and executive authority. In the case of public vessels not of the navy, the laws giving courts of admiralty jurisdiction of crimes appear to apply as in the case of merchant vessels.

(3) The United States has in general recognized its duty to abstain from the assumption of jurisdiction over acts committed in foreign countries, but certain exceptions to this general rule have been recognized by law. For convenience we may consider the subject under the four heads, (a) acts committed by agencies of government, (b) by citizens, (c) by foreigners, and (d) laws of extraterritorial effect.

(a) The general exemption of foreign public vessels, armed forces, and diplomatic representatives from local jurisdiction is recognized by international law. The law of the United States provides for the exercise of jurisdiction over acts by its agencies of this character even in foreign countries. Naval forces of the United States in foreign jurisdiction continue subject to the articles for the government of the navy, navy regulations and naval instructions.85 Crimes committed on board such vessels in foreign ports are subject to trial by court martial in the same manner as if the vessel were on the high seas or in a home port. Seamen of the navy are also subject to consular jurisdiction for acts committed abroad.86

Armed forces may only enter foreign territory in time of peace by special license, but wherever they are they remain subject to the articles of war, the army regulations, and the general orders of the war department.88 As with naval forces, crimes committed by members of such forces in foreign territory are subject to court martial trial. Military law is personal, and non-territorial in effect.

The exemption from local jurisdiction of diplomatic representatives is recognized by international law and specified in the instructions to diplomatic officers issued by the president in 1897.89 By these instructions diplomatic officers are forbidden

85 See Navy Regulations, 1913; Articles for the government of the Navy, Rev. Stat. 1624.

86 Consular Regulations, 1896, Sec. 630, p. 268. Moore's Digest, 2; 611. See Navy Regulation Nov. 2, 1875.

87 See Dig. op. Judge Ad. Gen. 1912, p. 90.

88 See Articles of War, Rev. Stat. 1342-1343; Dig. op. Judge Ad. Gen. 1912, pp. 511, 1071.

89 Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States, (1897), Sec. 46, p. 18; Rev. Stat. 4063-4064.

to submit to local criminal or civil jurisdiction, or to testify in foreign courts without the express consent of the United States.90 They remain subject to the instructions of the department of state and the president, by whom they may be recalled at pleasure, and to the law of the United States.

Consuls do not enjoy the exemptions of diplomatic officers from local jurisdiction except in non-Christian countries. They are, however, declared by the consular regulations of 1896 to be exempt from jury and militia duties, and their archives are not subject to local jurisdiction.92 Consuls abroad are subject to consular regulations and the authority of the department of state and the president. They may be punished in the United States for crimes committed abroad.93 The consular regulations declare United States consular officers to be immune from local criminal and civil jurisdiction, and subject to diplomatic privileges in non-Christian countries. In such cases their acts are subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts as in the case of ministers.

94

(b) Acts committed by United States citizens abroad are not in general subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. This applies to acts committed on national merchant vessels in foreign ports. Thus the United States courts have held that statutes conferring jurisdiction over crimes committed within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States do not apply to crimes committed on vessels in foreign ports.95 Crimes take place where they take effect; consequently the court refused jurisdiction in a case where an American citizen fired a shot from an American vessel, killing a man in foreign jurisdiction."

96

There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Statutes have provided for the punishment of crimes against the sovereignity of the United States, committed by citizens abroad, such as the unauthorized carrying on of diplomatic correspondence with foreign governments.97 Another exception occurs in the case of countries where consular jurisdiction has been established

90 Diplomatic Instructions, 1897, Sec. 46, 48, 53, 56.

91 Diplomatic Instructions, 1897, Sec. 272-280, Rev. Stat. 202.
92 Consular Regulations, 1896, Sec. 71-75.

93 Moore's Digest, 2;267.

94 Consular Regulations, 1896, Sec. 75.

95U. S. vs. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 74, (1820); U. S. vs. McGill, 4 Dall.

426, (1806); contra, U. S. vs. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, (1893).

96U. S. vs. Davis, 2 Sumner C. C. 482, (1837).

97 Act. 1799, Rev. Stat. 5335. See Moore's Digest, 2:264.

by treaty. Such treaties have been concluded with most nonChristian countries, although that with Japan was abrogated in 1894, as have been those of countries which have since become colonies of European states.98 The treaties usually specify the limits of this jurisdiction, which has been further defined by act of congress." According to this statute such consuls have jurisdiction over crimes committed by United States citizens in that country, or by sailors in United States vessels, even when the man is a foreigner. 100 A similar jurisdiction is given to consuls and commercial agents in places "not inhabited by any civilized people or recognized by any treaty with the United States. "'101 Besides this criminal jurisdiction consular courts exercise civil jurisdiction in cases where American citizens are defendants.102

(c) The United States has of all countries been the most consistent in its opposition to the doctrine of extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreigners.103 As has been observed, the jurisdiction over citizens for acts committed abroad, a jurisdiction which is permissible by international law and extensively exercised by many countries, has been but sparingly provided for in the law of the United States. In an exhaustive discussion of

98 Treaties now in force with Borneo, China, Korea, Morocco, Tripoli, Turkey, Persia, Siam, Tonga. Treaties have been concluded but since abrogated or superseded by annexation with Algiers, Muscat, Zanzibar, Japan, Madagascar, Samoa, Tunis.

