in the Republic of Panama that it would withdraw recognition from any such officers who secured exequaturs from the Government of the United States for use in the Canal Zone. The matter is clearly one which involves the exercise of sovereign rights in the Canal Zone in regard to which the United States Government has consistently maintained the position that there can be no departure from the provisions of the Treaty. It appears to be desirable that this position should be affirmed by the United States at the present juncture, in view of its possible beneficial effect on the course of the treaty negotiations now in progress between commissions representing the two countries. I would, therefore, suggest that you bring the circular note of February 17, 1921, to the attention of the Governor of the Canal Zone, to the end that the system outlined therein may be enforced with respect to all consular officers who were not at that time permitted to perform their functions in the Canal Zone.9 I have [etc.] 702.0011f/10 CHARLES E. HUGHES The Secretary of State to the Minister in Panama (South) No. 181 "It is thought that it would be advisable if a ruling could be made concerning the status, in the Canal Zone, of our own Diplomatic Officers as well as those of other Governments who are exercising their functions in the Republic of Panama, but the Legation has avoided bringing up the question for fear of involving, in some way, the sovereignty of the United States over the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone authorities appear to be in doubt as to the course which they should pursue, especially as regards Consuls. "It is therefore respectfully requested that some sort of ruling be made which can be used as a basis for definitely determining all of these matters." With regard to the diplomatic officers of the United States accredited to the Republic of Panama the Department is of the opinion that such officers have the same status with respect to the Canal Zone as to any other territory over which the United States exercises jurisdiction. Respecting diplomatic officers of foreign governments accredited near the Government of Panama you are informed that a review of the authorities on international law has failed to reveal a satisfactory 'The circular note of Feb. 17, 1921, was published by direction of the Acting Governor of the Panama Canal at Balboa Heights, C. Z., Apr. 9, 1924. definition of their status in the territory of the Canal Zone. It would seem, however that their status might be regarded as analogous to that of a diplomatic envoy traveling through the territory of a third state en route to his post. In the latter case, since the institution of legation is a necessary one for the intercourse of states and is firmly established by international law, there ought to be no doubt whatever that such a third state must grant the right of innocent passage (jus transitus innoxii) to the envoy, provided that it is not at war with the sending or receiving state. The United States asserts that, according to the law of nations a diplomatic officer is entitled to a right of transit to his post by sea, or through the national domain, whether land or water, of a state other than that to which he is accredited. It is not contended, however, that this right embraces one of sojourn in such state, or that the sovereign thereof may not prescribe the route of transit. While evidence is wanting that states generally have as yet agreed to yield rights of jurisdiction over diplomatic officers not accredited to them and passing through their territories, it is not unreasonable to claim for such individuals freedom from petty annoyance whether in the form of criminal prosecution for minor offenses or of civil suits of trivial importance. For your further information and guidance, it may be stated that consular officers as such, not being diplomatic officers, cannot claim as of right the privileges and immunities accorded the latter. Consular officers do, however, enjoy certain rights and privileges derived from international law and treaties. A consular officer may reasonably claim inviolability for the archives and official property of his office. By various treaties, the inviolability of the consular offices and dwellings is expressly secured. This does not imply, however, that a consular dwelling may be used as an asylum. In the absence of treaty, a consular officer may justly claim for himself and his office those rights which are accorded by international law. He may also claim those privileges which are accorded by the state of his sojourn to consuls of other states, except so far as they rest upon treaties which through lack of conventional arrangement with this country he is not entitled to invoke. Consular officers do not enjoy exemption from local jurisdiction. The territorial sovereign is not obliged to yield so great a privilege. In the absence of treaty, it is expected that that sovereign, in the matter of service of process or the taking of testimony, or otherwise, will exercise its rights of jurisdiction in such a manner as to cause the least possible interference with the necessary exercise of the consular function. The status of foreign consular officers in the Panama Canal Zone, in so far as concerns the performance of their functions in that terri tory, forms the subject of the following circular addressed by the Department on February 17, 1921, to foreign Embassies and Legations in Washington: "The Secretary of State... has the honor to state that the Government of the United States believes it to be desirable that foreign consuls exercising consular functions in the Isthmian Canal Zone should do so under exequaturs issued by the Government of the United States. It is requested, therefore, that hereafter an additional commission, addressed to the President of the United States, be issued to all consuls of the . . . Government who may be appointed or assigned to the Canal Zone, and be presented to this Government with the request for the exequatur in accordance with customary