Mr. Jackson to Mr. Hay.
Berlin, July 5, 1899.
Sir: I have the honor to bring the following case to the attention of the Department, as, although the decision therein is in strict accordance with German precedent, it may not be without interest.
There was in the employ of the Spanish ambassador in this city a servant of French nationality, who was charged with assaulting another servant who was German. So long as the Frenchman remained in the ambassador’s service it was held that he was not subject to German jurisdiction, and no proceedings were taken against him. On his discharge from service, however, he was arrested and brought before a local court. Here the plea was made that as the assault was committed in a foreign embassy the principle of “exterritoriality” was involved and the local courts had no jurisdiction. It was held, however, that the courts did have jurisdiction, and proceedings leading to the punishment of the French servant have been taken accordingly.
The precedent followed in this case is the decision of the II Strafsenat (criminal division) of the imperial supreme court at Leipzig, November 26, 1880, which is reported in volume 3 (1881) of the “Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Strafsachen.” In the case then treated, which was probably fully reported to the Department at the time, the question was whether a naturalized American citizen of German origin could be punished by the German authorities for making a false affidavit before a secretary (Mr. Chapman Coleman) of the then American legation in this city. In this case it was decided that “the house of the envoy accredited to the domestic government was not to be considered foreign territory, and that consequently a crime committed in such a house must be considered as having been committed in the country itself, and the criminal, even when a foreigner, as under German jurisdiction, as, although the house of an envoy is in accordance with international law exterritorial, this fiction in modern interpretation goes no further than is necessary to insure the personal inviolability of the envoy and his suite.”
I have, etc.,