consul or his appointee might take charge of it on their account. Any debts due the deceased might be collected by the consul and if the deceased should owe money such claims were to be liquidated as far as the estate of the deceased sufficed.

The Bowring treaty and the supplementary agreement furnished the model for all treaties negotiated up to 1874. While there are variations in language, there is little, if any, difference in effect. Beginning with the United States," there followed at short intervals, treaties with France, 12 Denmark,13 the Hanseatic Republic, Portugal,15 The Netherlands, Prussia and the States of the German Customs and Commercial Union and the Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz,17 Sweden and Norway,18 Belgium,19 Italy,20 Austria-Hungary," and Spain.22

Since the treaty with Spain, no other treaties of the Bowring type have been concluded by Siam, though exterritoriality was later conceded to Russia and Japan but under terms differing from those contained in the Bowring treaty. From the great number of treaties of this type and the consequent development of consular jurisdiction within so short a space of time, it might not unnaturally have been thought that its shaking off or even its material modification would be extremely difficult and long delayed. However, the growing numbers of British Indian and Burmese subjects in the north of Siam, where a British consul was available only after a long and difficult journey to Bangkok, five hundred or more miles to the south, soon made some special arrangement for such persons necessary. The process of modifying the system established by the Bowring treaty began, therefore, much earlier than might otherwise have been expected.23

11 May 29, 1856. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 383.

12 August 15, 1856. Ibid., Vol. 47, p. 993.

13 May 21, 1858. Ibid., Vol. 50, p. 1073.

14 October 25, 1858. Unpublished but practically identical with the treaty with The Netherlands, infra, n. 16.

15 February 10, 1859. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 72, p. 109.

16 December 17, 1860. Ibid., Vol. 58, p. 262.

17 February 7, 1862. Ibid., Vol. 53, p. 741.

18 May 18, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 69, p. 1135.

19 August 29, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 59, p. 405.

20 October 3, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 60, pp. 773, 783.

21 May 17, 1869. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 1308.

22 February 23, 1870. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 483.

23 The treaty between France and Siam, signed at Paris, July 15, 1867, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 47, p. 1340, in which Siam recognized the recently acquired French protectorate over Cambodia, contains, Article V, a provision that "if Cambodian subjects commit any crime or offence on Siamese territory, they shall . . . be tried and punished with justice by the Siamese Government according to the laws of Siam”. This, however, can hardly be taken as the beginning of the modification of exterritoriality, as Siam had not theretofore recognized the protectorate, and Cambodians in Siam had been always subject to the jurisdiction of the Siamese law and tribunals.

1874 TO THE PRESENT TIME

On January 14, 1874, four years after the last treaty of the Bowring type had been entered into, there was signed at Calcutta a treaty 24 between Siam and the Government of India which provided for a special régime for British Indian and Burmese subjects in the three northern provinces of Chiengmai, Lakhon, and Lampoonchi. As the treaty had for one of its purposes the prevention and punishment of crime committed along the borders, chiefly dacoity, provision was made for the establishment of guard stations on Siamese territory and for a mutual surrender of fugitives. If dacoity was committed in the three Siamese provinces and the perpetrators fled into British territory, the British authorities were to use their best endeavors to apprehend them and, if Siamese, they were to be delivered to the Siamese authorities. If British, they were to be dealt with by the British authorities. A corresponding arrangement was made in cases of dacoity in British territory if the dacoits fled into Siam. However, if any persons were apprehended in the territory in which the dacoity had been committed, they were to be tried and punished by the local courts without question as to their nationality. Passports were required for Siamese going into British territory and for British subjects going into Siam from British Burma. Native Indian British subjects entering the three Siamese provinces without passports were liable to the local courts and the local law for offences committed by them on Siamese territory, but if provided with passports, they were to be dealt with according to English law by the consul at Bangkok, or by the British officer in the Yoonzaleen district in Burma, who was authorized, subject to the conditions of the treaty, to exercise all or any of the powers of a British consul under the treaty of 1855 and the supplementary agreement of 1856.

