If the local authorities think themselves authorized to violate the law
of nations, every convention becomes a dead letter, and our consular
jurisdiction would cease entirely by encouraging the insubordination on
board our ships.
[Inclosure.]
Report of Austro-Hungarian consul at
Philadelphia.
Austro-Hungarian Consulate,
Philadelphia, May 18, 1883.
Sir: This consulate is compelled to lay
before the imperial and royal legation a case of importance in which
the consular jurisdiction has been interfered with, and not only
that, but it is threatened with being overruled, a local magistrate
here having completely ignored the treaty and all its provisions now
existing between Austria-Hungary and the United States of
America.
The Austro-Hungarian bark Ararat, Capt. Sylvio Ferlan, arrived at
this port on the 8th instant from Belfast, having mustered into
service at Belfast, before the imperial and royal consulate at that
port, as cabin boy (camerotho), the boy
Hamilton Stewart, for the voyage to the United States, and from
there to port of discharge of the vessel in Europe, at £1 sterling
per month. On Monday morning, May 14, said boy, Hamilton Stewart,
presented himself at this consulate, making a complaint against
Captain Ferlan, stating that the captain had beaten him, and when
asked by me when, and where, and. how, he answered, on that same
morning in the cabin when they were alone, and that he, the boy, now
demanded to be paid off. He admitted that the captain had not
maltreated him or abused him, only boxed his ears, and the boy
certainly did not show upon his body any mark of hurt or violence.
After having heard the boy’s side of the story, I told him to wait
at the consulate, as I would at once send for Captain Ferlan (which
I did), to get his version of the matter, but the boy, who was
accompanied by a “runner” from some seamen’s boarding house, did not
wait for the captain, but left the consulate. When Captain Ferlan
came to the consulate he admitted having that morning, in the cabin,
slapped the boy in the face and boxed his ears, because the boy had
been very insubordinate and refused to do duty.
Captain Ferlan said that the boy is a bad boy, and he would agree to
pay him off here, in spite of his positive right to retain him on
board, provided the boy gave a receipt in full for all demands.
On the next day, Tuesday forenoon, the boy came to the consulate
again, when I told him that the captain had a right to chastise him
moderately for gross insubordination and refusal to do his duty;
but, nevertheless, Captain Ferlan would agree to pay him off here if
he would give a receipt in full for all demands. This he said that
he would do. His account was then made up, and shown to him, leaving
a balance of $2.78 in the boy’s favor, which he received, and for
which he gave the following receipt, viz:
“Received payment in full for all demands upon the above
vessel, her owners and her master.
“Philadelphia, May 15, 1883.
“$2.78.
“HAMILTON STEWART.”
[Page 15]
On Wednesday afternoon, shortly before 4 p.m., Captain Ferlan was
arrested and came to this consulate in charge of a constable from
Magistrate James L. Brown, court No. 3, a local magistrate, which
local magistrate had, upon application of the boy, issued a warrant
for the arrest of Captain Ferlan upon the charge of “assault and
battery,” &c.
I immediately went with Captain Ferlan and the magistrate’s constable
to the magistrate’s court No. 3, but found him gone for the day, and
in spite of my most earnest demonstrations before the constable,
claiming, as I did, that the consulate alone had jurisdiction in the
case, the constable took him to the Union Street station-house,
Lieutenant of Police Watson, jailer, where the captain was locked up
for two or three hours, until his consignees here, Messrs. Workman
& Co., gave bail for his appearance before the magistrate at 10
a.m. on the following day. On Thursday, at 10 a.m., Captain Ferlan
and I appeared before Magistrate Brown; before him I claimed the
unconditional surrender to me of Captain Ferlan, by virtue of the
jurisdiction vested in this consulate, based on the existing treaty
already cited above.
The magistrate refused to liberate the captain, and appointed a
hearing in the case at 2 p.m. on Thursday. As the boy was in the
hands of a lawyer, it became necessary for the captain and the
consulate also to have a legal adviser, and Mr. Charles Gibbons,
jr., quite an able young admiralty lawyer, and also a United States
commissioner here, was retained for that purpose.
We all met at the appointed hour yesterday (Thursday) at 2 p.m., when
the magistrate had read to him by Mr. Gibbons portions of the
existing treaty, and the claim of the consulate for an absolute
jurisdiction was again pressed upon the magistrate with great
force.
Magistrate Brown claimed jurisdiction because the vessel was not in
the Delaware River at an anchor at the time of the occurrence in the
cabin, but she was moored at one of our city wharves. He says that
if she had been in the river, riding at anchor, he could not
interfere, but at the wharf he had a right to, in his opinion.
He has turned the matter over to the court. It is to come up in the
criminal court (court of quarter sessions), Judge Finletter, I
believe, or some other State court judge, at 10 a.m. on Monday, May
21, and I do therefore hasten to lay this important matter before
the imperial and royal legation for immediate action, because if the
local authorities are allowed to interfere with and to disregard
entirely the United States treaties with the several foreign
maritime powers and to ignore the consular jurisdiction based on
such treaties, there will be no end to the cases of insubordination,
desertion, &c., on board of foreign vessels in the United States
ports in future.
Yours, &c.,
L. WESTERGAARD,
Imperial and Royal
Consul.
