throughout Europe, and even where it obtained, as in Rome and Madrid, was sometimes opposed and violated by the government. Similar to this right, if not an extension of it, was the freedom or privilege (jus quarteriorum) of the quarter of the city where the ambassador resided, and which was indicated by the arms of his sovereign. This right (or wrong, rather) prevailed in a number of places, as at Venice, Rome, Madrid, and during the meetings for the choice and coronation of an emperor, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. At Rome, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the harboring of criminals, under plea of exercising this right, gave occasion to more than one dispute between the Papal and the French governments.

It is now admitted that if a transgressor, not of the ambassador's train, takes refuge in his premises, he can be demanded by the local authorities, and, if not delivered up, can be searched for and seized within the hotel; for which purpose such force in breaking doors open and the like, may be used, as is necessary for his apprehension. For, as Bynkershoek ("De For. Leg.," § 21) asks, "legati, ut latrones recipiant, mittuntur? vel, sine receptione commode legationi vacare non possunt?"1

Freedom from im.

posts, etc.

§ 93.

It is also a freedom commonly allowed to ambassadors, but rather by national comity, than as a fair deduction from the exterritorial theory, that the personal effects of an ambassador are exempt from taxation, and that duties are remitted on articles from abroad which he needs for himself and his family. His importations, however, before they reach his hotel, are liable to the search of custom-house

1 A case in point here is that of a merchant accused of a crime who escaped to the hotel of Mr. Guidekens, the English ambassador at Stockholm. After some delay and seeming threats on the part of the Swedish king, he was given up; but the ambassador claimed the absolute right of asylum, and that no force could be used against the house of a foreign minister; that the guard put around his dwelling, and the demand to know within an hour what he would do in regard to the extradition of the criminal, were against international practice. In the letter of the government to that of Great Britain his recall was requested, and he went home. (De Martens, Erzählungen, etc., i., 217-235.)

Abuse of

ambassa

dor's priv

ilege of im

portation.

officers, and if he has sent for contraband goods, they may be confiscated. As for the rest, he is obliged to pay taxes (even on his hotel, if it belongs to him or to his government), tolls, and postages, but is exempt from the quartering of troops.1 Not long since a minister of the United States, at a European court, was charged, justly or unjustly, with having imported, for certain merchants, goods from abroad in his own name, the duties on which were, by courtesy to him, remitted, upon the supposition that they were for his own use. This dishonest practice of ambassadors was formerly common. Bynkershoek, in his treatise “De For. Leg.," cap. xiv., written in or before 1721, says, “Quæstus legatorum ex mercatura nunc multo est uberrimus ex non solutis vectigalibus mercium quas in usum suum sibi necessarias fingunt, et mox divendunt." The same abuse continued for some time afterward, as a passage from J. J. Moser's "Beiträge z. d. neuest. Europ. Gesandtschaftsrecht" (Frankf., 1781), will show. It is from the chapter on ambassadors' rights, in respect to things necessary, § iii., on smuggling. "It is not allowed to ambassadors and their trains to engage in commerce, much less in forbidden commerce. In the year 1762, the following piece of news came from London: This week a large quantity of baggage was brought into the kingdom for the French ambassador, the Duke of Nivernois, in which were contained a number of smuggled articles. The noble-minded duke had these conveyed at once to the customhouse, saying that he would not stain his character, as the representative of a great king, by concealing and conniving at frauds." Then Moser adds, that "in Madrid, in the year 1777, some servants of the papal nuncio took it into their heads to drive a secret trade in snuff, upon which the government, without consulting the nuncio as is the usage in the case of all other ambassadors, — punished them with banishment."

In the year 1772, according to the same author's "contributions to the most recent European law of nations," Part IV., p. 1 De Martens, §§ 227-229; Wheaton's Elements, iii., 1, § 18.

193 et seq., an ambassador may import from abroad furniture required for his sole use, unless it is forbidden. Then follows a case of the seizure of a quantity of chairs, wardrobes, mirrors, and other furniture imported into England in the name of the Italian ambassador. The goods were restored, but the cabinetmakers made an ado about introducing into the country, free of duties, articles which would employ several hundred workmen for several months. A petition was presented to Parliament, but no law was passed. At a conference of foreign ambassadors on the matter, the Spanish legate denounced any minister who would degrade himself to the level of a miserable smuggler. "We come here," said he, "to uphold, not to invade, the law of nations; and those powers which cannot find a subject capable of sustaining their character with honor, ought not to send ministers into foreign countries."

