No. 185.
Mr. Fish to Sir Edward
Thornton.
Washington, April 7, 1873.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th of February, in which you inform me, (1.) That Mr. Shannon, a commissioner duly appointed by the circuit court of the United States at New Orleans, entertained, in his judicial capacity, jurisdiction of a suit which involved the terms of service of a sailor who was shipped at Calcutta on the British ship Woodburn in due form before the proper officers. (2.) That Mr. Mason, a similar commissioner, similarly appointed at Galveston, entertained jurisdiction, in his judicial capacity, of a tort committed on the high seas on an English vessel.
You express your opinion that the rulings of Mr. Commissioner Shannon, in the case decided by him, cannot be supported; and you express the hope that some means may be found for preventing the repetition of such decisions.
You also express the opinion that Mr. Commissioner Mason might have easily ascertained whether the offense which he was considering was committed on the high seas.
You also ask me to inform you whether such cases come within the jurisdiction of the authorities of the United States in the position held by Mr. Commissioner Shannon and Mr. Commissioner Mason.
In reply to your last question I have to say that it is understood that the statutes of the United States do invest officers of the grade of Messrs. Shannon and Mason with a preliminary jurisdiction over such cases. But, in the case of foreign vessels, the courts of the United States, following the example of the courts of England, while asserting their jurisdiction as of right, have expressed a disinclination, on the grounds of expediency and propriety, to exercise that jurisdiction unless induced thereto by a clear necessity.
With reference to Mr. Mason, and your suggestion that he might easily have ascertained that the imputed offense was committed, if at all, upon the high seas, I take the liberty to observe that it does not clearly appear from your statement whether the case before him was a criminal prosecution or a personal action to recover damages for an alleged injury, and that the propriety of the course of the magistrate, in entertaining jurisdiction in the matter, may be affected by the determination of that fact. As the complaint was dismissed by the magistrate it has become of little importance.
With reference to the correctness of the rulings of Commissioner Shannon, I cannot find in your statement sufficient facts to enable me to judge of this. You will allow me, however, to add that, even were the facts more fully stated, I should not think that I could pass upon them with propriety.
With reference to the hope which you express that some means may be found for preventing the repetition of such decisions, I beg to renew the expression of an opinion long ago formed and expressed, that it is for the interest both of Great Britain and the United States to conclude a consular convention which may confer upon their respective consuls jurisdiction in cases similar to those of which you complain.
I know of no better means for preventing dissatisfaction on the part of ship-owners with proceedings like these. Experience has proved that consuls can be trusted to do justice in the disputes which are ever [Page 421] arising between masters and seamen. Experience also proves that the purest and best-administered local courts are looked upon with jealous eyes when they exercise jurisdiction over officers and crew of a foreign vessel.
I have, &c.,