Henry Dallemagne v. Jean Francois Moisan

Decision Date13 March 1905
Docket NumberNo. 104,104
Citation49 L.Ed. 709,197 U.S. 169,25 S.Ct. 422
PartiesHENRY DALLEMAGNE, Consul General of the Republic of France, Appt. , v. JEAN FRANCOIS MOISAN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is an appeal on the part of the consul general of the Republic of France from the judgment of the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, discharging the defendant Moisan from imprisonment.

The proceeding arises on habeas corpus, to inquire into the validity of the detention of defendant in the city prison of San Francisco, in the state of California. His application for the writ was addressed to the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and it showed that he was a citizen of France, and was imprisoned by virtue of a requisition in writing, signed by the French consul general residing in San Francisco, and addressed to the chief of police of San Francisco, California, requiring his arrest as one of the crew of the French ship Jacques, then in that port, on account of his insubordinate conduct as one of such crew. (The requisition contained all the averments of fact which would warrant the arrest of the petitioner under the provisions of the treaty of 1853 between the United States and France.) The petitioner also averred that, at the time of the making of his application for the writ, the ship was not in the port of San Francisco, but had departed therefrom some time before. The petitioner was arrested by the chief of police, under such requisition, on the 1st day of May, 1903, and since that time had been confined in the city prison of San Francisco. He asserted that his imprisonment was illegal, because the facts set forth did not confer jurisdiction upon the consul or the chief of police, or either of them, to restrain complainant from his liberty, or to imprison him.

The petition was dated the 26th day of May, 1903, and the writ was issued, returnable before the district court on the 28th day of May, 1903. The chief of police produced the body of the defendant, pursuant to the command of the writ, and justified the imprisonment, under the requisition referred to.

The district court, after hearing counsel, made an order discharging the defendant from arrest, on the ground that it appeared to the court that the bark Jacques, of the crew of which the defendant was a member, had departed from the port of San Francisco, and was no longer in that port. It was further ordered that the execution of the order should be stayed for the term of one day. Immediately thereon the consul general filed with the district court his petition for appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the judgment discharging the defendant from imprisonment, which appeal was duly allowed, and thereupon the petitioner was admitted to bail by the district court.

Messrs. Walter V. R. Berry and Benjamin S. Minor for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 171-172 intentionally omitted] Mr. William Denman for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 172-173 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement of the facts, delivered the opinion of the court:

This case involves the construction of certain language in the 8th article of the consular convention between the United States and France, concluded on the 23d day of February, 1853, and proclaimed by the President of the United States on the 12th day of August, 1853, the whole convention being still in full force and effect. 10 Stat. at L. 992, 996. The article is reproduced in the margin.

The first objection made by the defendant is to the validity of the requisition of the consul general, because it was directed to the chief of police of San Francisco, he being an officer of the state, as distinguished from a Federal officer, the defendant contending that a Federal treaty cannot impose on a state officer, as such, a function violating the Constitution of the

Article VIII. The respective consuls general, consuls, vice consuls, or consular agents, shall have exclusive charge of the internal order of the merchant vessel of their nation, and shall alone take cognizance of differences which may arise, either at sea or in port, between the captain, officers, and crew, without exception, particularly in reference to the adjustment of wages and the execution of contracts. The local authorities shall not, on any pretext, interfere in these differences, but shall lend forcible aid to the consuls when they may ask it, to arrest and imprison all persons composing the crew whom they may deem it necessary to confine. Those persons shall be arrested at the sole request of the consuls, addressed in writing to the local authority, and supported by an official extract from the register of the ship or the list of the crew, and shall be held, during the whole time of their stay in the port, at the disposal of the consuls. Their release shall be granted at the mere request of the consuls, made in writing. The expenses of the arrest and detention of those persons shall be paid by the consuls state which he represents in his official character. It has long been held that power may be conferred upon a state officer, as such, to execute a duty imposed under an act of Congress, and the officer may execute the same, unless its execution is prohibited by the Constitution or legislation of the state. Prigg v. Pennsywania, 16 Pet. 539, 622, 10 L. ed. 1060, 1091; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 41 L. ed. 715, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326. As to the objection that there was any statute, or any constitutional provision of the state, prohibiting the execution of the power conferred by the treaty upon the state officer, we think it unfounded. We find nothing in the Constitution or in the statutes of California which forbids or would prevent the execution of the power by a state officer, in case he were willing to execute it. The provisions in the Constitution of the state, cited by counsel for defendant, relate, in substance, only to the general proposition that no person should be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. The execution of a treaty between the United States and a foreign government, such as the one in question, would not violate any provision of the California Constitution; the imprisonment is not pursuant to a conviction of crime, but is simply a temporary detention of a sailor, whose contract of service is an exceptional one (Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 41 L. ed. 715, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326), for the purpose of securing his person during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Klein v. City of Louisville
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 22 mai 1928
    ...right of Congress to confer power upon state corporations and state officers to act for national purposes are Dallemagne v. Hoisan, 197 U.S. 169, 25 S. Ct. 422, 49 L. Ed. 709; U.S. v. Jones, 109, U.S. 513, 3 S. Ct. 346, 27 L. Ed. 1015. It appearing that it is not essential for the state Leg......
  • Klein v. City of Louisville
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 22 mai 1928
    ... ... purposes are Dallemagne v. Moisan, 197 U.S. 169, 25 ... S.Ct. 422, 49 L.Ed. 709; ... ...
  • Ex Parte Ponzi
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 octobre 1926
    ...U. S. 700, 8 S. Ct. 1204, 32 L. Ed. 283; Barrington v. Missouri, 205 U. S. 483, 27 S. Ct. 582, 51 L. Ed. 890; Dallemagne v. Moisan, 197 U. S. 169, 25 S. Ct. 422, 49 L. Ed. 709. We are not called upon to determine the status of the relator, had he been arrested by authority of the United Sta......
  • Williams v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 23 mars 1950
    ...U.S. 178, 64 S.Ct. 487, 88 L.Ed. 659; Douglas v. N. Y. etc. Ry. Co., 279 U.S. 377, 49 S.Ct. 355, 73 L.Ed. 747; Dallemagne v. Moisan, 197 U.S. 169, 25 S.Ct. 422, 49 L.Ed. 709. See also the opinion of Mr. Justice Cardoza in Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT