the two governments were mutually withdrawn. Phillimore, the English author, commenting upon this case, says: "It seems clear that the conduct of Sweden was in accordance with the principles of international law." (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 9, 88 113-115; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 217; Kluber, Droit des Gens Mod., pt. 2, tit. 2, ch. 3, § 210; Toucey, Opinions U. S. Att'ys. Genl., vol. 5, p. 70; Wheaton, Elm. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, §17; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 3, §§ 30, 31; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 180, 204, 205; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 23-27; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, § 23; Foelix, Droit Int. Privé, §§ 211–213; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 212, 217; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, §3; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 2; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5.)

§ 23. But the real property of a minister, other than his dwelling situate within the territory of the government to which he is accredited, and the personal property of which he may be possessed, as a merchant, or private person, carrying on trade or other business, or in a fiduciary character as an executor, etc., are not exempt from the operation of the local laws and local jurisdiction. The reason of this is, that the minister does not hold such lands and goods by virtue of his office; they are not annexed to his person so as, like himself, to be reputed out of the territory. Every dispute or suit respecting them, must be carried on in the tribunals of the country, and they are subject to the ordinary process and proceedings of the courts, even of attachment and seizure. But, as already remarked, the house in which he lives, his carriages, furniture and personal property, connected with his embassy, are excepted from the rule. And in sueing a minister, or serving other process of a court, in relation to real estate, other than his dwelling, or to personal property which has no relation to the embassy, the minister is summoned and proceeded against in the same manner as an absent person, he being reputed out of the country, and his independence does not permit any immediate address to his person in an authoritative manner, such as sending an officer of a court of justice to him. This question is very clearly discussed by Vattel, as follows: "What has no affinity with his (the minister's) functions and character, cannot partake of the privi

leges derived only from his functions and character. Should, then, a minister, as it has been often seen, engage in trade, all the effects, goods, money, and debts, active and passive, belonging to his commerce, come within the jurisdiction of the country. And though these process cannot be directly addressed to the minister's person, by reason of his independency, he is, by the seizing of the effects belonging to his commerce, indirectly brought to a necessity of answering by such seizure. The abuses arising from a contrary practice are manifest." (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 8, §§ 114, 115; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 2, cap. 18, § 9; Bynkershoek, de Foro Legat., cap. 16, § 6; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol 2, §§ 180, 181; Miruss, Das Europ. Gesandschaftsrecht, § 343; Kluber, Europ. Volkerrecht, § 210; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, §§ 18, et seq.; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 217; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5; Foelix, Droit Int. Privé., § 216; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 215, 217; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, § 3; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, cap. Ad., 2.)

§ 24. The minister's person, and personal effects, are not liable to assessment and taxation. But his real property, and his movables, (not connected with his mission or embassy) are all subject to taxation, according to the municipal laws of the country. By the usage of most nations, he is exempt from the payment of duties on the importation of articles for his own personal use, and that of his family. But this latter exemption is sometimes limited to a fixed sum per annum, or during the continuance of the mission. The government to which the minister is accredited, and of the country through which he may pass, has a right to adopt and enforce all necessary rules for the protection of its revenue from impositions and fraud, under the guise of importations or exportations, by foreign ministers or their dependents. Hence, goods purporting to be the personal effects of a minister, or for the private use of himself and family, cannot claim a free passage through the custom houses, even where, by usage, they are exempted from duty. Sometimes regular duties are exacted at ports of entry, and the sums so paid are reimbupsed to the minister, direct from the national treasury, and, in other cases, the goods are placed under the custom

house seals, and transported to his residence under the direction of custom house officers. The language of Vattel, on this point, is very clear and just. "Among those rights," says he, "that are not necessary to the success of embassies, there are some likewise not founded on a general consent of nations, but which are, nevertheless, by the custom of several countries, annexed to the character. Such is the exemption from the duties of importation and exportation for things which come into a country for a foreign minister, or which he sends out. There is no necessity for him to be distinguished in this respect, since, by paying these duties, he would not be the less able to discharge his functions. If the sovereign is pleased to exempt him from them, it is a civility which the minister could not claim by any right, no more than that his baggage, or any chests, etc., which he sends for from abroad, shall not be searched at the custom house. Thomas Chaloner, the English ambassador in Spain, sent home a bitter complaint to Queen Elizabeth, his mistress, that the custom house officers had opened his trunks in order to search them. But the Queen returned him for answer, that an ambassador was to put up with everything that did not directly offend the dignity of his sovereign." So, while the ambassador is exempt from the capitation tax, and every personal imposition relating to the character or quality of a subject of the state, he is expected to pay tolls, postage, etc., and the ordinary duties imposed on the goods and provisions he may use. (Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 7, § 105; ch. 9 § 117; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 18; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, liv. 7, ch. 5, § 220; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, §§ 31, 32; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 3, § 29; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 202; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, § 22; Foelix, Droit Int. Privé, §§ 211-216; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 215, 217; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, §. 3; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., liv. 2, cap. Ad., § 2.)

