The application of these principles to the individual cases as they arise is a duty of the diplomatic and consular officers, and it is thought that being on the spot they are better qualified than the Department to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sojourn or residence of those who apply for new passports and to judge of their right to the continued protection of this Government. For this reason, and for the additional reason that injustice might arise in meritorious cases because of the delay, the Department can not concur in your suggestion that new passports should be issued to persons who are abroad only upon application to the Department at Washington. As for the naturalization laws to which you allude, they are of direct concern to this Department only so far as they affect the international status of those who become naturalized. As you are aware, the Department's regulations require every naturalized citizen when he applies for a passport to make a sworn statement concerning his own or his parents' emigration, residence, and naturalization; and whenever the naturalization appears to have been improperly or improvidently granted, it is not recognized under the Department's rules. Further than this the Department does not feel privileged to go, and the question of restricting the issuance of naturalization certificates to Federal courts seems to lie without the Department's domain. Your remarks about the status of Porto Ricans who apply for passports have been noted. Legislation, requested by the Department, is now, however, pending, having as its object the extension to Porto Ricans of the protection of our passports, and when Congress shall have acted, appropriate instructions will be issued by the Department. In the meantime, the instructions of the Department are to extend to all native Porto Ricans loyal to the United States who make application the same protection of person and property as is accorded to citizens of the United States, and while not at present issuing passports in their favor, to furnish them with such document not forbidden by the diplomatic and consular regulations for their protection as the foreign authorities may require. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. PROTECTION OF CUBAN INTERESTS BY UNITED STATES CONSULAR OFFICIALS. Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay. No. 300.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Your cable message" was received on the 25th instant, directing me to request the Government of Ecuador to permit United States consular officers to continue to represent Cuban interests in said. Republic until Cuban consuls shall have been appointed. I promptly made the request, and have President Plaza's answer that my request is granted. I have, as directed, notified United States consular officers in Ecuador. ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON. I have, etc., a Printed, page 6. No. 311.] ACCIDENT TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT. Mr. Sampson to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR: Please say to President Roosevelt that the President of Ecuador sent his minister of foreign relations to call on me personally and asked me to extend to the President of the United States most hearty congratulations at the narrow escape he made from death or great bodily harm in the accident of yesterday, in which, I am sure, the entire civilized world unites. Please say to him, for me, that I could do no less than to offer a prayer of thanksgiving to the Supreme Ruler of nations for His provi dential deliverance of our most worthy President. I have, etc., ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON. Mr. Hay to Mr. Sampson. No. 214.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 13, 1902. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 311 of the 7th ultimo, conveying the congratulations of the President of Ecuador on President Roosevelt's escape from serious injury, and adding your own. The President wishes me in reply to convey his cordial thanks for the kind expressions concerning himself. His condition is satisfactory and improvement steady. You will convey, through the proper chan nel, his appreciation of the courtesy of the President of Ecuador. I am, etc., JOHN HAY.. FRANCE. COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATION AT PACIFIC COAST PORTS OF CONSULAR CONVENTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1853, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE. Mr. de Margerie to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] EMBASSY OF FRANCE, Washington, November 7, 1901. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: The consul-general of France at San Francisco has just reported to me several incidents which tend to show that the stipulations of the Franco-American consular convention of February 23, 1853, are not strictly observed by the authorities of his residence. I deem it my duty to bring them to the favorable attention of the Department of State. The facts are as follows: In connection with a lawsuit of an absolutely private character brought against Mr. Tamm, a clerk in the French consulate, by Mr. Escande (the consulate, however, being in no wise concerned in the suit), a deputy sheriff of San Francisco, concealing his official character, made his way into the office of Mr. D'Allemagne, the consulgeneral, and offered to hand him a summons. Although reminded by the consul-general of France that Article II, paragraph 3, and Article III of the Franco-American consular convention of February 23, 1853, went counter to his pretension, the said deputy sheriff nevertheless persisted in his attempt. The summons was immediately taken back to the sheriff's office and, upon an oral complaint of Mr. D'Allemagne, that official was good enough to send him a letter, in which he expressed his deepest regrets for the act of his deputy in violation of the existing consular convention, and gave assurances that there would be no recurrence of such acts. Shortly thereafter, however, two other deputy sheriffs again called at the consulate of France with similar intent and at short intervals of a few days. Finding that the good intentions declared by the sheriff were not sufficient to insure proper respect for the privileges which guarantee the dignity of consular officers, Mr. D'Allemagne requested the district attorney of the county to take such measures as were necessary to protect