3. The Comptrollers and Auditors of the Treasury have no general authority to award damages as for tort, on contract broken; their jurisdiction is confined to matters of account arising ex contractu or by operation of law. Ibid.

4. The extraordinary expenses of a party incurred in living at St. Mary's, whither he retired after the destruction of his property in Florida, are a matter too remotely consequential to be the proper subject of damages under the 9th article of the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain. Opinion of June 8, 1854, 6 Op. 530.

5. Damages on the rescission of a mail contract by the Postmaster-General cannot be allowed beyond the actual loss to the party. Opinion of June 19, 1855, 7 Op. 286.

6. In the case of a post-office contract, canceled by the Postmaster-General, it is in the option of the other party to take the one month's extra allowance provided by the contract, or to claim damages at large; but if he elect to accept the former, that is a legal waiver of the latter. Opinion of Sept. 8, 1855, 7 Op. 487. 7. The acceptance by a mail contractor, on the rescission of his contract by the PostmasterGeneral, of the month's extra compensation stipulated for such case in the contract, is a waiver of all claim for other damages. Opinion of March 3, 1856, 7 Op. 644.

8. Question of damages on a special contract between the War Department and the master of the bark Kilby. Opinion of Feb. 23, 1857, 8 Op. 401.

9. Mode of ascertaining damages to property under the act of July 20, 1868, chap. 184, which provides for the right of way over lands needed for the construction of the canal around the Des Moines Rapids of the Mississippi River, stated. And upon the assumption that the

ply of water were laid and in use on his land before the acquisition of the right of way over the same: Held that the direct and probable loss or injury which he would necessarily sustain by the construction of the canal, in being compelled to remove and relocate them, constituted a proper element of charge, along with the value of the land, in estimating the compensation for such right of way. Opinion of April 7, 1873, 14 Op. 214.

DEED.

1. The delivery of a deed is a consummating act, by which, and from the time of which, it takes effect and operates. Its delivery may be before or after its date. An antedate, a subsequent date, or no date, is material only as proof of a delivery; until which there can be no deed. But prima facie, every deed shall be interpreted to be delivered on the day of its date, and to be made fairly and in good faith. The presumptions are, however, controllable by proof. Opinion of March 26, 1802, 1 Op. 108.

2. Delivery is a matter in pais, and an indispensable requisite, to be established by evidence foreign from the date of the deed, or anything contained in it. Ibid.

3. A deed of land by a corporation must be under the seal thereof. Opinion of July 1, 1853, 8 Op. 440.

4. Degree of certainty requisite in the description of lands conveyed by deed. Opinion of Aug. 26, 1855, 8 Op. 451.

5. In a deed to the United States the true consideration should be stated. Opinion of Aug. 28, 1866, 12 Op. 18.

DEMURRAGE.

1. Demurrage may be either ex contractu or ex delicto; in either case it is a recompense fixed upon the deliberate consideration of all the circumstances attending the usual earnings and expenditures of a ship in common voyages; and has reference to her expenses, such as wages and provisions, wear and tear, and common employment. Opinion of Feb. 9, 1854, 6 Op. 285.

titled to be treated with respect so long as he is permitted to continue in the country to which he is sent, and especially ought not to be libeled by any of the citizens. If he commits any offense, it belongs, in our country, to the President of the United States to take notice of it, and not to any individual citizen. The President may dismiss him, or desire his recall, or complain to his sovereign and require satisfaction. Ibid.

4. An affront to an ambassador is just cause for national displeasure, and, if offered by an individual citizen, satisfaction is demandable of his nation. It is not usual for nations to take serious notice of publications in one nation containing injurious and defamatory observations upon the other; but it is usual to complain of insults to their ambassadors, and to require the parties to be brought to punishment. Ibid.

5. A foreign minister here should correspond with the Secretary of State on matters which interest his nation, and ought not to be permitted to do it through the press in our country. His intercourse is to be with the Executive of the United States only upon matters that concern his mission or trust. He has no authority to communicate his sentiments to the people of the United States by publications, either in manuscript or print, which he shall write and circulate while resident among us. Such conduct would be a contempt of the Government, for which he would be reprehensible by the President. Opinion of July 27, 1797, 1 Op. 74. 6. There is no provision in the Constitution, nor in any law or treaty, which reaches the case of an insult to the Spanish minister. of May 12, 1802, 5 Op. 691.

Opinion

7. The entry into a minister's garden by the agent of the owner of a slave, and there seizing and carrying away such slave to the owner, is not such a violation of the domicil of the minister as constitutes an offense. The immunities of a minister's domicil cannot extend to his garden. Opinion of May 9, 1804, 1 Op. 141.