The arrangements made for the disposition of civil disputes are historically important for in them is found the germ of those international courts which figure so largely in the later British treaties of 1883 and 1909 and in the French treaty of 1907. The king of Siam agreed to appoint proper persons to be judges in the city of Chiengmai with jurisdiction to investigate and decide claims arising between British and Siamese in the three provinces above named; but in the case of claims by Siamese against British subjects holding passports, the judges were to have jurisdiction only in case such British subjects consented. Claims of Siamese against British subjects not consenting to the jurisdiction of the judges were to be investigated and decided either by the consul at Bangkok or the officer in the Yoonzaleen district in Burma. All claims by Siamese against British subjects not holding passports were to be decided by the ordinary local courts.

These limited and somewhat unsatisfactory arrangements continued for only a few years. On September 3, 1883, the treaty of 1874 was abrogated 24 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 66, p. 537.

by a new treaty 25 with the British Government, which provided for a British consulate at Chiengmai and brought into existence a new system of jurisdiction for all British subjects resorting to Chiengmai, Lakhon, and Lampoonchi.

Many of the provisions of the treaty of 1874 were retained, but the jurisdiction of the court established by that treaty was extended so that all British subjects in the provinces named, in both civil and criminal matters and without distinction as to race and place of origin or the possession of passports, were placed under the jurisdiction of a special Siamese court, in the later treaties called the International Court, in which Siamese law was to be applied. The sections of the treaty in which these arrangements are set out are reproduced in the footnote below. 26

By this treaty, which was to continue in force for seven years from the exchange of ratifications and from year to year thereafter, all British subjects in the specified provinces were placed under the jurisdiction of a Siamese court, administering Siamese law. The participation of the consul or vice-consul in the proceedings, the privilege of evoking any case in which both parties or the defendant or accused were British subjects, together with the provisions for appeal to Bangkok, furnish guarantees of fairness on the part of the Siamese tribunal, which, if applied in the proper spirit by the consul, would not be likely to give offence to the natural pride of the

25 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 74, p. 78.

26 VIII. His Majesty the King of Siam will appoint a proper person or persons to be a commissioner and judge, and commissioners and judges, in Chiengmai for the purposes hereinafter mentioned. Such judge or judges shall, subject to the limitations and provisions contained in the present treaty, exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction in all cases arising in Chiengmai, Lakon and Lampoonchi, between British subjects, or in which British subjects may be parties as complainants, accused, plaintiffs or defendants, according to Siamese law; provided always, that in such cases the Consul or Vice-Consul shall be entitled to be present at the trial and to be furnished with copies of the proceedings, which, when the defendant or accused is a British subject, shall be supplied free of charge, and to make any suggestions to the judge or judges which he may think proper in the interests of justice; provided, also, that the Consul or Vice-Consul shall have power at any time before judgment, if he shall think proper in the interests of justice by a written requisition under his hand, directed to the judge or judges, to signify his desire that any case in which both parties are British subjects, or in which the accused or defendant is a British subject, be transferred for adjudication to the British Consular Court at Chiengmai and the case shall thereupon be transferred to such last mentioned Court accordingly, and be disposed of by the Consul or Vice-Consul, as provided by Article II of the Supplementary Agreement of 13th May, 1856. . .

IX. In civil and criminal cases in which British subjects may be parties, and which shall be tried before the said judge or judges, either party shall be entitled to appeal to Bangkok; if a British subject, with the sanction and consent of the British Consul or Vice-Consul and in other cases by leave of the presiding judge or judges.

In all such cases a transcript of the evidence, together with a report from the presiding judge or judges, shall be forwarded to Bangkok, and the appeal shall be disposed of there by the Siamese authorities and Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General in consultation. Provided always that in all cases where the defendants or accused are Siamese subjects the

Siamese in the integrity of their own institutions. Indeed so satisfactory to both parties did these arrangements work that they were extended later to eight other provinces in northern Siam.27

Between 1883 and 1898 no treaties were made concerning matters of jurisdiction. On February 25, 1898, a treaty 28 with Japan, to continue in force for ten years and from year to year thereafter, was signed at Bangkok which, though containing no reference itself to jurisdiction, had annexed to it a protocol in which is found the following:

1. The Siamese Government consent that Japanese consular officers shall exercise jurisdiction over Japanese subjects in Siam until the judicial reforms of Siam shall have been completed, that is, until a criminal code, a code of criminal procedure, a civil code (with exception of a law of marriage and succession), a code of civil procedure and a law of constitution of the courts of justice shall come into force.

