on the street and asked him for the balance of their wages. He repeated that he would pay them off at 5 p. m. At 4.30 p. m. Constable Peter Fee came on board the Albert and served on Captain Tellefsen process from the municipal court of Boston, summoning him before the court to answer the claims of the seamen. Tellefsen refusing to obey the same, he was arrested and handcuffed by the officer, and it is alleged that he was somewhat roughly handled. To secure his liberty, Tellef sen paid the wages due the seamen, amounting to some $23, and also about $10 costs. The chargé requested the Department to cause an investigation to be made, and to adopt measures to prevent a recurrence of similar proceedings. The Department presented the case to the governor of Massachusetts, pointing out that it was clearly an infraction of article 13 of the treaty above mentioned, which gives the jurisdiction of such disputes to the consular officers of the respective Governments. The governor replied, furnishing a report which confirmed the statement of facts presented by the legation of Sweden and Norway. He stated, however, that the offending officer was under the jurisdiction of the city of Boston, not of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. After further correspondence the governor stated that there was no law of the State providing for reparation or indemnity in such a case, but suggested that the master had his remedy at law in a civil action against the constable. Captain Tellefsen brought suit against the constable in the superior court of Suffolk County, Mass., and the jury, under instructions from the court, decided in favor of the defendant. The case was then appealed to the supreme court, which sustained the appellant's exceptions, and ordered a new trial. On the second trial the master obtained judgment against the constable for $100. On December 22, 1897, the minister of Sweden and Norway transmitted to this Department a certified copy of the verdict, together with an itemized statement, accompanied by vouchers, of the expenses incurred by Captain Tellefsen in prosecuting the case, amounting to $1,098.96, and asked, in view of the violation of the treaty, that he be reimbursed for the same, less the $100 recovered by judgment. The Department is disposed to regard the claim as meritorious, and I have the honor to suggest its transmission to Congress, together with the accompanying correspondence. The amount claimed is $998.96. In a similar case, that of the Adele, arising out of a violation of the same article, Congress appropriated by the general deficiency act of July 19, 1897, the sum of $295.64 to reimburse the master for expenses incurred. JOHN SHERMAN. Respectfully submitted. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 22, 1898. List of papers. Baron Beck-Friis to Mr. Foster, July 23, 1892. Governor Russell to Mr. Foster, September 19, 1892. Mr. Uhl to Governor Greenhalge, May 3, 1894. Mr. Uhl to Mr. Olney, January 9, 1895. Mr. Grip to Mr. Gresham, February 18, 1895 Mr. Olney to Mr. Gresham, February 28, 1895. Mr. Uhl to Mr. Grip, March 8, 1895. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Grip, March 25, 1895. Memorandum of the legation of Sweden and Norway, April 20, 1897. CORRESPONDENCE. Baron Beck-Friis to Mr. Foster. LEGATION OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY, On the 18th of July Capt. B. Tellefsen, master of the Norwegian steamer Albert, of Bergen, Norway, presented himself at the vice-consulate of Sweden and Norway, at Boston, and stated that on the vessel's arrival at Boston on the 16th of July, two of the able seamen on board, viz, Niels Johannesen and Jens Chr. Hubert, came aft at 10 o'clock a. m. and requested that they should be discharged, and as the time of agreement had expired, Captain Tellefsen replied that as soon as he had attended to the clearing-in of the vessel and other necessary business, they could come back at 5 o'clock p. m. in order to receive the balance of their wages. The men agreed to this. At about 12 midday, the seaman Niels Johannesen appeared again, and asked for $5 out of his wages, which sum Captain Tellefsen at once gave him. When the captain went ashore at 2 o'clock p. m., for the purpose of attending to some ship business, he was spoken to in the street by the above two seamen, who asked him to give them the balance of their wages, in answer to which he again replied that they were to be paid off at 5 o'clock p. m., as previously arranged. At 4.30 p. m. a man from ashore came on board and informed Captain Tellefsen that he was a constable, by name Peter P. Fee, and that he had got an order to collect the balance of wages due to the two able seamen before mentioned; also, that, if the said wages, together with the legal expenses (about $10) were not paid immediately, he was obliged to bring the captain ashore under arrest. To this the captain at once replied that the constable had no right to arrest him, as he was the master of a Norwegian ship; and that, besides, the money due to the two men was lying ready for them, if they liked to come at 5 o'clock, p. m. The constable retorted that he wished Captain Tellefsen to understand that he was a constable, and showed him his badge, declaring that being a constable he had the authority to arrest him, and that he must, without delay, either pay the wages due to the men, or accompany him ashore under arrest. As the captain again refused to go ashore under arrest, the constable took out of his pocket a pair of handcuffs, and, with the assistance of two other men, whom he had called, the handcuffs were put on the captain with such force that the skin on the right hand was torn off; when the men then were commencing to force the captain ashore. The latter, in order to avoid being carried through the street with