Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CONCLUSION.

It is, in my opinion, no part of the duty of the United States consul to interfere either to prevent the execution of the judgment or to aid in its enforcement. As to the United States and their courts, it stands in the relation of a foreign judgment, obtained in the courts of a friendly power, the court having jurisdiction of the person and the subject-matter. As such the judgment is entitled to the highest respect. It was long a question of debate in England whether foreign judgments should be held conclusive, or whether their merits might not be inquired into when they were sued on in English courts. In a case cited in Story's Conflict of Laws (§ 604) Lord Nottingham is reported in these words:

We know not the laws of Savoy; so, if we did, we have no power to judge them, and therefore it is against the law of nations not to give credit to the sentences of foreign countries till they are reversed by the law and according to the form of those countries where they were given. For what right hath our kingdom to reverse the judgment of another, and how can we refuse to let a sentence take place until it be reversed ? And what confusion would follow in Christendom if they should serve us so abroad and give no credit to our sentences?

And Lord Hardwicke, quoted in the same connection, says:

Where any court, foreign or domestic, that has the proper jurisdiction of the case makes the determination, it is conclusive to all other courts. (Ibid.)

Visetti might take a transcript of that judgment and sue the Kindinicos in the United States consulate, and there get another judgment, which he could then ask our consul to enforce; so, if he wished to collect it in New York, or elsewhere in the United States, he would have to sue on the judgment and obtain a judgment in our courts, but as to its execution by the subjection of the property upon which it was made a lien at the time of its rendition, it stands to the United States consulate in Egypt and to the United States precisely as if it were being enforced in Austria or any other foreign country; and the same rule holds as, I think, if the Austrian consulate or the local authorities seek to enforce the judgment in any other way, within the limitations of civilized usage and the law of nations. On the principles above stated the United States consul cannot be called upon to give any aid to the plaintiff, to the Italian consul, the Austrian consul, or anybody else, in enforcing it. It is not a judgment of his court, nor of the courts of his nation. Mr. Kindinico cannot claim to be in any better position than if he had left Austria, came to the United States, took up his residence here, and become naturalized, leaving a judgment behind in Austria against him which was being enforced against his property in Austria. This is just his relation to the American consulate-general in Egypt.

Respectfully submitted.

HENRY O'CONNOR.

PART VI.-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

It would be manifestly impossible to give an abstract in this memorandum of all the correspondence which has taken place between Great Britain and other countries, as as the preliminary search through the official registers and manuscript volumes, even if the inquiry were restricted to the last thirty years, would probably occupy several weeks, if not months.

There are, however, certain standard cases which are frequently referred to as precedents, and which are consequently more readily accessible.

An effort will be made to give a résumé of these, as well as to examine cursorily the correspondence of the last few years.

The principal subject of correspondence has been the claim to British protection of the sons and grandsons of British subjects born in foreign countries.

By the act 4 Geo. II, cap. 21, (explaining 7 Anne, cap. 5,) all children of natural-born British subjects, born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England, are “adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be, natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever." (Statutes at Large, vol. v, p. 113.)

The act 13 George III, cap. 21, extended the provisions of this statute to the grandchildren of native British subjects. (Vide ante, “Laws of Great Britain.")

On the other hand, as previously explained, the common law of England considers all persons born within British territory to be British subjects, without regard to their parentage.

A conflict, hence, arises between the principle of the British doctrine of native allegiance and the statutory enactments extending that allegiance to the sons and grandsons of British subjects born within the ligeance of other countries.

Such persons, finding that they are declared by statute to be subjects of the British sovereign, naturally look to that sovereign for protection in return.

The manner in which this claim is practically dealt with is shown by the following instructions to Consul Dale, of the 20th December, 1842, based upon an opinion delivered by Her Majesty's advocate-general, and which forms the model on which all subsequent instructions to Her Majesty's representatives or consuls abroad, upon this subject have been framed:

By the statute law of this country, all children born out of the allegiance of the King, whose fathers, or grandfathers by the father's side, were natural-born subjects. are themselves deemed to be natural-born subjects, and are, therefore, entitled to enjoy British rights and privileges while they are within British territory; but the effect of British statute law cannot extend so far as to take away from the government of the country in which those persons may have been born the right to claim them as naturalborn subjects, at least so long as they remain in that country.

By the common law of England, all persons born within the King's allegiance. whether the children of British subjects or of foreigners, are deemed to be naturalborn subjects of the Crown of England, and if the law of any foreign state be the same, by equally admitting to its rights as subjects persons born within its own territory, that country has the right to exact the service of a subject from such person, even if he be the child of a foreigner, at least while such child remains in the country of his birth.

