modified by adding "to which private individuals of their nation are subject in the same place, in respect of their commercial transactions."

The treaty between the United States and France, 1853, (10 U. S. Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 114, Art. II.,) gives absolute exemption from direct and personal taxation: but it provides that if consuls are citizens of the country of residence; if they are or become owners of property there, or engage in commerce, they are subject to the same taxes, &c., and, with the reservation of the treatment granted to commercial agents, to the same juris diction as citizens owning property or engaged in trade.

The treaty between the United States and Guatemala, 1849, (10 U. S, Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 14, Art. XXX.,) and others, also except taxes payable on account of property as well as commerce, for which they are taxable like other inhabitants.

In addition to the treaties cited in this place, others, chiefly earlier in date, contain provisions more or less similar. Such may be found in De Clercq, vol. 5, pp. 603, 614, 632; Id., vol. 6, pp. 29, 157, 185, 282, 290, 303 308, 551; Id., vol. 7, pp. 179, 322, 362, 586; and in 10 U. S. Stat at L.. (Tr.,) pp. 45, 80, 95; 11 Id., 591, 650; 12 Id., 1020, 1157. See the United States Consular Regulations, (1870,) ¶ 29, and treaties in App. No. 1.

For a statement of the immunities now allowed by European nations to consuls, see Guide Pratique des Consulats, vol. 1, p. 12.

ARTICLE 180. Right of passage.

181. Immunities of consuls.

182. Duty as witnesses.

183. Books, papers, &c., not to be seized.

184. Dwelling and office inviolable.
185. General subjection to local law.

Right of passage.

180. A consul, who is not a domiciled member of the nation of his residence,' if he has received the formal act of permission required by article 166, has the right of passage through the territory of the nation of his residence, for the purpose of leaving the country; which right continues for a reasonable time after his powers have terminated.

Bluntschli, § 275; Viveash v. Becker, 3 Maule & Selwyn's Rep., 297, cited in 2 Phill. Int. Law, pp. 260, 268.

1 A person having a foreign domicil before appointment, does not lose it by residing as consul; and, therefore, it seems that his right of return to his domicil should be secured equally as if he were a foreigner.

Immunities of consuls.

181. A consul, authorized as provided in the last article,' is entitled to the following immunities:

1. From military billetings' in his consular dwelling' and office;"

2. From military and naval service of every kind; 3. From jury and police duty, and all other civil service; and,

4. From arrest on civil process in all cases."

Taxation, of any kind, is not included among the immunities allowed by this Code, for reasons stated in the introductory note to this section. It should seem proper to require an exequatur in all cases, as a foundation for the consular immunities; (see Articles 166-169 ;) though this is not now an universal rule.

The first consular convention between the United States and France, 1788, (8 U. S. Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 106,) extended the general immunities to vice-consuls and secretaries, though the latter were not required to have an exequatur. The convention of 1853, however, (10 Id., (Tr.,) 116, Art. II.,) secures the same to consular pupils and to secretaries, &c., discharging the consular duties ad interim.

The treaty between the United States and Hayti, (Nov. 3, 1864,) 13 U. S. Stat. at L., 711, Art. XXXV., extends the immunity from taxes to persons, not being citizens, attached to the service of consuls. And to the same effect, with the additional exemption from public service, is the treaty between the United States and Brazil, 1828, 8 Id., 397.

See, also, the treaty between the United States and

Peru-Bolivia, 1836, 8 Id., 494.
Venezuela, 1836, 8 Id., 480.

New Granada, 1846, 9 Id, (Tr.,) 94.

Guatemala, 1849, 10 Id., (Tr.,) 14.

In order that a nation may retain full jurisdiction over its own members, when appointed consuls by foreign nations, a waiver of immunity, as a condition of granting the exequatur, should be required.

The authorities usually speak of the consular dwelling only; but as the dwelling is sometimes separate from the office, the latter is specially mentioned, for it is also entitled to exemption.

5 Martens says, that if necessary, the consul may be required to provide

a substitute; but it should seem better to disallow this qualification. Guide Dip., tome 1, § 74; cited in Halleck, pp. 248, 249.

See United States Consular Regulations, (1870,) ¶ 30; and treaties in Appendix No. 1.

Halleck, pp. 248, 249.

The existing rule only extends this exemption to consuls who do not engage in commerce. 2 Phill. Int. Law, 268.

The consular conventions between France and

Brazil, Dec. 10, 1860, 8 De Clercq, 153.
Austria, Dec. 11, 1866, 9 ld., 669, Art. II.

Portugal, July 11, 1866, 9 Id., 582, Art. II.

provide that arrest of the person can only be applied in civil cases in causes of action of a commercial nature, where the consul is engaged in

commerce.

But it is believed that the necessity for an efficient performance of consular functions, and harmony with the general tendency restricting imprisonment in civil cases, require the adoption of the rule in the text.