handcuffs as a prisoner, was compelled to pay out $33.75. It may be observed that the wages due to the two seamen in question amounted to $23.99. The above-mentioned writ was issued by the municipal court of Boston, reading: Plaintiff Nils C. Johannesen; wages, $22.17-Moses S. Case, attorney. Date of writ, July 16, 1892; returnable July 23. Affidavit for arrest signed Wilson S. Emery, before Edward J. Jones, master in chancery. After the construction of the case as above set forth by the captain, the matter amounts simply to a difference between the captain and the crew of a Norwegian vessel, which question should, it would appear, according to the terms of Article XIII of the treaty of 1827 between Sweden, Norway, and the United States, have been decided by the vice-consul at Boston without the interference of the local authorities. The interference of the municipal court in this matter has caused an expense for the captain of $9.79 beyond the amount due to the seamen. At several occasions the State Department has kindly caused investigations to be made and adopted measures in order to prevent a recurrence of similar proceedings (cf. notes to this legation of May 17, 1877, in case Swedish vessel Fredrika ans Carolina; September 25, 1877, ship Carl Angell). Washington, July 23, 1892. JOACHIM BECK-FRIIS. Mr. Foster to Governor Russell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to submit to your excellency a copy of an official memorandum, handed to me this day by the chargé d'affaires ad interim of Sweden and Norway, in relation to the arrest in Boston, on the 18th instant, of Capt. B. Tellefsen, master of the steamer Albert, of Bergen, Norway, at the suit of two seamen of the vessel for wages alleged to be due, in contravention of the provisions of the existing treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and Sweden and Norway, signed July 4, 1827. An official copy of the treaties of the United States is forwarded by this day's mail for your excellency's information in connection with this communication. Article XIII of the treaty (see pp. 1062, 1063) relates to the appointment, jurisdiction, and privileges of the consuls of either nation in the territories of the other, and expressly stipulates that The consuls, vice-consuls, or commercial agents, or the persons duly authorized to supply their places, shall have the right as such to sit as judges and arbitrators in such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their charge, without the interference of the local authorities, unless the conduct of the crew or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity of the country, or the said consuls, vice-consuls, or commercial agents should require their assistance to cause their decisions to be carried into effect or supported. It is, however, understood that this species of judg ment or arbitration shall not deprive the contending parties of the right they have to resort on their return to the judicial authority of their country. Similar stipulations are found in many of the existing treaties between the United States and foreign powers. Their interpretation in regard to disputes between master and crew of a vessel of the treaty nation, in part, when no breach of the peace of the port is shown, is undisputed, and the competence of the consul to determine such disputes affecting the internal discipline of the ship is uniformly recognized, especially in regard to wages. Were the case in question reversed, and the master of a merchant vessel of the United States treated in a port of Sweden and Norway as Captain Tellefsen is alleged to have been treated by the judicial authorities of Boston, with or without the aggravating circumstance of personal ill usage as stated, this Government, invoking the provisions of the treaty, would expect due reparation for its infringement in this important regard. Its full observance is no less obligatory upon the United States, under the circumstances; and in order to determine the measure of responsibility, if any, in the present case, it becomes necessary to ascertain the facts, and I have therefore the honor to request your excellency to cause a full investigation to be made and the result thereof communicated to this Department, with all convenient dispatch, so that I may be able to make a satisfactory reply to the complaint of the representative of Sweden and Norway. Adding that the consular representative of Sweden and Norway at Boston is Mr. Gjert Loots, vice-consul, who was duly recognized in that capacity by the President's exequatur on March 31, 1868. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, JOHN W. FOSTER. Governor Russell to Mr. Wharton. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of July 23 in reference to the case of Capt. B. Tellefsen, master of the steamer Albert, of Bergen, Norway, which letter has just been received on my return from a short absence, I would say that I have referred the case to the chief of the district police with a request that he thoroughly investigate it. On report from him I will communicate with you further. Very truly, yours, WM. E. RUSSELL. Governor Russell to Mr. Foster. