§ 1653. It is most fit, that this judicature should, in the first instance, have original jurisdiction of such cases,[1] so that, if it should not be exclusive, it might at least be directly resorted to, when the delays of a procrastinated controversy in inferior tribunals might endanger the repose, or the interests of the government.[2] It is well known, that an arrest of the Russian ambassador in a civil suit in England, in the reign of Queen Anne, was well nigh bringing the two countries into open hostilities; and was atoned for only by measures, which have been deemed, by her own writers, humiliating. On that occasion, an act of parliament was passed, which made it highly penal to arrest any ambassador, or his domestic servants, or to seize or distrain his goods; and this act, elegantly engrossed and illuminated, accompanied by a letter from the queen, was sent by an ambassador extraordinary, to propitiate the offended czar.[3] And a statute to the like effect exists in the criminal code established by the first congress, under the constitution of the United States.[4]
§ 1654. Consuls, indeed, have not in strictness a diplomatic character. They are deemed, as mere commercial agents; and therefore partake of the ordinary character of such agents; and are subject to the municipal laws of the countries, where they re-- ↑ The Federalist, No. 80. See also 2 Elliot's Debates, 390, 400; The Federalist, No. 80; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, R. 137, 174, 175.
- ↑ 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 361; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. Cirt. R.232.
- ↑ 1 Black. Comm. 255, 256; 4 id. 70.
- ↑ Act of 1790, ch. 36, §§ 26, 27; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 9, p. 170, 171, (2d edition, p. 182, 183.)
