Mr. Van Limburg to Mr. Seward. [Translation.] NEW YORK, September 10, 1862. SIR: I have had the honor to receive the letter, under date of the 4th of this month, through which you have been pleased to inform me that instructions would be given immediately to return to Mr. Amédeé Conturié the eight hundred thousand dollars in coin. With respect to the question of ascertaining to whom the other articles seized at his house should be restored, I have the honor to request you, sir, to be pleased to cause them also to be returned to Mr. Conturié, whom I have invited to receive them, as well as the $800,000. I beg you, sir, to be pleased to accept my thanks for the explanations which you have been pleased to give me with respect to the protraction of the civil functions of Major General Butler in New Orleans, and from them I am inspired with the hope that the justice of the President and government of the United States will hereafter exempt the foreign consuls from official relations with him. I would be happy to be enabled to thank you for it, and to find in it a new bond for the maintenance of the relations for so long a period sincerely friendly between our two countries. I have already communicated your last letter to the government of the King, from whom I await further instructions, which, meeting with favorable disposi tions on the part of the government of the United States, will enable us, I trust, to terminate this deplorable affair in such a manner as we both had hoped we should at our first interview upon this subject. I have the honor, sir, to renew to you the assurances of my high consideration. ROEST VAN LIMBURG. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the U. S. of America. Mr. Seward to Mr. Van Limburg. Department of State, Washington, September 13, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant, in which, after referring to the restoration of eight hundred thousand dollars in coin to Mr. Amédeé Conturié, you request me to cause the other articles seized at his house also to be restored to him, and to state, in reply, that the Secretary of War will accordingly be asked to give directions in the proper quarter to that effect. I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my high consideration. The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, has the honor to submit herewith to the honorable Mr. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States of America, a letter from the consul of the Netherlands at Philadelphia, showing that the American authorities have enrolled him for military duty, notwithstanding his affidavit as consul of the Netherlands for the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware. If the undersigned had to demonstrate the illegality of this proceeding, he would begin by citing to the Secretary of State the letter of Attorney General Cushing to Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, under date of the 4th of November, 1854. in which, speaking of consuls, it is said: "They are privileged from political or military service." But the undersigned thinks it will be sufficient to bring the fact to the knowledge of the Secretary of State to justify an expectation that the government of the United States will be pleased to give the necessary orders that consular prerogatives shall be respected in the various States of the United States. The undersigned has the honor to renew to the honorable Mr. Seward the assurances of his high consideration. Hon. Mr. SEWARD, ROEST VAN LIMBURG. Secretary of State of the U. S. of America, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Zeigler to Mr. Burlage. CONSULATE OF THE NETHERLANDS, DEAR SIR: Your communications of the 24th instant are to hand; also the copy of the tariff and shipping trade laws of his Majesty's government. The State and United States authorities here have enrolled me liable for military draft, notwithstanding my affidavit as consul of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands for the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware, claiming exemption therefrom. The commissioners have decided that as I am a citizen of the United States 1 am liable for military duty. Will you bring this subject before his excellency ⚫ our minister at Washington, or shall I do it? I certainly cannot perform my functions as consul, and give protection to his Majesty's subjects, (and which, at this moment, is very necessary,) if I am compelled to serve in the militia of this State or in that of the United States. The decision of the commissioners I consider uncourteous, and does not accord with the tenor of the exequatur of the President of the United States, granting me all privileges granted to consuls of the most favored nations. Your early answer as to what course I am to pursue will be thankfully received. I will be much pleased and grateful if you will bring this matter before his excellency our minister at Washington. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. C. BURLAGE, Consul General, New York. GEO. H. ZEIGLER, Consul. Mr. Van Limburg to Mr. Seward. [Translation.] NEW YORK, September 27, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to submit to you herewith a report from the consul general at New York, accompanied by a document drawn up by Charles Edwards, a lawyer, showing that the court of general sessions at New York has improperly interfered in a dispute between the captain of the Netherlandish vessel the Jan Van Galen and her carpenter, named Herman Nepping. There was a dispute between the captain and the carpenter in regard to the engage ment of the latter, and, according to Netherlandish law, it was for the consul of the Netherlands to decide the question. The court of general sessions, to which the carpenter applied, has taken the liberty of interfering in this question of internal order, and, because the Netherlandish engagement was not in accordance with the rules of American engagements, has thought proper to discharge the carpenter from his obligations, and thus to deprive the captain of services to which he was entitled, unless the consul judged otherwise. It is generally the practice, and admitted, that the local authorities are not to interfere in a dispute between the captain of a foreign vessel and the persons forming her crew, as regards the execution of contracts which have been entered into between them, unless the captain requests it. This is clearly expressed, among other things, in Article VIII of the consular convention between the United States and France, bearing date the 23d of February, 1853, in which it is said: "The respective consuls general, consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents, shall have exclusive charge of the internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation, and shall alone take cognizance of differences which may arise, either at sea or in port, between the captain, officers, and crew, without exception, particularly in reference to the adjustment of wages and execution of contracts. The local authorities shall not, on any pretext, interfere in these differences, but shall lend forcible aid to the consuls, when they may ask it, to arrest and imprison all persons composing the crew whom they may deem it necessary to confine." Now, this rule has also always been applied to Netherlandish vessels and consuls. The President, in his exequatur, accords the same privileges to the consuls of the Netherlands that he does to the consuls of the most favored nation. It is an excess of authority, therefore, which the