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MY DEAR SIR: In further answer to your letter of July 23, 1892, in reference to the case of Capt. B. Tellefsen, master of the steamer Albert, alleged to have been improperly arrested in this port, I send to-day by registered mail the report of the investigation made under the direction of the chief of the District police force of this State with affidavits and exhibits accompanying said report. Your request to me was "to cause a full investigation to be made, and the result thereof communicated to this Department," which request I believe is met by the report herewith submitted. The constable who made the arrest is a civil officer under the jurisdiction of the city of Boston, and not of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I request that the original papers and report be returned to me that they may be replaced on the files in this office. Of course you are at full liberty to make any copies which you desire. Very respectfully, WM. E. RUSSELL, Governor. MEDFORD, Mass., August 9, 1892. RUFUS R. WADE, Esq., Chief of Massachusetts District Police. SIR: Pursuant to your order to investigate an alleged case of violation of the treaty laws between Sweden and Norway and the United States, which occurred on the 16th day of July, 1892, in the city of Boston, Mass., in arresting Capt. B. Tellefsen, of the Norwegian steamer Albert, of Bergen, Norway, on board of said vessel, by a constable of the said city of Boston, which matter was referred to me for investigation, I procured from the municipal court of Boston a certified copy of the writ, the officer's return on the back thereof, and an affidavit and certificate of Edward J. Jones, esq., master in chancery, in the action of Johnson v. Tellefsen, which was returnable to the municipal court of the city of Boston on the 23d day of July, A. D. 1892, and is now on file in said court with the nonentries of that day, all of which is marked Exhibit A. The first person interviewed was Maj. Edward J. Jones, who informed me that the affidavit which Wilson S. Emery swore to (and who is a member of the firm of Emery & Lovering, advertising themselves as adjusters of claims, and doing business at 28 School street, Boston, Mass.), came to him in the usual business course, no statement being made to him that the defendant in the said case was captain of a foreign steamer, or that the plaintiff was a member of the crew of said vessel Albert. Mr. Wilson S. Emery was next interviewed. I informed him who I was, and that my business was to investigate the case of Captain Tellefsen's arrest. I then asked him if he was familiar with the treaty laws between the two nations? He replied, that he was somewhat, as he had been for some time in the office of the United States marshal. I then asked him if he had read up with reference to said treaty laws since the arrest of Captain Tellefsen? He replied, that he had, and that he considered he was right in the action that had been taken in the arrest of the said Tellefsen. I then said to him: "Notwithstanding the existing treaty between the two countries, you still claim the right to arrest a captain of a Norwegian steamer for money due any member of the crew?" He replied, that he still thought he had the right. He further stated: In this instance Neils C. Johnson, the plaintiff in the above action, although a Norwegian by birth, was also an American citizen, having been naturalized in this country; and not having signed the ship's articles of the Norwegian steamer Albert, therefore he (Emery) considered that the said Johnson had the same rights of protection that any American citizen had to collect his wages. I then showed Wilson S. Emery a copy of an affidavit for Captain Tellefsen's arrest, sworn to by him before Edward J. Jones, master in chancery, which will be found in Exhibit A, which he admitted was a copy of the original affidavit, sworn to before the said master in chancery, Edward J. Jones. I then suggested to him the propriety of his giving me an affidavit as to the part he took in the transaction, which he respectfully declined to do. The officer who served the writ was then interviewed. I first exhibited to him a certified copy of all the original papers from the municipal court in the case of Neils C. Johnson v. Captain Tellefsen, of the Norwegian steamer Albert, which he acknowledged were correct, and will be found in Exhibit A, who said that a writ was brought to him in the usual course of business by Moses S. Case and Wilson S. Emery, both of Boston, who stated to him that said Johnson had been assaulted while at sea by Captain Tellefsen, commanding the Norwegian steamer Albert, of Bergen, Norway, and that when the writ was handed to him (Fee) nothing was said to him (Fee) about it being served on board of a foreign vessel. Constable Fee also stated that previous to having the writ he had not read the treaty between the two nations, nor had he read them since. He considered before, and does now, that he had authority to arrest Captain Tellefsen notwithstanding the treaty, also that when he and his assistant boarded the steamer he asked the captain for a private interview. The captain replied that "If you have anything to say to me, say it here." He (Fee) then explained to the captain that he had a writ for his arrest, at the same time making no demand for money due Neils C. Johnson. The captain denied his (Fee's) right to arrest him. He (Fee) then stepped around and took hold of the captain's left arm, and the captain became more excited. He (Fee) asked John, his assistant, "to take hold of his (the captain's) right arm," which he did. While in this position the captain broke away from him (Fee) and his assistant and grasped or took hold of one of the shrouds of the steamer's rigging, and at the same time calling upon the crew of his vessel to assist him. Constable Fee's assistant undertook the breaking of the captain's hold from the shroud, and in doing so the captain's hand was lacerated by the pulling or tearing off of a scab of an old sore which was on his right hand. Constable Fee also said that while his assistant was trying to break the captain's hold from the shroud, he (Fee) put the twisters on the captain's left wrist, but did not tighten them. Also that the captain denies his (Fee's) right to arrest him, and that other parties had been on board the vessel during the day annoying him in reference to the same matter. Constable |