SELDEN LORING, United States Vice-Consul to John L. Cadwalader , Assistant, December 14, 1874

Mr. Loring to Mr. Cadwalader.

Sir: I have the honor to call the attention of the Department to the evidence herewith submitted in a certain case that came before me as the consular officer in charge of the United States consulate at this port, marked “inclosure 1,” in which it appears that a complaint was made before me by Captain Thomas Mitchell, master of the American ship “Lathley Rich” of Boston, as against his steward, Joseph D. Ellis, for incompetency, filthy and untidy habits, and general misconduct in his capacity as steward of said vessel.

After a careful investigation of the case, I decided that the complaint was fully sustained, and in view of the fact that the man Ellis (notwithstanding he had shipped on the “Lathley Rich” in a foreign port) could at once reship on an American vessel bound to the United States, I discharged him with loss of extra pay, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1873, Department Circular No. 41, bearing date May 16, 1873.

The man Ellis apparently submitted to this decision—made no remonstrance or demand for extra pay whatever; his account of wages earned was submitted to him by myself, and approved of in every particular; but the moment he obtained possession of his certificate of discharge he declined to reship. I then informed him that under the regulations of the port he must enter either the sailors’ home or a licensed boarding-house before I could give him the balance of wages due and in my hands, thereby relieving my Government of the danger of his coming on this consulate for relief in a few days, his money being gone.

This he declined to do, and at once brought an action in the summary-jurisdiction court of this colony to recover not only the amount of wages due and in my hands at the date of his discharge, but also a further claim for two months’ extra wages, for an alleged wrongful dismissal or illegal discharge.

At the request of Captain Mitchell, i attended and stated the case to the court, pointed out the law under which I had acted, and, in fact, at the request of the judge, gave my reasons for my decision, although i intimated to the court that in doing so 1 was prompted simply by a desire to be courteous, and that the fact of my having acted in accordance with law might be fully established, and not for a moment that I conceded them the right to inquire into my official conduct in matters relating to the discharge of American seamen from American vessels, in accordance with law and the instructions of my Government. My statements were, however, of no avail, the court overruled my decision as regards the extra pay (there being no dispute as regards wages) and awarded the man Ellis two months’ pay over and above the amount of wages earned, as shown by the account submitted by the master and approved by the steward.

The conduct of the court was so plain during the hearing of the case that one could not fail to see that there was a fixed determination on the part of the presiding judge, not only to go into the case, notwithstanding my action, but to overrule my decision if possible. In view of this conviction, I at once addressed a communication to the local government, a copy of which I inclose herewith, marked inclosure 2.

Before I received the reply of the Government to the same, the court rendered judgment in the case in favor of the plaintiff, and an appeal was at once taken to the supreme court of the colony. A day or two after this appeal had been taken, I received a reply to my communication from the colonial secretary, a copy of which I inclose herewith, marked inclosure 3.

The case came on, after a delay of some weeks, and was postponed; finally a hearing was had and judgment reserved until after the departure of the vessel for New York; the master having entered into bonds for the payment of costs, &c. Forty eight hours after the vessel had cleared from this port, the court rendered judgment fully sustaining the action of the lower court, and the attorney was compelled, by threats of immediate process, as against the surety to pay the two months’ extra pay into court on behalf of Captain Mitchell; this was done, however, under protest.

I. then addressed the local government a second communication, a copy of which I inclose, marked number 4; a copy of the reply to the same, I also inclose herewith, marked inclosure number 5.

As the full court decided not to make the judgment rendered by them sustaining the action of the lower court public, I instructed the defendant’s attorney to apply for an official copy of the same, the result of which was that on December I, nearly four months from the date of the steward’s discharge by myself, the final decision was given in full from the bench, a copy of which I inclose herewith, marked Inclosure number 6.

I also inclose, for the information of the Department, an article on this case from a copy of the China Mail, a leading journal published in this colony; it is marked inclosure number 7.

I refrain from expressing an opinion in regard to this case, further than, perhaps, an error was made by Captain Mitchell (acting, however, under the advice of his attorneys) in relying too much upon the idea that the court would dismiss the case upon its being brought to the knowledge of the justice that the matter had been adjudicated upon in accordance with American law before the consul. This was the opinion, however, of the entire legal fraternity, as well as myself; and in fact, a leading legal firm here, no less than the crown solicitors, had been applied to by the steward to conduct his case, and had declined to do so, on the grounds that he had no case, that the courts here would not entertain an appeal from a consular decision in matters appertaining to the discharge of seamen from foreign ships in this port before their respective consular officers. The whole case, then, for the defense rested upon the ground of want of jurisdiction, the defendant evidently failing to show cause for my action (other than by the statements made by myself) simply because he did not call as witnesses the parties that I had called in my examination at the consulate.

The question of jurisdiction, then, in the opinion of: the courts of this colony, is now fully determined, and consular officers cannot fail to see that any course they may take, as regards carrying out the instructions of their respective governments relating to the discharge, wages, and disputes, as between masters and seamen, is liable to be received here, and their action in the matter reversed, so long as tile decision in this case stands.

With this statement and inclosures before you, then, I consider my duty done, and i await such action as may be deemed expedient by the Department in view of the facts submitted. In the mean time, rest assured that I shall continue to carry out my instructions, to the letter and spirit of same, to the best of my ability, avoiding all issues with local authority possible; each and every act, although tempered with moderation, still strictly in accordance with law, and in compliance with the views of the Department as expressed in existing regulations.

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