Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/825

 766

ing in Dublin continues. The last person to fall into the hands of the police was the American Consul in Dublin, who has been summoned and fined. It was suggested rather than put forward that his interna tional character gave him some sort of im munity; but, of course, such a contention could not be raised for a moment in the case of a consul.

ON the question of the legal status of a consul, the Laiu Times says: The claim of the consul-general for Spain in Liverpool for exemption virtntc officn from rates which he has declined to pay, re ferring the matter to the Spanish ambassa dor, cannot, we submit, be sustained on grounds of international morality. Consuls are, no doubt, clothed with diplomatic functions by special conventions in nonCliristian countries, where exceptional pow ers and immunities are rendered necessary by the absence of stable and responsible lo cal government. Consuls commissioned by foreign States to look after the commercial interests of their citizens in Christian coun tries and countries possessing a stable gov ernment conducted on principles consonant with European civilization have never been charged with the conduct of foreign affairs, and have not accordingly been endowed with a diplomatic character, although by comity they enjoy certain exemptions from local and political obligations, such as exemption from personal taxes, from arrest for political reasons, and from having soldiers quartered in their houses, and, in short, from such bur dens as might hinder the effective discharge of consular duties. They are not, however, withdrawn from the civil and criminal juris diction of the courts of the country in which they officiate. "Consuls," wrote Jefferson, "are not diplomatic characters, and have no immunity whatever against the laws of the land," while Mr. Hannis Taylor lays down the proposition that consuls who hold real property and have a fixed residence in the country cannot by reason of their consular status divest such property of its national

character;" (Hannis Taylor's Public Interna tional Law, p. 358). For a full exposition of the consular status, see Ibid., pp 357-361. IN the Central Lav.< Journal Robert A. Ed gar, discussing the question "Is the Pre sumption of Innocence in Criminal Cases to be Weighed as Evidence in the Case," says in conclusion: It will be seen from an examinatian of the foregoing authorities that a considerable difference of opinion exists as to the nature of the presumption of innocence, and whether it can be considered ''evidence" in favor of the defendant which can be "weighed" by the jury. Prior to the case of Coffin r. United States [156 U. S.. 432] courts had reached diverse conclusions. ithcut apparently making any examina tion of the question or giving reasons for their judgments. That case purports to have considered the question carefully d: шлю. The doctrine there announced has since been vigorously denied by Prof. Thayer and other text writers. It is difficult to say where the weight of authority lies. Perhaps more adjudicated cases have decided in favor of the affirma tive of the question, though in some of these the decision may have been influenced by statute. The majority of text writers seem to take the negative view. The earliest ' books and cases which have come under mv notice appear to say little or nothing- about the presumption of innocence. In view of the wide diversity of opinion my own conclusion is of little value. Most men are innocent of crime, and from this general truth, the jury, as reasonable men. will infer or presume that it is more prob able than not, that the particular man before them accused of crime is innocent. This is a natural presumption and may be "weighed'1 in favor of the prisoner even without a formal charge. But in so far as the presumption is one of law, it simply means, that the burden of proof is on the one asserting crime to prove it. The de fendant is prima fofic innocent, and if no evidence is brought against him, he is en