8. The certificates of foreign ministers do not seem to compose a part of the regular papers with which a ship is usually furnished for the protection of herself and cargo. Opinion of July 20, 1807, 1 Op. 162.

9. The President being intrusted with the subject of the diplomatic intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, may, in

his discretion, advance money to a minister going abroad over and above his outfit. Opinion of June 15, 1829, 2 Op. 204.

10. Mr. Barrozo Pereira, the Portuguese chargé d'affaires, was, on the 30th of October, 1829, entitled to the respect and immunities of a public minister, notwithstanding the assumption of regal power in Portugal of Don Miguel in exclusion of Don Pedro. Opinion of Nov. 3, 1829, 2 Op. 290.

11. The change which had occurred in the political condition of his country was not yet consummated. The uncertainty which induced him to suspend instead of terminating his functions was the same uncertainty which delayed the recognition by the United States of the existing Government of Portugal. Until that was done, it could not consider as valid any act of that Government affecting Mr. Barrozo; and his own act, unnoticed as it was by this Government; was open to the explanation which he gave of it. Ibid.

12. The minister to Madrid is not entitled to charge for office rent, although similar charges have been allowed to our ministers to London and Paris, the same not being warranted by law, nor having been the usage of the Government. Opinion of Aug. 5, 1831, 2 Op. 453.

13. Where the chargé d'affaires to New Grenada was authorized to draw upon the Barings for his salary, and such drafts brought a premium: Held, that he was chargeable with such premium, and must be considered to hold it in trust for the Government. Opinion of Dec. 26, 1843, 4 Op. 295.

14. The Government was bound to pay the minister a stipulated salary of $4,500 per annum, and, being thus liable, it was bound to make that amount available to him at his foreign residence; yet if, in the fiscal arrangements to make such salary available, he receive more than his due, he is bound to account for it. Ibid.

15. The persons and household goods of foreign ambassadors, and those attached to their respective legations, are exempt from lawful arrest, seizure, or molestation, as well by the law of nations as the act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9. Opinion of Feb. 13, 1849, 5 Op. 69.

16. It is therefore unlawful for the keeper of a hotel in Washington with whom the attaché of the legation of France is a boarder to

oppose by force, in any manner, the removal therefrom of any of his personal effects. Ibid.

17. Yet it is not incumbent on the Secretary of State to interfere in such cases. The act of Congress which forbids the act and prescribes the penalty refers them to the judiciary. Ibid.

18. A minister to a foreign government is entitled to an outfit not exceeding one year's salary, though he were not in the United States at the time of his appointment. Opinion of July 20, 1849, 5 Op. 139.

19. The appropriation act of March 3, 1849, chap. 100, takes from the President any discretion as to the amount, and requires a full outfit to be paid Mr. Donelson, the claimant in this case. Ibid.

20. A minister of the United States to the republic of Mexico is entitled, under the acts of May 1, 1810, chap. 44, and March 3, 1847, chap. 47, to an outfit of $9,000, although he was not in the United States at the time of his appointment. Opinion of Oct. 8, 1849, 5 Op. 163.

21. The expression "ambassadors and other public ministers," which occurs three times in the Constitution, must be understood as comprehending all officers having diplomatic functions, whatever their title or designation. Opinion of May 25, 1855, 7 Op. 189.

22. "Ambassadors," by the public law of Europe, enjoy the highest privileges, because of the pretended or putative direct relation of the ministers of this name to their sovereign; but the imperial or regal sovereignty of a European monarchy neither has nor can have any public right in this respect, which does not equally belong to the popular sovereignty of a republic like the United States. Ibid.

23. The Commissioner of the United States in China, while he is a diplomatic officer by the law of nations, is also a judicial officer by treaty and by statute. Ibid.

24. The provision of the act of March 1, 1855, chap. 133, which contemplates the appointment only of an envoy extraordinary to China, is imperfect; for although the first minister of the United States, in China, held those two distinct commissions, yet a repetition of that fact at this moment would not be compatible with the diplomatic relations at present existing between the United States and China. Ibid.

25. It was the practice of the Spanish crown, during the reigns of Charles I and his successors of the Austrian dynasty, to delegate to Spanish viceroys, governors, and captainsgeneral, the jus legationis as well in Europe as in Asia and America; and that delegation was recognized by the public law of Europe. Opinion of Oct. 16, 1855, 7 Op. 551.

