United States v. Ravara

Case No. 16,122a. International Law — Offences bt Consuls — Thkeatenino Letters—Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. [A foreign consul, notwithstanding his official character, is indictable in this country, and triable in the federal courts, for the common-law offence of sending anonymous and threatening letters with intent to extort money.]

[This was an indictment against the consul from Genoa, for a misdemeanor in sending anonymous and threatening letters to various persons named, with a view to extort money. A motion to quash the indictment was heretofore overruled. Case No. 16,122. [The defendant was defended on the following points:] (1) That the matter charged in the indictment was not a crime by the-common law, nor is it made such by any positive law of the United States. In England it was once treason; it is now felony; but in both instances it was the effect of' positive law. It can only, therefore, be considered as a bare menace of bodily hurt; and, without a consequent inconvenience, it is no injury public or private. 4 Bl. Comm. 5; 8-Hen. VI. c. 6; 9 Geo. I. c. 22; 4 Bl. Comm. 144; 3 Bl. Comm. 120. (2) That considering the official character of the defendant, such a proceeding ought not to be sustained, nor such a punishment inflicted. The law of nations is a part of the law of the United States; and the law of nations seems to require, that a consul should be independent of the ordinary criminal justice of the place where he resides. Vatt. Law Nat bk. 2, c. 2, § 34. (3) But that, exclusive of the legal exceptions, the prosecution had not been maintained in point of evidence; for, it was all circumstantial and presumptive, and that too, in so slight a degree, as ought not to weigh with a jury on so important an issue. 2 Hale, P. C. 289; 4 Smol. Hist. Eng. p. 382, in note. Mr. Rawle, in reply, insisted that the offence-was indictable at common law; that the consular character of the defendant gave jurisdiction to the circuit court, and did not entitle him to an exemption from prosecution agreeably to the law of nations; and that the proof was as strong as the nature of the case allowed, or the rules of evidence required. In support of his argument he cited the following authorities: 4 Bl. Comm. 142,144; lLev. 140; 1 Keb. 809; 4 Bl. Comm. 180; Strange, 193; 4 Bl. Comm. 242; Crown Cir. Comp. 376; Fost. 128; Leach, 204; [Respubliea v.Teiseher] 1 Dali. [1 U. S.] 33S; 1 Sid. 108; Comb. 304; Leach, 39; Ld. Raym. 1461; [Respubliea v. Sweers] 1 Dali. [1 U. S.] 45.