The Japanese protocol marked a very real advance notwithstanding that it established consular jurisdiction in favor of a nation which had not been entitled to it theretofore, as it contained, for the first time in the history of exterritoriality in Siam, a recognition of the principle that consular jurisdiction was a temporary expedient and not a permanent arrangement. It is interesting to note that, at the time of the signing of the treaty with Siam, Japan had secured from those Powers to which she had granted consular jurisdiction a similar promise to relinquish the system upon the promulgation of the Japanese codes, a promise which was redeemed the following year when the codes were put into force. The treaty between Japan and Siam makes the end of consular jurisdiction dependent upon the completion of certain designated reforms of the Siamese legal system upon the accomplishment of which Japanese subjects are to be submitted to the Siamese courts without any guarantees whatever.29

During the following year an agreement,30 dated June 11/23, 1899, was

final decision on appeal shall rest with the Siamese authorities; and that in all other cases in which British subjects are parties the final decision on appeal shall rest with Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General.

XIII. Except as and to the extent specially provided, nothing in this treaty shall be taken to affect the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between the King of Siam and Her Majesty of the 18th April, 1855, and the Agreement Supplementary thereto of the 13th May, 1856.

27 Extended to Muang Nan and Phre by exchange of notes dated December 31, 1884, and January 10, 1885, and to Muang Than, Raheng, Sawankalok, Sukothai, Utaradit and Pichai by notes dated September 28, 1896. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 88, pp. 33, 34.

28 Ibid., Vol. 90, pp. 66, 70.

29 The Siamese judicial reforms, though much in the way of modern legislation had been accomplished before, really began in earnest in 1892 with the reorganization of the Ministry of Justice. The Penal Code was put into force in 1908. The Civil and Commercial Code will be promulgated during 1922, and the work on the other codes is far advanced.

30 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 92, p. 109.

entered into between Siam and Russia by which, pending the conclusion of a treaty of friendship and commerce, Russian subjects were permitted to enjoy, in all that concerns jurisdiction, commerce, and navigation, all the rights and privileges granted to the subjects of other nations. No final treaty was ever concluded. The Russian agreement was not, therefore, as satisfactory from the Siamese standpoint as the Japanese protocol of the previous year, but inasmuch as it was only a temporary arrangement, it did not mark a definite step backward along the line of progress started by the Indian treaty of 1874.

Up to this time there had never been any definition of the persons entitled to registration at consulates under the provisions of the treaties. The extension of the possessions of Great Britain and France in the Far East had resulted in bringing under the protection of those Powers a large number of Asiatics who had previously been subject to Siamese jurisdiction during any sojourn they might make in Siam. Registration at the consulates of some of the countries having Asiatic subjects and protégés was not always confined to those entitled to it, and offenders against the criminal laws of Siam not infrequently appeared with letters of protection and certificates of registration which they sought to use for the purpose of preventing their trial and possible conviction in a Siamese court. The admission of a person to registration at a consulate was always made the basis of a claim that the registrant was not subject to Siamese jurisdiction, even though the registration had been improper. The correction of the register was a matter for the particular consulate and there was no procedure by which the Siamese Government could institute proceedings to have the question decided. A Siamese court, conceivably, might reject the registration certificate but if this was done a diplomatic clash was inevitable. The first arrangement providing for a change in these respects was that contained in an agreement between Great Britain and Siam, signed November 29, 1899. It was agreed that registration should be confined to the following categories of persons:

31

1. All British natural born or naturalized subjects other than those of Asiatic descent.

2. All children and grandchildren born in Siam of persons entitled to be registered under the first category who are entitled to the status of British subjects in contemplation of English law. Neither greatgrandchildren nor illegitimate children born in Siam of persons mentioned in the first category are entitled to be registered.

3. All persons of Asiatic descent born within the Queen's dominions or naturalized within the United Kingdom or born within the territory of any Prince or State in India under the suzerainty of or in alliance with the Queen. Except natives of Upper Burma or the British Shan States who became domiciled in Siam before January 1st, 1886.

4. All children born in Siam of persons entitled to be registered under the third category. No grandchildren born in Siam of persons

31 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 91, p. 101.