In 1767, certain prohibited articles of merchandise, imported into Sweden for the French ambassador, were seized, but afterwards restored on his paying five per cent. of their value. In Russia, before the middle of the eighteenth century, the franchises or exemptions from customs had been taken away from foreign ministers. In 1762, Peter III. restored them, and made compensation for the duties that had before been exacted. In 1748. we still quote from Moser "it was decided to take from all foreign ambassadors their exemption from duties of entry, in which the example of Russia was followed, which government, not being able to resist longer the abuses of his franchise which a certain minister practiced, has been the first to judge it proper to take away exemptions from all. As like abuses are committed at almost all the other courts, they likewise will — there can be no doubt set bounds to the franchises of foreign ministers; and, in this persuasion, the king has just taken the resolution to increase the salaries of his ministers abroad. In 1749 Holland, and in 1748 the King of Poland, Elector of Saxony, took away exemptions in all cases where their own ministers abroad did not enjoy the same freedom."

From all this it appears that the practice has varied, that exemptions from duties were never intended to cover any goods except those necessary for the ambassador's own private use, and that there was no discourtesy in taking such exemptions away.

§ 94.

Ambassa

of worship.

C. The liberty of worship in a foreign land is now conceded by the law and usage of Christian nations to ambassadors of every rank, even when their religion or sect dor's liberty is not tolerated by the laws of the land. This liberty might be deduced from the rule of exterritoriality, as in the parallel case of a ship of war in a foreign port, or still better from the consideration that, religion being a prime necessity of man's nature, an earnest nation could have no diplomatic intercourse with another nation, within whose territory its religion was prohibited. But the argument, which would support this liberty of worship by natural justice and the rights of conscience, however valid, has here no application, since a great part of the nations of Christendom have always assumed the right of allowing or prohibiting outward worship at their pleasure.

This freedom of worship extends to the household of the ambassador, and sometimes by comity or connivance, if not by treaty, to his countrymen, who may be residing at the same capital. It is not limited by his presence, but when he is on a journey, or during the intervals between two legations, it may still be kept up. But his household, and even his wife, it is held, if of another religion than his own, have no separate right of worship. It is held, also, that if there be religious rites publicly allowed, of the same sect to which the ambassador belongs and where he is residing, he may be forbidden to have a chapel and services of his own, which now are no longer necessary. Thus, when the Emperor Joseph II. granted toleration at Vienna to the adherents of the Augsburg Confession, it was declared that domestic worship at the hotel of Lutheran ambassadors would no more be permitted. But in Constantinople, where the Greek Church is tolerated, as the

Czar does not own the authority of the patriarch there, his minister has a special place of worship.

This worship may be such in the fullest sense, that is, there may be a chaplain or chaplains and whatever other persons are necessary for the services of religion, due administration of the sacraments, and the like. But it must be strictly houseworship, in a room fit for the purpose, yet without bell, organ, or other sign, indicating to passengers in the street that a chapel is near by. And it is held, that natives of the country cannot, without leave from the government, partake in the services; nor has the chaplain a right to appear abroad in his canonicals. A French ambassador at Stockholm, Chanut, claimed the right of admitting Swedes to his Catholic chapel, at services not tolerated in the country, which amounted to a claim of power to suspend the laws. When, in 1661, the Dutch imprisoned the French ambassador's chaplain for performing mass, their reason was that the ambassador had left the country. Most preposterous was the claim of Philip II. of Spain that the trains of ambassadors at Madrid should go

to mass.

It is held, that the ambassador may not set up worship as his own affair, but only by leave of his government. Where freedom of worship, as with us, is unlimited, all these restrictions are inapplicable, unless imposed by way of reciprocity; and the necessity for separate worship in general ceases. Treaty sometimes gives greater liberty than is here laid down.1

Privileges of his family and train.

§ 95.

D. The same exemption from local jurisdiction, which the ambassador himself enjoys, is granted by the law of nations to his family and train, as to his chaplain, physician, private secretary, and secretary of legation, and to his domestic servants. Dr. Wheaton remarks, in regard to the latter, that the laws and usages of most countries call upon ambassadors to furnish official lists of their servants, 1 Comp. Klüber, § 215; Heffter, § 213; De Martens, §§ 222-226.