AVENGER OF BLOOD; CITY OF REFUGE.) The right of asylum originated in the fiction of extra-territoriality (q.v.), or the extension by a State of its territorial jurisdiction by its lega tions into the territory of another State, to the exclusion, so far as the precincts of the legation were concerned, of the domestic jurisdiction. The person taking refuge within the legation was deemed to have come under the protection of its flag, and, so long as he remained there, to be as completely exempt from the legal or executive process of the country as if lie had escaped to the foreign territory represented by the legation. Ile might be surrendered by the Government under whose flag he had taken ref uge, at its pleasure, or as the subject of extra dition (q.v.) proceedings; but any attempt to take him by force was an invasion of the terri tory of the State in whose legation he was sheltered. This is the theory upon which the alleged right of asylum rests, but it is a theory so clearly at variance with the real basis of in ternational relations of independent States, and it has been so discredited by the abuses to which its application has led, that it has completely broken down. The fiction of extra-territoriality having been abandoned, attempts have been made to justify the right of asylum by the doc trine of the inviolability (q.v.) of diplomatic agents (q.v.), the members of their families, their official houses and property. But, in prac tice as well as in theory, this doctrine, which is intended only to guarantee the perfect freedom and fearlessness of the minister in the discharge of his functions as the representative of a for eign government, is strictly applicable only to the bona-fide members of his household, not to visitors, and still less to strangers temporarily residing with him.
Notwithstanding the absence in international law of any justification of the right of asylum, it has been frequently granted in modern times, but only in countries whose civil institutions fail to command the respect of foreign States, and in times of civil tumult. It was repeatedly practiced by the representatives of the Powers in Greece during the Revolution of 1862, and in Spain in the periods of anarchy between 1840 and 1850, and from 1865 to ]875. In the Span ish-American States it has been a common and recognized practice to protect in the legations the successive victims of the frequent revolutions by which changes in administration are common ly effected. and the legitimacy of the practice has not infrequently been acquiesced in by the State in which it occurred. This condition of affairs has given a certain legal sanction to the right of asylum in those countries, though it is usually justified by the States exercising it, not on legal grounds, lint upon grounds of humanity.
It is, however, universally conceded that it has no application to ordinary criminals, but only, as a measure of temporary protection, to politi cal offenders. Even in this restricted form the practice has been generally discouraged and for bidden by the United States Government, though the grant of asylum by our ministers in Central and South America has in exceptional cases been condoned or approved by the Department of State.
The following rules, formulated by Prof. John Bassett Moore, may be taken to represent the official. if not the consistent, attitude of our Government: 1. In no ease is a minister to offer his dwell ing as a resort for refugees.
2. If a fugitive, uninvited, applies for pro tection, it is to be accorded only when his life is in imminent danger from mob violence, and only for so long as such imminent danger con tinues.
3. A minister is bound to refuse asylum to persons fleeing from the pursuit of the legitimate agents of the Government. and, in ease such per sons have been admitted, he must either sur render or 'dismiss them.
4. A minister is obliged strictly to abstain, except tinder the conditions and limitations pre scribed by rule 2, from receiving or retaining persons who are engaged in political agitation, or who, though not formally accused, inspire the Government with distrust.
As ships of war are generally conceded to he exempt from the local jurisdiction of the foreign ports visited by them, it is clearly within the power of commanders of such ships to grant asylum to refugees from that jurisdiction; but it is well settled that 'considerations of propri ety and good-faith require' them `to abstain from abusing the hospitality of the port in which they may be by making their vessels an asylum for offenders against the law' (Moore. Pol. Sei. Quar. VII. 408). Neither consuls (q.v.) (who nre not diplomatic agents) nor merchant vessels, as a rule, enjoy any exemp tion from the local jurisdiction, and consequently they can assert no claim to grant asylum. Cer tain immunities which have been conceded to them from time to time have been exceptional in character, and more in the nature of cour tesies extended than of rights admitted. The subject of asylum has been fully and learnedly treated by Prof. John B. Moore in his Asylum. in Legations and Consulates (New York. 1892) ; and more briefly in Snow's International Law, Sec. 18. See also Moore on Extradition (Boston, 1891) ; Wharton's International Law Digest (Washington, 1896) ; and Woolsey's Interim tio»al Law (New York, 1899).