him in the future against these repeated attempts to hand him judicial writs. This request did not seem to meet with all the success that could be desired, for, later on, a lawyer by the name of Shilling and Mr. Joseph Kelly, his secretary, twice attempted to hand the writ in question to Mr. D'Allemagne on the open street and by violent means. The consul-general of France then turned to the honorable district attorney of the United States. By a letter which he caused to be handed to him on the 7th of September last by Mr. S. J. Brun, counsel of the consulate of France, he acquainted him with the foregoing incidents and begged him to take toward the persons who had approached him in such irregular way such measures as should seem apt to insure respect for our consular convention and to rebuke acts in violation thereof. The district attorney of the Federal court of San Francisco replied that he could take no action in the matter except under formal instructions of the honorable Attorney-General of the United States. Mr. D'Allemagne applied at the same time to the governor of the State of California who, while expressing regret at the annoyances he had been subjected to, and his desire to prevent their recurrence, stated that, under the laws of the State, he could but refer the matter to the mayor of San Francisco, who alone, said he, had authority to insure, in the city, respect for consular immunities. Whatever measure may be taken in the future by the mayor, the fact remains that the sheriff of San Francisco, in spite of his having on one occasion admitted that the proceeding was illegal, himself ignored and permitted others to ignore the stipulations of the existing consular convention. Mr. D'Allemagne has had to contend with other difficulties, of another nature, in the discharge of his official duties. It seems that the provisions of the convention of 1853 are not observed in San Francisco as it would be desirable. I confine myself, for the present, to laying before you the difficulties connected with the Tamm case, and I should be very grateful, Mr. Secretary of State, if you would kindly communicate the foregoing remarks to the honorable Attorney-General of the United States with a request that he issue to the authorities under his orders such instructions as may be necessary to insure, hereafter, a strict observance of the convention of 1853, and to repress the irregular acts that have given to the consul-general of France occasion to complain of certain deputy sheriffs and lawyers of his residence. Be pleased, etc., Mr. Hay to Mr. de Margerie. P. DE MARGERIE. No. 426.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 15, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 7th instant, stating that the sheriff at San Francisco attempted to serve a writ upon the consul-general of France in that city in violation of the convention between the United States and the French Republic of February 23, 1853. I have referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and also to the governor of California, for action, and will gladly communicate to you such information as I may receive from them regarding it. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. Mr. de Margerie to Mr. Hay. [Translation.] EMBASSY OF FRANCE, Washington, November 24, 1901. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I had the honor on the 7th of November last to draw your attention, in connection with a lawsuit brought at San Francisco against one of the clerks of the consulate of France, to the laches shown by some of the judicial authorities of that city in the observance of the prescriptions of Articles II and III of the Franco-American consular convention of February 23, 1853. I added that, in other respects, it seemed that the provisions of that convention were not observed at San Francisco and on the Pacific coast as it would be desirable that they should be. I take the liberty while on this subject to draw the attention of the Department of State to the difficulties encountered by the consulgeneral of France at San Francisco and the consular agents under him in securing the cooperation of the local police in cases provided for in Articles VIII and IX of the said consular convention. French shipping, notably sailing vessels, is rather numerous in the ports of San Francisco, Oakland, and at various other ports of the Pacific coast. Incidents unavoidably occur among the crews of those vessels, making it necessary for the consular officers to intervene and occasionally to pass sentences for the execution of which they are authorized under the convention of 1853 to request the assistance of the local police. The conditions are the same when it is a question of searching, arresting, detaining, and sending back to their ships or to France such seamen as may desert. Now, the peculiarly grievous conditions of the city of San Francisco, of which the Department of State is certainly aware, would precisely require that the local police be particularly unremitting in its protection of crews and foreigners. Labor troubles are unfortunately frequent, and strikers cause almost with impunity many disturbances. The local police seems to give but too slight attention to keeping away from the purlieus of the harbor a whole class of persons whose only occupation seems to be to induce seamen to desert and who are not afraid surreptitiously to come on board foreign merchant vessels in order to invite desertion. The consul-general of France has brought to the embassy's attention numerous instances in which the police authorities, though regularly called upon to do so, have failed to render him the required assistance. Sometimes they will detain in jail a seaman sentenced by the consul beyond the term pronounced by the latter, and instead of bringing him back to the ship as agreed, purely and simply set him at liberty, thus facilitating desertion. Sometimes they will, as they have done at Oakland and notably at Portland, answer the written and regular requisition of the consul with a statement that they are not acquainted with the requirements of the Franco-American consular convention. Again, they will decline to keep over the wharves a sufficient watch to prevent the enticers from plying their stealthy trade to the detriment of foreign crews. Many complaints, emanating either from the consul-general of France or from the masters of French merchant vessels themselves, have thus been laid before the embassy. |