Therefore the children or grandchildren, by the father's side, of natural-born British subjects born in any other country than Montevideo are entitled to be protected in that country as natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain. But as regards the children of British fathers born in Montevideo, such children cannot be protected against the operations of the laws affecting the subjects of that country, unless the laws of that country do not admit the child of a foreigner to the rights of a subject.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC-BUENOS AYRES,

The struggle between Montevideo (Argentine Republic) and Buenos Ayres led to a variety of questions respecting the position of British subjects in the countries bordering on the River Plate.

In reply to an inquiry from Mr. Ewart in the House of Commons on the 4th of Apri 1845, Sir Robert Peel stated: "It appeared that the general law was this: That the s or grandson of a British subject born abroad was also a British subject. But he could not deny that children born in a foreign state were not also subjects of that state. Such was the law in this country; for the children of foreigners born in Her Majesty's dominions were British subjects. If the children of British residents at Buenos Ayres were born out of that state, the authorities there had no right to make then. Buenos Ayrean subjects. If, however, the children of British subjects were born at Buenos Ayres and continued to reside there, they obtained the rghts of citizenship in that place; but with those rights they also had imposed upon them the burdens and duties of citizens, and were liable to the law of Buenos Ayres."

In December, 1850, Mr. Hood, Mer Majesty's consul at Buenos Ayres, renested instructions respecting the renewal of certificates of British nationality to natives of Hanover, and to British subjects who, from their occupation or business, were compelled by the local enactments to wear the red waistcoat, hat-band, and ribbon, distinctive of Buenos Ayrean nationality.

■ Hansard, vol. lxxix, p. 177. 2MS, volume Nationality Cases. Mr. Hood, No. 4: December 16, 150 To Mr. Hood, No. 7; March 24, 1851.

Lord Palmerston replied, "that if there is a Hanoverian minister or consul at Buenos Ayres he should, of course, take charge of Hanoverian subjects; but if there is no such officer, then Hanoverian subjects may still continue to remain under British protection, but it does not appear to me to be necessary that fresh certificates of British nationality should be granted to such Hanoverians.

"I have further to state to you that a subject of Her Majesty cannot divest himself of his allegiance by submitting to any local enactment compelling him to wear any particular uniform or badge in a foreign country in which he may think proper to reside, and that he does not thereby forfeit his right to be protected by his own gov

ernment."

In October, 1857, Mr. Christie reported that the Argentine national Congress had passed a law enabling the sons of aliens born within Argentine territory to choose between Argentine citizenship and that of their fathers.

Mr. Christie added that he had advised the Buenos Ayrean government, who were forcing the sons of aliens into service, to make a similar law.

At the close of 1857 a large number of British residents at Buenos Ayres having addressed a memorial to the British government complaining of the forced enlistment of the sons of foreigners in the local militia, Lord Palmerston wrote a dispatch to Mr. Christie acknowledging that Her Majesty's government could not claim such persons as British subjects; but, pointing out the various reasons which could be urged, both on grounds of policy and comity, against such a rigid exercise of military law. This dispatch is too long for insertion here, but it well deserves attention in case of an occasion arising in which similar arguments might be called for.

The result of this representation was that the government of Buenos Ayres issued a decree on the 12th of April, 1858.3 The government has resolved to admit substitutes for all the acts of the service of the national guard on the part of the sons of foreigners born in the country, (and who, by our laws, are citizens of it,) who may wish to have them, subject to the regulations which may be necessary and conducive to the good service of the same, it being understood that the substitutes must be foreigners and that their principals will remain subject to all responsibility consequent on all culpable default in the service."

Some communications took place from 1854 to 1857 between the English and French governments as to the rights of the sons of aliens born in Buenos Ayres to the protection of the country of their fathers' birth.

In November, 1857, Count Walewski informed Lord Cowley that the French consuls had been instructed to contend that the sons of Frenchmen so situated were entitled to French protection, but that he had carefully considered the whole subject, and "that he must confess he considered the claim untenable. The claim had been originally put forward under the tenth article of the first book of the Code Napoléon, which declares que tout enfant né d'un Français en pays étranger est Français,' and had always been insisted on until now. On the other hand, his excellency found that by the seventeenth article of the same book and code it is declared, que la qualité de Français se perdra par tout établissement fait en pays étranger sans esprit de retour.' There was therefore an apparent contradiction in the code itself, to remedy which the interference of the legislature would probably be required."

