No. 463.
Mr. Evarts
to Mr. Foster.
Washington, February 20, 1880.
Sir: Your dispatch No. 1076, of the 24th of December last, has been received. . It relates to a forced loan recently exacted from Messrs. Macmanus & Sons at Chihuahua, of which firm Mr. Scott, the consul, is a member. The exaction is believed to have been contrary to public law and in this case, as the officer pursuant to whose orders it was carried into effect was in the service of the Mexican Government for the time being, it is expected that that government will duly reimburse the victims.
This may be particularly claimed on behalf of the consul, who is especially exempted from such charges by the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of 1831. It is true that it does not appear that Mr. Scott was required to pay anything except as a partner in the firm adverted to, and that it may not have been easy at the time to ascertain the extent of his interest in that firm, even if there has been a disposition to limit the exaction accordingly.
It appears that the consular office was made a place of deposit, not only for the available funds of Macmanus & Sons, but of other American citizens engaged in business in Chihuahua. When payment was first demanded of Mr. Scott he refused it, and closed the doors of his office against the officer who made the demand. The latter soon afterwards reappeared with an additional force, when Mr. Scott concluded that further resistance was useless, and opened his doors accordingly, when the officer obtained the sum required.
Even supposing that the consul had been engaged in no other business than that of an official character, there is nothing in the treaty which guarantees to his place of business freedom from search. There is a distinct guarantee of the archives and papers of the consulate, but it is not alleged that these were disturbed.
Pursuant to the thirty-first article of the treaty, the parties agreed [Page 735] to enter into a special convention for defining the powers and immunities of consular officers.
Several attempts have been made for this purpose, but all have hitherto proved abortive. If any such convention should go into effect it might be expected, like others, to contain an article specially exempting the offices of consuls from being entered by the authorities of the country. At present no such exemption can be claimed by us as a matter of right in Mexico, especially in cases where a consular officer is a member of a mercantile firm and his place of business is the same as that of the firm.
I am, &c.,