§ 25. A minister, resident in a foreign country, is entitled to the privilege of religious worship according to the peculiar forms of his own faith, although it may not be generally tolerated by the laws of the state to which he is accredited.. But this right is, in strictness, confined to his own residence;

he can do what he pleases within his own walls, and nobody has a right to object or interfere. "But if the sovereign of the country where he resides, has good reasons for not permitting him to exercise his religion in a manner any way public, this sovereign is not to be blamed, much less accused of offending against the law of nations." This limitation, which Vattel has placed on the right of religious worship, is approved by other text-writers, although, at this day, no civilized country refuses ambassadors this free exercise, except so far as it might interfere with municipal police regulations for maintaining public order. "The increasing spirit of religious freedom and liberality," says Wheaton, "has gradually extended this privilege to the establishment, in most countries, of public chapels, attached to the different foreign embassies, in which not only foreigners of the same nation, but even natives of the country of the same religion, are allowed the free exercise of their peculiar worship. This does not, in general, extend to public processions, the use of bells, or other external rights celebrated beyond the walls of the chapel." Privileges of this nature are usually matters of treaty stipulations. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 21; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 7, § 104; Kluber, Droit des Gens Mod., pt. 2, tit. 2, ch. 3. §§ 215–216; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, §§ 222-226; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 3, § 32; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, §§ 207-210; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 35; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 5, § 24; Heffter, Droit International, § 213; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, § 3; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Ministre Public, sec. 5.)

§ 26. Every diplomatic agent, in order to be received in that character, and to enjoy the privileges and honors attached to his rank, must be furnished with a letter of credence. Such letter usually states the general object of the mission or appointment, the official character of the agent, and requests that full faith and credit may be given to his acts and deeds, as such agent of his government. The execution of this letter depends upon the municipal laws of the state issuing it, and upon the official rank of the agent. In the case of ministers of the first three classes, the letter is usually signed by the sovereign or chief magistrate of the state which

sends them, and is addressed to the sovereign or chief magistrate of the state to which they are delegated. In the case of subordinate agents, it is usually addressed by the minister or secretary of foreign affairs, to the department of foreign affairs of the other government. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, § 7; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 202; Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv. 1, § 15; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 18; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 2, § 15; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 229; Heffter, Droit International, §§ 200, et seq.; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 3, cap. 1, § 5; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 2, tit. 2, cap. Ad., 1; Rayneval, Institutions, etc., Appendix No. 2; Real, Science du Gouvernement, tome 5, p. 287.)

§ 27. The full power authorizing the minister to negotiate is sometimes inserted in the letter of credence, but it is more usually drawn up in the form of letters patent. In general, ministers sent to a congress or convention of nations, are not furnished with a letter of credence, but with letters patent, or a full power, of which they reciprocally exchange copies with each other on the assembling of the congress. But a full power to negotiate does not necessarily bind the state to the treaty which may be signed by the minister under such power. It not unfrequently happens that the power of ratifying or rejecting a treaty, is vested in other authorities than that which conferred the power to negotiate. Thus, in the United States, the power to negotiate is conferred by the President, but no treaty is binding till confirmed by twothirds of the senate. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 1, §8; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 204; Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv, 1, § 16; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 19; Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. 2, §17; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 2, § 230.)

§ 28. The instructions of a minister, from his own government, are for his own direction only, and are not to be communicated to the government or congress to which he is delegated. He cannot be compelled to show them. He, however, may be directed by his own government to communicate them either partially or in extenso, or it may be left to his own discretion to communicate them or not, as he may deem expedient. But, without such permission, specially