SELDEN LORING, United States Vice-Consul to J. Gardiner Austin , Colonial Secretary, August 28, 1874

Mr. Loring to Mr. Austin.

Sir: I have the honor to call the attention of his excellency the governor to the following facts:

On the 7th instant, as the consular officer of the United States in charge of the United States consulate at this port, I, in my official capacity as consul, discharged from the articles of the American ship “Lathley Rich” the steward, Joseph D. Ellis, in accordance with law; that, at my request, the account of wages of the said Ellis was submitted to me by the master of the said ship, and by me to the man Ellis; that the same was duly approved and pronounced correct by him in my presence; that I then collected from the master the balance due, and issued to the man Ellis the certificate of discharge, as provided by instructions from my Government.

I then called the attention of the man discharged to the fact that under the harbor regulations of Hong-Kong, he would be obliged to lodge at either the Sailors’ Home or a licensed boarding-house, and that, until he complied with said regulations, I could not, under my instructions, pay over to him the balance of wages due, as I should then have no security that he would not come upon the consulate in a few days (his money being gone) for relief. That the man Ellis thereupon declined to comply with said regulations, and at once brought an action in the supreme court of this colony, in summary jurisdiction, against the master of the late ship the “Lathley Rich,” that this action was not only for the balance of wages rendered and in my hands, but for the sum of two months’ additional pay, as damages for an alleged wrongful dismissal, or, in other words, illegal discharge; that the plea of defense to this was as follows: First, the man Ellis, late steward of the American ship “Lathley Rich” was discharged at Hong-Kong, By the consul of the United States, in accordance with law; second, that, the consul having discharged the man Ellis in accordance with law, and given him his certificate of discharge under his signature and the consular seal of the United States, it was not competent for the court to review the case, having no jurisdiction.

Against all precedent, the court entertained the case, thereby constituting itself a court of appeal from the decisions of the United States consul at this port in matters concerning the discharge of American seamen from American vessels, rendering nugatory all instructions of my Government, or laws of the United States, made and provided for the guidance of its consuls at a foreign port, in matters relating to the discharge of American seamen from American vessels, and the manner of their discharged

The statements of his lordship, in the judgment rendered by him, that, by the ordinances of the colony which regulate the merchant-service, (1 of 1850, 6 of 1852, 1 of 1862,) consular officers are permitted to discharge seamen, has but little worth, if the officer has not the right, in accordance with the instructions from his government, to determine in what manner the seamen shall be so discharged, and the precedent be established, as in this case, that an appeal can be taken from his action in the matter. Of what value is the right of discharge granted by the ordinance referred to, if this construction is to be placed upon it? Which amounts to little more or less than this: a seaman, being discharged by his consul on what to him appears to be sufficient grounds for such action, and in accordance with law, can defy his consul by an appeal to a local court, and can not only set aside his official acts, but can obtain damages for same; as in this case my official act, as the consular officer of the United States, in that I did discharge the man Ellis, with loss of extra wages, in accordance with law, has been set aside by this court, and the ship mulcted for damages to the same amount I had denied the man under my official action.

I contend, with all due respect, that if, as a consular officer, I had the right to discharge, the man at all, I certainly had the right to determine the basis of his discharge, whether with or without extra wages, in accordance with the law of the United States regulating the same, and that, having once determined this fact, and discharged the man, he had no redress as against such decision other than that provided by the laws of the United States.

However, without entering upon a further discussion of the matter at this time, I deem it my duty herewith to enter a most solemn protest in behalf of my Government as against the action of the court in this case, as by its decision I am rendered utterly powerless to carry out the instructions of my Government regulating cases like the one in point. I claim, furthermore, that there is no precedent for this action; that the customs and usages of this port have established my right, as the consular officer of the United States, to, discharge seamen from American ships in accordance with law, and that as such consular officer I have sole jurisdiction as regards the basis of such discharge; that having decided a seaman shall be discharged, and the basis upon which such discharge shall be granted, there can be no appeal from the decision to any court in this colony.

In conclusion, permit me to state that in making this claim I am only urging that the consular officer of the United States at this port may have the same privileges and courtesies extended to him, in his official capacity, as is now, and has been for years, extended to like officials in England and the colonies, and that my Government may not be denied the reciprocal right here which is claimed and practiced by the government of Great Britain in the United States.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,