CONSUL. A commercial agent appointed by a government to reside in a seaport or other town of a foreign country, and com missioned to watch over the commercial rights and privileges of the nation deputing him. The term includes consuls-general and vice-consuls. Rev. Stat. § 4130.
A vice-contful is one acting in the place of a consul.
Among the Romans, consuls were chief magis trates who were annually elected by the people, and were invested with powers and functions similar to those of kings. During the middle ages the term consul was sometimes applied to ordinary judges; and, in the Levant, maritime judges are yet called consuls. 1 Boulay Paty, Dr. Mar. tit. Prdl. s. 2, p. 57. Officers with powers and duties corresponding to those of modern consuls were employed by the ancient Athenians, who had them stationed in com mercial ports with which they traded. 3 St. John, Mann. and Cus. of Anc. Greece 283. They were appointed about the middle of the twelfth century by the maritime states of the Mediterranean ; and their numbers have increased greatly with the extension of modern commerce.
As a general rule, consuls represent the subjects or citizens of their own nation not otherwise represented ; Bee 209; The Lon don Packet, 1 Mas. 14, Fed. Cas. No. 8,474; The Anne, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 435, 4 L. Ed. 428;, The Antelope, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 66, 6 L. Ed. 268. Their duties and privilegei are now generally limited, defined, and se cured by commercial treaties, or by the laws of the countries they represent. They are not strictly judicial officers ; 3 Taunt. 102; and have no judicial powers except those which may be conferred by treaty and statutes. See The William Harris, Ware 367, Fed. Cas. No. 17,695 ; Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S. 13, 23 L. Ed. 190.
American consuls are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. U. S. Const. art. 2, § 2. Upon the exercise of this power of appointment by the president, con gress can place no limitation ; Foote v. U. S., 23 Ct. Cls. 443.
The consular system was reorganized by Act of April 5, 1906. Seven classes of con suls-general were created with salaries run ning from $12,000 to $3,000 ; nine classes of consuls, with salaries running from $8,000 to $2,000. The offices of vice-consul-general, deputy-consul-general, vice-consul and depu ty-consul were continued, and also consular agents. The office of commercial agent was
abolished. No cctnsul-general, consul, or consular agent, receiving a salary of $1,000 or over shall transact business as a mer chant, manufacturer, broker, or other trad er, or as a clerk for such, within the limits of his jurisdiction, nor practice as a lawyer.
They are required to perform many du ties in relation to the commerce of the Unit ed States and towards masters of ships, mariners, and other citizens of the United States. Among these are the authority to receive protests or declarations which cap tains, masters, crews, passengers, merchants, and others make relating to American com merce ; they are required to administer on the estates of American citizens dying with in their consular jurisdiction and leaving no legal representatives, when the laws of the country permit it; see 2 Curt. Eccl. 241; to take charge of and secure the effects of stranded American vessels in the absence of the master, owner, or consignee; to settle disputes between masters of vessels and the mariners ; to provide for destitute sea men within their consulate, and send them to the United States at the public expense. See R. S. § 1674 et seq. Also to hear com plaints of ill-treatment of seamen; The Wel haven, 55 Fed. 80. The consuls are also authorized to make certificates of certain facts in certain cases, which receive faith and credit in the courts of the United States ; Potter v. Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 27, Fed. Cas. No. 11,335. But these consular certif icates are not to be received in evidence, unless they are given in the performance of a consular function ; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cra. (U. S.) 187, 2 L. Ed. 249; Catlett v. Ins. Co., 1 Paine 594, Fed. Cas. No. 2,517 ; U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. C. C. 478, Fed. Cas. No. 15,791; Foster v. Davis, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 71; nor are they evidence, between persons not parties or privies to the transaction, of any fact, unless, either expressly or impliedly, made so by statute; Levy v. Burley, 2 Sumn. 355, Fed. Cas. No. 8,300; Catlett v. Ins, Co., 1 Paine 594, Fed. Cas. No. 2,517; Brown v. The Independence, 2 Crabbe 54, Fed. Cas, No. 2,014.