At a subsequent interview Lord Cowley urged Count Walewski to send to the French consuls the same instructions as had been sent to Mr. Christie. The count replied, "that at this moment he was not in a position to send any instructions whatever upon the subject, for that he was still under the pressure of the interpretation put by former governments on the law of France. In stating to me, as he had done some time back, that he considered the position until now taken by France on this question to be untenable, he had only given his own private opinion-an opinion, indeed, which he had expressed officially in council; and he had asked me for the English practice in cases of this nature with the intention of employing it as a further argument with the minister of justice for the necessity of changing the terms of the French law. Until this, however, should be accomplished, he had no choice but to insist, as had his predecessors, that all children born of French subjects abroad are, to all intents and purposes, French subjects also.

"Count Walewski, however, said that as the law would without doubt be altered, he had recommended the Buenos Ayres government to let the matter rest for the present."

The French law never has been altered.

On the 3d of March, 1860, Mr. Thornton forwarded a copy of a treaty concluded between Spain and the Argentine Confederation, containing among other provisions an article stipulating that the sons of Argentines and Spaniards, born in those respective countries, should be allowed to choose the nationality they may prefer, and suggested that England might claim for the sons of her subjects any exemption from military duty which this treaty might confer on the sons of Spaniards.

Mr. Christie, No. 125: October 28, 1857. 2 To Mr. Christie, No. 1; January 4, 1858. 3 Mr. Christie, No. 13; April 15, 1858. 4 Lord Cowley, No. 625: November 28, 1857. Lord Cowley, No. 1, 745; December 29, 1857. "Mr. Thornton, No. 25; March, 1860.

Lord John Russell replied that it did not appear that any special privilege was secured to Spain by this treaty, which merely adopted, as between the contracting parties, the existing law of each country as to nationality; and that even if any privileges had been given by this treaty to Spaniards, there was no more most-favored-nation clause on this particular point in the British treaty of 1825, which entitled British subjects to claim the benefit of them.1

On the 27th of November, 1861, Lord Russell instructed Mr. Thornton that, if the sons of British subjects wished exemption from military service, they should exercise the option given to them by Argentine law, between Argentine and British nationality. In 1862 Mr. Thornton raised the question whether, as the Argentine Provinces and the state of Buenos Ayres were recognized as separate belligerents, the sons of British subjects born within the provinces might not claim exemption from service in Buenos Ayres, and vice versa.

Mr. Thornton was informed that, in the absence of any treaty stipulation, even aliens may under certain circumstances be rendered liable to military service in the country of their domicile, without any violation of international law, and that it must be remembered that the persons in question were not aliens in the Argentine Confederation. Moreover, the law of September 29, 1857, seemed to extend to the sons of aliens, wheresoever born, and the provinces might therefore contend that those who had omitted to take advantage of its provisions had thereby constituted themselves Argentines by default.

In August, 1863, Mr. Doria reported that it was proposed to pass a new law by which all persons born within the Argentine Confederation should be declared to be Argentine citizens irrespective of the nationality of their parents.*

Mr. Doria was approved for having protested against a retrospective application being given to this law, in regard to the children of British parents; as, although it appeared that there were no adult persons of this class who had availed themselves of the option given by the law of 1857, to elect to be deemed British subjects, yet there might be others still in their minority whose time for making their election had not yet arrived.

At the same time such a law would not be ultra rires of the Argentine Confederation. It was quite competent to the Confederation to pass such a new law, though, as an act of comity, it would be preferable to retain the previous one.

AUSTRIA.

During the Venetian insurrection in 1848 the provisional government claimed a right to exact payment to a forced loan from certain British and Ionian subjects, on the ground that, by an Austrian decree of the 15th of May, 1833, they had acquired Austrian (and therefore Venetian) citizenship. (See Laws of Austria, and addenda H.j This decree provided that all foreigners who, at the date of its publication in those provinces, should have completed an uninterrupted residence of ten years were allowed to free themselves from the Austrian citizenship acquired by such residence, on giving proof that they never had an intention of becoming Austrian citizens. Such proof was to be given within six months from the date of the decree, in default of which it would no longer be admitted.

The Venetians maintained that under this law British subjects who had resided uninterruptedly for ten years in Venice became Venetian citizens, unless they expressiy renounced that citizenship.

Mr. Consul-General Dawkins remonstrated against the interpretation put upon this law, and his having done so was approved by Her Majesty's government.

It appeared, however, that some of the persons thus pleading their quality of British subjects as exempting them from the forced loan had taken office under the Venetian government.

Lord Palmerston instructed Mr. Dawkins that such persons were, by the twenty-ninth article of the Austrian civil code, liable to be considered as subjects of the Venetian government, and consequently not entitled to exemption. Lord Palmerston did not, however, disapprove of Mr. Dawkins having endeavored to preserve them from the severe effect of the forced contribution imposed by the provisional government.