Arrest in criminal cases is generally sanctioned by the authorities, and there seems to be good reason for allowing it, notwithstanding the interruption of the consular functions thereby caused. It is an important question, however, whether arrest should be allowed for crimes only, or also for misdemeanors, (delits.) The recent treaty between the United States and Italy allows of arrest only for offenses which are crimes by the local law, and punishable as such. The treaty between the United States and France, 1853, (10 U. S. Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 114, Art. II.,) is to the same effect. It is understood, however, that the French law generally holds foreign consuls amenable in cases of delit.

The latter rule seems preferable, and, therefore, no exemption in crimnal cases is specified.

See U. S. Cons. Reg., (1870,) ¶ 27, and treaties in App. No. 1.

Duty as witnesses.

182. A consul may be required to attend as a witness in the tribunals of the nation of his residence, within five leagues from the consular office, in the same manner as any other witness.

When the testimony of a consul is required for a tribunal beyond that distance, it must be taken in writing, at the consular office, in the manner prescribed by the law of the place for taking depositions.

This is suggested as, on the whole, a more reasonable and convenient rule than that embodied in many of the treaties.

The convention between the United States and Italy, cited above, provides that no consular officer, who is a member of the nation by which he was appointed, and who is not engaged in business, shall be compelled to

appear as a witness before the courts of the country where he resides. When the testimony of such consular officer is needed, he shall be invited in writing to appear in court; and if unable to do so, his testimony shall be requested in writing, or to be taken orally, at his dwelling or office; and it is the duty of the consular officers to comply with such requests without unnecessary delay.

The same treaty also provides that in all criminal cases in which the constitution or laws of the nation secure to persons charged with crimes the attendance of witnesses in their favor, the appearance in court of a consular officer, when required as such witness, shall be demanded, with all possible regard for the consular dignity and the duties of his office. See United States Consular Regulations, (1870,) ¶ 28; and treaties in Appendix No. 1.

To similar effect is the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and Peru, March 9, 1861, Art. XLIII., 8 De Clercq, 193. See, also, consular convention between France and

Brazil,

Dec. 10, 1860, Art. II., 8 De Clercq, 153.

Austria, Dec. 11, 1866,

Portugal, July 11, 1866,

III., 9 Id., 669.

II., 9 Id., 582.

That between France and Brazil, above, restricts this provision to consular officers and their clerks, who are members of the nation by which they are appointed.

Books, papers, &c., not to be seized.

183. The local authorities cannot seize, examine, or in any way interfere with the books, papers or other property held by the consul, by virtue of his office.

But a consul engaged in business must keep the books and papers relating thereto separate from those of the consulate; and they may be examined in the same manner as papers of other persons; except as provided in the article entitled Searches and Seizures, in the Section concerning RIGHTS OF RESIDENCE, of Chapter XXV., entitled PERSONAL RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS.

United States Consular Regulations, (1870,) ¶ 25, and treaties in Appen dix No. 1.

By Article 109, an exception to this rule is recognized in the case of national emergencies affecting the existence of the nation.

The treaty between the United States and Italy, 15 U. S. Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 185, Art. VI., by which this article is suggested, exempts simply papers deposited in the consulate.

See, also, 2 Phill. Int. Law, 245.

To much the same offect is the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and Peru, March 9, 1861, 8 De Clercq, 193, Art. XLV.; and the consular convention between France and Portugal, July 11, 1866, 9 Id., 582, Art. V.

To the same effect, without, however, the last provision, is the consular convention between France and

Austria, Dec. 11, 1866, Art. V.. 9 De Clercq, 669.

And the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and Honduras, Feb. 22, 1856, 7 Id., 10, Art. XXI.

Dwelling and office inviolable.

184. The consular dwelling and office are exempt from the jurisdiction of the nation of his residence,' but cannot be used as an asylum,' except for the protection of members of the consul's nation against invasions of rights secured to them by this Code,' or by special compact, or for the like protection of members of a nation on whose behalf his friendly offices are interposed.

The convention between the United States and Italy, 15 U. S. Stat. at L., (Tr.,) 185, Art. VI., declares that the consular offices and dwellings shall be at all times inviolable, and the local authorities shall not, under any pretext, invade them.

See, also, convention or treaty between the United States and

Belgium, December 5, 1868, Art. VI., U. S. Cons. Reg., (1870,) ¶ 500. France, February 23,1853, III., 10 U. S. Stat. at L., 992. Convention between the United States and Italy, above, and the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and Peru, March 9, 1861, 8 De Clercq, 193, Art. XLIV.

This exception seems reasonable, under any Code by which the rights of foreigners are defined.

Levi, (Internationl Commercial Law, vol. 1, Intro., p. xii.,) says, that a consulate is held to be the territory of the country which the consul represents; and therefore all deeds, and acts done within it, or under "the seal of the consulate, are held as done in England." The conclusion is doubtless sound, but the reason assigned is questionable. The foregoing provisions would not confer any extra-territorial character on the consulate.

General subjection to local law.

185. Except as provided in this Title, the consular office confers no exemption from the laws and jurisdiction of the country of the consul's residence.

In case a consul is prosecuted, or punished, or deprived of the exercise of his functions, for an offense against the laws of the country of his residence, the offended government must acquaint the consul's nation with its motives for having thus acted.