above-mentioned court has exercised towards the Netherlandish vessel the Jan Van Galen, and an infraction of the prerogatives of the consul general of the Netherlands, to whom the decision of the question should be left. I have the honor, Mr. Secretary of State, to invoke your good offices to the end that the government of the United States may be pleased to reprimand the court of general sessions of New York; to issue the necessary orders that courts or judges of the United States will henceforth refrain from interfering in disputes of that kind; and to grant to the captain of the vessel the Jan Van Galen, for the damage he has sustained, an indemnification the determination of which I willingly leave to the generosity of the government of the United States. I embrace this new opportunity, sir, to reiterate to you the assurances of my high consideration. Hon. Mr. SEWARD, ROEST VAN LIMBURG. Secretary of State of the United States of America, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Burlage to Mr. Van Limburg. No. 36.] NEW YORK, September 26, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to report the circumstances of the quarrel on board the Jan Van Galen between the captain, P. H. de Boer, and his carpenter, H. Nepping. Contrary to the custom thus far followed, that United States courts do not interfere with quarrels and difficulties between captain and crew on board of Dutch vessels, the court of general sessions, however, took cognizance of a complaint by the carpenter, Nepping, against his captain, de Boer, (as per annexed copy of a document of Charles Edwards, lawyer, marked A,) and the judge decided that Nepping must be discharged, because the American law considers a voyage, where it is not specified and fixed as to period of time in the muster-roll, a roving one, and this was not done in the muster-roll of the Jan Van Galen, where it was said, "from Rotterdam to Hong Kong via Singapore, and further to such other places as the captain, or his successor, or his substitute, may deem proper, and return to a Dutch port." In relation to this the Dutch law says, (article 3, law concerning the management of and discipline on board merchant vessels:) "The voyage will be deemed to have commenced as soon as the vessel is departed from the place where the mustering of the crew has taken place, and to be finished when the vessel, on her return in this country, is arrived at the place of unloading or of her destination." As the law of the Netherlands, according to articles 14 and 17, stipulates that all disputes between captain and crew during the voyage and in a foreign country shall be decided upon by the consul, the captain of the Jan Van Galen complains that in his case my interference has been evaded, and that he thereby was compelled to submit to a foreign authority, contrary to treaties existing between the Netherlands and the United States, and that he, moreover, was subjected to annoyances and expenses. Amongst the latter were $35 for fees to the lawyer, as per annexed copy, marked B. He, therefore, through my intermediary, requests your excellency to take such steps in this matter as your excellency may deem proper to vindicate his rights and to prevent, for the future, occurrences of the same kind. I have the honor of being, with the highest esteem, your excellency's obedient servant, His Excellency ROEST VAN LIMBURG, RUD. C. BURLAGE. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, &c., &c., &c. The Jan Van Galen. NEW YORK, August 25, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to report the circumstances connected with the claim of Herman Nepping, late carpenter of the Jan Van Galen, and also to give you my views in relation to it. I agree with you that the American courts ought not to interfere with neutral vessels or their masters except in very extreme cases, and that all jurisdiction should be left to consuls. However, both you and I know, sir, that, notwithstanding all protests, some of our courts will take cognizance of complaints by seamen against their captains. I, as standing counsel for other consulates than yours, especially for the British consulate, have, for several years, done my best in court and out to check such a course of things, but, in a port like this, it is difficult to contend against bad men who encourage bad seamen, and against outside and political influences. I believe I have before now taken the liberty to call to your attention the too general wording of foreign voyages on muster-rolls. Both the British and American shipping articles generally specify, as far as possible, all the important places at which the vessel is to touch, and expressly state the length of voyage, (as, for instance, not to exceed six months or three years.) Our courts consider that where this is not done it becomes a mere roving voyage, under which a seaman might be kept for an indefinite time, ad infinitum, on board, and, perhaps, never able to reach his home. And when a keeper of a sailor's boarding-house ascertains that the voyage is not fixed as to time, he goes to some lawyer and gets him to sue vessel or master on the ground the voyage is ended, on account of not being specific and fixed as to period of time. And so, in the case of the Jan Van Galen, a writ of habeas corpus was first issued to show that Nepping was detained against his will, because the voyage was said to be at an end from uncertainty. The matter came before a judge notorious for his want of principle, and he chose to discharge this man from the vessel even before I had put in my written argument, (which the judge had agreed to receive.) Threat was then made to attach the ship if the captain did not pay this man in full and let him go, On a conference which I had the pleasure to have with you, it was decided that I should defend any suit or attachment which should be had. The lawyer opposed to me was desirous I should allow an attachment to be brought without any security being given by Nepping; but this I would not give in to; and, no doubt, the difficulty he found in getting it, and my known determination to fight, kept him from giving further trouble until the vessel had got to sea. I am inclined to think that if the foreign consuls were to sign a memorial to our legislature, asking them to pass an act which should not allow our minor courts to take cognizance of matters between foreign captains and crews, that it would have attention. I have once or twice suggested something of this kind to the British consul. I am satisfied, from the examination which was had before the judge on the return of the writ of habeas corpus, that this man, Nepping, was a bad fellow, and that the master, de Boer, had done no more than his duty, and had behaved most properly for the interests of his owners. According to your wish, I have enclosed a memorandum of my fees, and remain, sir, your most obedient and humble servant, CHARLES EDWARDS. The ship Jan Van Galen debtor to Mr. Charles Edwards, advocate : 1862. Attendances on and advising Captain de Boer in relation to a Aug. writ of habeas corpus issued in behalf of Herman Nepping, carpenter; drawing and engrossing special return; two attendances before Judge McCann, when testimony was taken and argument had, and further adjournment for written brief; preparing written brief; letters, afterwards, to the opposite attorney, on his threat to attach the vessel; attendances upon and written communication to the consul for the Netherlands..... Received payment September 3, 1862. CHARLES EDWARDS, By J. P. CAMPBELL. $35 |