26. According to the public law of the monarchies of Europe, the authority of ministers, and perhaps of international commissioners, expires on the death, deposition, or abdication of the prince; but not so as between the American republics, in which the executive power is permanent and continuous, without regard to the governing person, and there is no interruption of the authority or renewal of the credentials of their public ministers on a change of President for whatever cause, provided such President continues to represent and exercise the appointing power of the Government. Opinion of Oct. 29, 1855, 7 Op. 582.

27. The United States observe, as their rule of public law, to recognize Governments de facto, and also governing persons de facto, without scrutiny of the question of legitimacy of origin or accession. Ibid.

28. Hence, in this case, the Mexican commissioner, Mr. Salazar, being duly appointed by President Santa Anna, continued to be competent to act after the sequent accession of President Carrera, and his official agreement, signed then, if otherwise regular and complete, definitively establishes the line as respects the Mexican republic. Ibid.

29. A person coming to this Government as the pretended diplomatic minister of a foreign state, and not recognized or received as such, has no diplomatic privilege except of transit, and that by comity, not of right; which qualified privilege is subject to be withdrawn from him, leaving him amenable to the municipal law, if he engage in or contemplate any act not consonant with the laws, peace, or public honor of the United States. Opinion of Dec. 24, 1855, 8 Op. 471.

30. A person claiming to be the diplomatic agent of a foreign Government, but not recognized as such, discharged from prosecution for unlawful recruiting on condition of leaving the United States. Opinion of Dec. 27, 1855, 8 Op. 473.

31. Ministers in office and receiving aug

not entitled to the privileges attached to the person of such an officer. The Constitution of the United States distinguishes between them, where it extends the judicial power "to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public minis

33. For injuries done by private persons to the representatives of foreign Governments, the Government of the United States affords redress through its judicial tribunals. Ibid.

34. The Executive Department has no power to redress such injuries. Ibid.

35. The absence of a minister resident from his post, with permission of the President, is not an offense for which his salary, during the time of the absence, is to be withheld from him. Opinion of April 27, 1858, 9 Op. 138.

36. The act of August 18, 1856, chap. 127, does not forbid an absence of less than ten days without permission, or of more than that time with leave of the President. Ibid.

37. A secretary of legation is lawfully authorized to act as charge d'affaires ad interim whenever he assumes the duties of that office in a manner warranted by public law, diplomatic usage, and the general instructions of the Department of State. Opinion of May 3, 1860, 9 Op. 425.

38. When legally authorized to act in that capacity, he is entitled, under the act of August 18, 1856, chap. 127, to receive the pay of a charge d'affaires. Ibid.

39. A minister plenipotentiary from the United States to a foreign power cannot, without the consent of Congress, accept a similar commission from a third power; though he is not prohibited from rendering a friendly service to a foreign Government, even that of negotiating a treaty, provided he does not become an officer thereof. Opinion of Nov. 23, 1871, 13 Op. 537.

II. Consuls, Vice-Consuls, Commercial Agents, &c.

40. A consul is not considered a public minister, because he is not in any degree invested with the representative character; and he is

also observed in the 13th section of the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20. Opinion of Feb. 20, 1794, 1 Op. 41.

41. A riot before the house of a foreign consul by a tumultuous assembly requiring him to give up certain persons supposed to be resident with him, and insulting him with improper language, is not an offense within the act of 30th April, 1790, chap. 9, for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and cannot be prosecuted in the courts of the United States. Ibid.

42. A consul is not, as such, privileged from legal process by the law of nations, nor is the French consul-general by the consular convention of 1788 between the United States and France. Opinion of Nov. 21, 1797, 1 Op. 77.

43. Though the transaction which gave rise to the suit instituted against the French consulgeneral was not of a private character, but of a public nature, and one in which he acted as agent of his Government, yet the President of the United States has no constitutional right to interpose his authority, but must leave the matter to the tribunals of justice. Ibid.

44. A consul of the United States for Tunis, with instructions from the Department of State authorizing him, if he could find a suitable channel through which to negotiate the immediate release of the American prisoners at Algiers, to go as far as three thousand dollars per man, employed an agent, by promise of reward, to effect the object, and then drew bills on the State Department for such compensation, and for money paid, &c., in favor of a merchant at Gibraltar: Held, that the employment of an agent was justified under the power, but that the true meaning of the instructions was lost sight of by the manner of the employment of the agent for a compensation. Opinion of Dec. 30, 1816, 1 Op. 196.

45. It is not essential to the validity of a consular bond that it should be attested. Opinion of June 30, 1820, 1 Op. 378.

46. Foreign consuls and vice-consuls are not public ministers within the law of nations or