIEW.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROSPERITY-DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF ENTERPRISE, AND SPECOR

LATION-TIE DANGER OF A THIRST FOR SUDDEN RICHES-BANKS AND BANKING-INCREASE OT NEW BANKS-DOMESTIC TRADE AND INTERIOR COLLECTIONS-PRICES OP STOCKS AND BONDS-DEPOSITS AND COINAGE AT THE PHILADELPHIA AND NEW ORLEANS MINTS FOR OCTOBER-DITTO AT ALL THE MINTS SINCE JANUARY 18T-PRODUCTION OF CALIFORNIA GOLD, AND EXPORT TO GREAT BRITAIN-IMPORTS OF FOREIGN MERCHANDISE AT NEW YORK FOR OCTOBER AND FROM JANUARY 1st-CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTY, WITH THE Receipts OP FOREIGN DRY GOODS-REVENUE OF THE COUNTRY-CASH RECEIPTS AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK-EXPORTS FROM NEW YORK FOR OCTOBER, AND FROM JUNE 1ST-SHIPMENTS OF LEADING ARTICLES OF PRODUCE-DIVERSION OF SHIP PING TO AUSTRALIA, AND CONSEQUENT ADVANCE IN RATES OF FREIGHT.

We have heretofore noticed, amid all the indications of general prosperity which have abounded on every side, the absence of an extravagant spirit of speculation, and have urged this fact as evidence that no sudden revulsion need be expected. The result has verified our anticipations, for the past year has wit. nessed a marked success, almost without exception in any branch of industrial pursuits. As the year draws towards its close, many eyes are turned to the future, and an unusual eagerness is manifested in watching the signs of the times. There can be no question but what more animation has been felt throughout the various markets of the country, and that almost every species of property has risen in value. Is this a speculative movement, or has it a legitimate basis? If speculative, it is certainly unlike the species of speculation which has prevailed antecedent to former commercial disasters, of which it was supposed to be the precursor, if not the cause. There has been no general wildness of investment; no large purchases of property, without regard to its intrinsic value, siinply because it might sell at an advance. Nearly all of the speculative operations have been inside the channels of legitimate business, and not outside, as was the case in the former periods above referred to ; and there has been no extraordinary increase in the circulation of paper money. The spirit of enterprise which gives an impulse to trade, Commerce, and manufactures ; which increases the general activity that its effects are felt far and wide through every department of industry, is, after all, very different from the true spirit of speculation, which induces those possessed with it, to abandon their regular pursuits, and to rush after some ignis fatuus to their own ruin. Still there is enough in the signs of the times, to suggest caution in regard to the future. There must be a period to the general upward tendency of prices, and this must be followed by more or less of reaction. When this reaction will come it is of course impossible to say ; there are no signs that it will occur soon. But as it must come sooner or later, it would be well for each to bear its approach in mind,and not to be taken unawares. One of the worst calamities which can befall any community, is the diffusion of a general thirst for sudden riches. The desire once fastened upon the mind, the old beaten path where slow gains are attended with a corresponding security, is abandoned for some more attractive course, where a fortune is promised in a day. There is no truth in political economy of so much vital importance, which

mankind are so slow to learn, as this that the promise of great gains at a small expense and risk, is always a deceit. It is one of the most barefaced cheats ever practiced, and yet, strange to say, it is one of the most successful. It appeals to a craving of the natural heart which is seldom wanting. It is the principle of the lottery, which has such a strange fascination for its victims. Many a man would invest a dollar with only one chance in one hundred of making $100, when he would not make the investment with ninety-nine chances in one hundred of making only one dollar. The rule is positive and almost without exception, that the promise of a large gain at a small cost, must be accompanied by the certainty of a corresponding risk. Still, from the lottery down to the last bubble just ready to burst, such schemes will not want for supporters.

There has been since our last a fresh impulse given to the business of banking, and particularly throughout the western country; in Indiana and Illinois the number of new banks israpidly increasing. Wisconsin is soon to follow in the same track. The great difficulty in the way of successful banking in the new States, has arisen from the want of a surplus cash capital. If banking be the business of lending money, it is necessary to its success first of all to secure a capital; and this in a new State where there is no floating capital seeking investment, is not an easy matter. Under the new banking law recently enacted at the West, State stocks, and in Wisconsin, a certain class of railroad bonds, are to supply the place of a specie basis. If carried to a moderate extent this security will no doubt be ample; but should it be overdone, and a panic ensue, the result cannot but be disastrous. Thus far, the eagerness to enter the new field has been too great for the development of a proper system. The sudden and simultaneous establishment of nearly fifty new institutions in the section of country referred to, does not promise for the new banks a very healthy growth. It is supposed by many that these banks are owned at the East, and are only designed to furnish a depreciated currency for the Atlantic States, issued so far from home as to defeat any attempt to secure a specie redemption at or near its par value. If this be the end in view, it will not probably be successful. The mysteries of banking are better understood than formerly, and the public are indisposed to tolerate a paper representative of money, where it cannot be converted into coin at its par value.

In New York city, and in Connecticut also, new banks have been multiplied, the long continued ease in the money market having made such modes of investment more desirable.

The trade in dry goods has been unusually prosperous, and the coming season promises a like satisfactory return. The collections from the country have been very successful, and the losses from bad debts in every branch of business have been smaller than for many years. The recent advance in iron has given a fresh impulse to the domestic manufacture, and the producers of cotton and woolen goods are active, most of them at remunerating prices.

There has been a further general advance in most descriptions of bonds and stocks, based partly upon their increased value from a more active business, and partly upon some speculative movements which have made certain parties "short," and given the “bulls" an advantage. The receipts of gold from California continue large, notwithstanding that great numbers of miners have been

drawn off to Australia. We annex our usual statement of the deposits and Coinage at the Philadelphia and New Orleans mints for the month of October :

[blocks in formation]

Total coinage...... 56,000 $48,000 $3,637,614 $3,787,192 We have also carefully compiled a statement of the deposits and coinage at the Mint and branches from January 1, 10 October 31st, which will be found to contain many items of interest. COINAGE OF THE MINTS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM JANUARY 1, TO OCTOBER 31, 1852. Mints.

Gold.

Silver.
Copper.

Total. Philadelphia

$40,744,390 $593,604 $40,335 $41,378,329 New Orleans 3,825,000 144,000

3,969,000 Charlotte, N. 0. 312,944

312,944 Dahlonega, Geo...... 389,316

389,316

Total......

$45,271,650 $737,604 $40,335 $46,019,589 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DEPOSITS OF GOLD AT THE MINTS OF THE UNITED STATES,

FROM JANUARY 1 TO OCTOBER 31, IN THE YEARS 1851 AND 1852.

PHILADELPHIA MINT.

[blocks in formation]

United States gold
Other gold....

$6,607,135

130,106

$3,116,400

133,102

Total ...

$6,737,241

$3,249,502

« ПретходнаНастави »