procedure." Note has been taken of the reference in your despatch under acknowledgment to the foregoing circular and of your statement regarding your conversations with the Canal Zone authorities concerning its present enforcement by the latter. For your information in this connection there are enclosed herewith copies of correspondence between the Department and the War Department, relating to the subject, from which you will note that the Department has considered it desirable that the system of recognizing foreign consuls in the Canal Zone, outlined in the before mentioned circular of February 17, 1921, should be put into force immediately. The reasons which prompted the Department to take this action are set forth in its letter to the Secretary of War, dated April 2, 1924, a copy of which accompanies this instruction.10 I am [etc.] 702.0011f/26 CHARLES E. HUGHES The Secretary of State to the Secretary of War (Weeks) WASHINGTON, January 3, 1925. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have received your letter of December 30, 1924, relating to the failure of a number of foreign consular officers functioning in the Panama Canal Zone to present exequaturs issued by the Government of the United States. 11 Since it appears that all consular officers exercising their functions in the Canal Zone were advised June 3, 1924,12 that they should obtain United States exequaturs prior to January 1, 1925, it would seem that sufficient time had been allowed them within which to comply with this regulation. I desire, therefore, to express my approval of the procedure suggested by the Acting Governor of the Canal in his 10 Letter printed supra. "Not printed. Through a circular letter published by the Governor of the Panama Canal at Balboa Heights, June 3, 1924. telegram of December 27, 1924,13 wherein he proposes to issue a notice informing foreign consular officers that only those possessing United States exequaturs will be regarded as authorized to transact consular business in the Canal Zone after January 1, 1925. I deem it advisable, however, that an exception be made in the proposed notice to cover the cases of such consular officers as may have obtained the provisional recognition of this Government. I am [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES 702.0011f/27 The Secretary of War (Weeks) to the Secretary of State WASHINGTON, January 20, 1925. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I beg to refer to previous correspondence with your Department relative to the issuance of exequaturs by the Government of the United States to foreign consuls for the exercise of consular functions in the Canal Zone, particularly to your letter of January 3, 1925, (file LA 702.0011f/26), and inclose herewith a circular letter on this subject addressed to all concerned, issued by the Executive Secretary of The Panama Canal under date of January 7, 1925, which is self-explanatory. Sincerely yours, [Enclosure] JOHN W. WEEKS Circular Letter Issued by the Acting Governor of The Panama Canal BALBOA HEIGHTS, C. Z., January 7, 1925. TO ALL CONCERNED: Attention is invited to the circulars issued by this office on April 9, 1924,1 and June 3, 1924,15 relative to the issuance of exequaturs by the Government of the United States to foreign consuls for the exercise of consular functions in the Canal Zone. It will be noted that proper recognition was to have been secured by January 1, 1925. Hereafter, the only foreign consular officers who can be officially recognized as authorized to transact the business of their consulates in the Canal Zone are those who hold exequaturs from the United States Government for the Panama Canal Zone. An exception will be made, however, in those cases in which provisional recognition has been extended pending the issuance of an exequatur. By direction of the Acting Governor : 13 Not printed. 14 See footnote 9, p. 653. 15 See footnote 13, p. 655. C. A. McILVAINE 701.5119/8 The Secretary of State to the Panaman Minister (Alfaro) WASHINGTON, January 31, 1925. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. D-36, of January 17, 1925,16 in which you state that you have been directed by your Government to inquire "what are the guaranties, privileges and preferences which the Government of the United States recognizes and accords to diplomatic representatives accredited to the Republic of Panama who happen to be in or pass through the Canal Zone." In response to your inquiry I am pleased to inform you that it has been, and will doubtless continue to be the practice of this Government to accord on grounds of comity to diplomatic officers accredited to the Republic of Panama, while in the Canal Zone, those courtesies and privileges which are customarily extended by third states to diplomatic officers of foreign governments, it being understood, however, that it is always incumbent upon those officers to establish their identity to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Canal Zone with whom they may come in contact. I may add in this connection that any foreign diplomatic representatives accredited to the Government of Panama who may hold exequaturs of the President of the United States as consular officers in and with respect to the Panama Canal Zone can not be regarded as being entitled to treatment different from that accorded to similar consular representatives of their respective governments in the United States and its possessions. Accept [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES GOOD OFFICES OF THE AMERICAN MINISTER IN PANAMA IN PACIFYING AN INDIAN REVOLT 819.00/1156 : Telegram The Minister in Panama (South) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, February 27, 1925—10 a. m. 24. Great excitement prevails here over the Indian uprising which appears to be general along the north coast from Porvenir to Obaldia. Several villages are reported to have burned and a number of Panaman police officers and private individuals variously estimated at from 10 to 30 are said to have been killed. A force of 200 Panaman 10 Not printed. |