99 Act Aug. 11, 1848, 9 Stat. 276, as amended in Rev. Stat. Sec. 40834130. Applies to China, Japan, Siam, Egypt, Madagascar, Turkey, Persia, Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, Muscat, Samoa, and other countries with which appropriate treaties may be concluded. Rev. Stat. 4129. Japan, Madagascar, Tunis, Muscat, and Samoa have since been excluded by treaty.

100 Consular regulations, 1896, Sec. 629. In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, (1891).

101 Rev. Stat. Sec. 4088. This was held to permit the assumption of jurisdiction by a special agent sent over for that purpose in a country where no regular consul or commercial agent resided, by Att. Gen. Garland. (18 op. 219, 1885).

102 In exercising jurisdiction consular courts apply the law of the United States, the common law, the law of equity and admiralty, and "decrees and regulations" which ministers may make to "supply defects and deficiencies" in the other bodies of law mentioned. Rev. Stat. 4986; Cushing Att. Gen., 7 op. 503; Moore's Digest, 2;614-617.

103 See the Appollon, 9 Wheat. 362; U. S. vs. Davis, 2 Sumner C. C. 482, (1837).

extraterritorial crime,104 written by John Bassett Moore in connection with the Cutting case, in which Mexico attempted to assert jurisdiction over an American citizen for acts committed against a Mexican citizen in the United States, only one instance is mentioned in which, aside from treaty agreements, jurisdiction is asserted over foreigners for acts in foreign territory. This case occurs in a statute of 1856105 which authorizes consular officers and secretaries of legation to administer oaths and perform notarial acts, which shall be valid in the United States. The act also provides that persons committing perjury in such oaths shall be liable to criminal punishment as if the act were committed in the United States, and may be indicted in any district where arrested. This statute was justified by Attorney General Williams106 on the ground that the domicile of the consul or diplomatic agent where the act was committed is to be regarded as a portion of United States territory. Moore thinks a more satisfactory justification can be found in the implied consent given by the foreign government, to submit its citizen to United States law, when he does these acts before an officer recognized by international law and by the foreign state's own law as competent to perform such functions.107

To this example may be added that already mentioned of the jurisdiction exercised by consular courts over seamen of foreign nationality serving on American vessels in foreign ports. The consular regulations very specifically extend this jurisdiction, and in the case of In re Ross108 its exercise was upheld by the United States supreme court in the case of a British subject, serving on an American vessel and found guilty of murder by the consular court for an act done on the vessel while in the harbor of Yokahama. The usual principle of jurisdiction over acts done on national vessels coupled with the extraterritorial jurisdiction over such vessels, granted to consuls by treaty in this case, furnishes sufficient justification for this exercise of jurisdiction over aliens for acts committed abroad.

104J. B. Moore, Report on extraterritorial Crime, For. Rel., 1887, p. 770. A large portion of this report is printed in Moore's Digest, 2;243-269.

105 Act. Aug. 18, 1856; Rev. Stat. 1750.

106 Williams Att. Gen., 14 op. 285.

107 Moore's Digest, 2;267.

108 See Consular regulations, 1896, sec. 629; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, (1891).

Not so easily justified is the jurisdiction given by statute over every person committing assaults with a dangerous weapon on vessels wholly or partly owned by United States citizens, on the "high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state". Under this statute jurisdiction was upheld of a crime committed on an American vessel in the Detroit River within the territorial limits of Canada, thus limiting the term "particular state" to states of the union.109

In general, however, the law of the United States gives adequate recognition to the duty of abstaining from the exercise of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime by aliens.

(d) United States courts have in general refused to give an extraterritorial effect to laws, even when no limitation was expressed in terms. Thus the supreme court refused to apply the Sherman anti-trust law to prevent a monopoly in Costa Rica. Justice Holmes speaking for the court, said, “All legislation is prima facie territorial, words having universal scope, such as every contract in restraint of trade, will be taken as a matter of course to mean only every one subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator may subsequently be able to catch.''110

In 1908 Judge Advocate General Davis expressed an opinion that declarations of war were laws of extraterritorial effect.1 111 Consequently the president could call out the militia for service in foreign countries, under the constitutional and statutory authority to call them out "to execute the laws." A statute of 1908112 based on this opinion recognized such extraterritorial laws, but the validity of this provision was denied in an opinion of the attorney general in 1912.11

109 Rev. Stat. 5346. See U. S. vs. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, (1893). In U. S. vs. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat 76, the court refused jurisdiction of a crime by an American citizen in an American vessel in the river Tigress of China. The statute under which indictment was made in this case was, however, sec. 12, of the crimes act of 1790, (see Rev. Stat. 5576) which extended jurisdiction only over the high seas. See also, Thomas vs. Lane, 2 Sumn. 1, U. S. vs. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72; Moore's Digest, 1:937-938. 110 American Banana Co. vs. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, (1909). 111See Cong. Record, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 1908, vol. 42, p. 6940, 6661; 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 7778.

112 Act May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 399, Sec. 5 p. 400.

113 Att. Gen. Wickersham, 29 Op. 322, (1912). But see Act. Feb. 16, 1914, Sec. 4, in which the power to summon the naval militia for service "within or without” the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is given.