BELGIUM.

In December, 1860, a case occurred at Brussels, (that of M. Ignatius Téleki,) in which various questions were put to Her Majesty's government by Lord Howard de Walder, as to the status of naturalized British subjects.6

To Mr. Thornton, No. 42; July 7, 1860, 2 To Mr. Thornton, No. 54; November 27, 1961. To Mr Thornton, No. 22: May 28, 1862. 4 Mr. Doria, No. 84; August 28, 1863. To Mr. Doria, No. 3: Nover ber 4, 1:63. Censul-General Dawkins, No. 117; August 26, 1848, To Consul-General Dawkins No 3 November 28, 1848. Lord Howard de Walden, No. 151; December 3, 1860. Lord Howard de Wakien No. 152; December 3,1860. To Lord Howard de Walden, January, 1861.

Under the advice of the law-officers the following instructions were furnished for his guidance:

"The first question is, whether a person who was naturalized as a British subject previously to the 24th of August, 1850, is entitled to a permanent passport; and the answer to it is, that as the rule in regard to the limitation of time in passports granted to naturalized British subjects applies only to those naturalized subsequently to the above-mentioned date, there can be no question as to the right of a person naturalized previously to that date to receive, like any natural-born British subject, a passport not limited in regard to time.

"The second question is, whether a woman, either by birth a British subject, or a naturalized British subject, or an alien, is entitled, on being married abroad to a naturalized subject, to receive a passport in her new character of a married woman. The answer is, that if the woman is a natural-born British subject, she does not lose that character by marrying a naturalized British subject, and that consequently she is entitled to a fresh passport as a British subject in her married name; but if the woman is a naturalized British subject, or an alien, then, as the woman cannot in her married state travel under her maiden name, and as whatever may have been her nationality before marriage, she acquires upon marriage the nationality of her husband, she is entitled to be placed in regard to a passport on the same footing as her husband; and, cousequently, in such a case, Her Majesty's ministers or consuls would be authorized to act exceptionally, and to grant to the woman an original passport, subject to the same conditions as the passport held by her husband, that is to say, to a passport not limited in point of time, if her husband's passport is not limited, or limited so as to correspond with the limit of time at which her husband's passport will expire, if her husband's passport is limited. But in no case must the wife's name be inserted in the passport held by the husband previously to the marriage; for no minister or consul is authorized under any circumstances to insert an additional name in a passport, whatever number of names such passport, when originally granted, was stated to include." Your lordship asks three further questions:

"1st. As regards the character of the children of a British naturalized subject born abroad, the answer is, that such children share the character of their father, and are to be considered as naturalized British subjects, so long at least as they are under age and living with their father.

"But this is, of course, subject to the local law which may rightly deal with children born in the country, whatever may be the circumstances of their father, as naturalborn subjects of the country in which they were born.

"2d. Whether naturalized subjects are entitled to be married at Her Majesty's legations or consulates. The answer is that they are so entitled.

3d. Whether naturalized subjects are to be presented at court by Her Majesty's diplomatic servants; and to this I reply that I see no ground on which a general rule excluding them from such presentations should be laid down; and I consider that Her Majesty's representative may properly use in regard to the presentation of naturalized British subjects the same discretion as they are in the habit of using in regard to natural-born."

BRAZIL.

In March, 1845, Mr. Hesketh, Her Majesty's consul at Rio de Janeiro, forwarded to Lord Aberdeen a copy of a representation which he, in conjunction with the French and other consuls, had addressed to the Brazilian government, remonstrating against the interpretation given to the sixth article of the constitution of Brazil, namely: that excepting those foreigners who may be in Brazil in the service of their own states, the offspring of all other foreigners born in Brazil must necessarily be Brazilians.1

Lord Aberdeen replied that "inasmuch as by the law of the United Kingdom all persons born within the allegiance of the British Crown are deemed to be British subjects, you would have acted more prudently if you had refrained from signing the representation made to the Brazilian government respecting the nationality of the children of foreigners born in Brazil."2

In 1849 Her Majesty's consul at Peru asked whether the children of British subjects born in Portugal were to be considered as British subjects in Brazil, and was informed that children of British subjects born elsewhere than in Brazil, and whether in a British territory or in a foreign country, are to be regarded in the light of British subjects, and to be entitled to protection as such.3

On the 2d of April, 1853, Mr. Jerningham reported that he had been in communication with the Brazilian government respecting the forced conscription of the sons of

Consul Hesketh, No. 16; March 27, 1845. 2 To Consul Hesketh, No. Ryan; January 17, 1849.

; August 30, 1845. Consul

« AnteriorContinuar »