Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 4, 1883

No. 9.
Baron Schaeffer to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

[Unofficial.]

Washington, November 8, 1882. (Received November 8.)

Sir: Directed by a telegraphic order just received from the royal Hungarian marine government, I have the honor to lay before you a statement of facts which recently occurred in Philadelphia on board the Hungarian sailing vessel Mimi P., Captain Randich, accompanied by some questions and suggestions, and venture to ask you whether you find yourself authorized to interfere in the matter, in order that the proceedings may take place without delay and with the proper forbearance.

Accept, &c.,

SCHAEFFER.

[Inclosure.]

Statement of facts which lately occurred on hoard the Hungarian sailing vessel Mimi P., Capt, Andrea Randich, now lying in the port of Philadelphia.

Recently a bill of indictment against the said Capt. A. Randich was ignored through the absence of withesses. The charge was of an aggravated offense committed upon the cabin-boy on the vessel. The absent withesses are said to have been secured, and a true bill was found on the 3d instant, and a court officer was intrusted with a bench-warrant for the arrest of the captain. Upon boarding the vessel the officer was resisted by Randich and. driven away. Returning with re-enforcement the captain has been arrested by the officer of the court.

Andrea Randich not being able to deposit the bail of $1,500 for the pretended assault on the boy, and the further bail of $800 for resisting the process of the court, was locked up in the central station. With respect to the first indictment the following questions naturally arise:

1. Whether the offense has been committed at all, and by whom?

2. Whether, if really committed, it was committed in the port of Philadelphia or on the high seas; and, in the latter case, whether a foreign court has the right to arrogate its jurisdiction?

3. Whether deserters, who are naturally revengeful enemies of the captain, are to be admitted as withesses?

With respect to the second offense, it is not possible to approve of the conduct of: he captain, but it may be styled excusable for a man, thinking himself innocent, to resist to an arrest on board of his own vessel, without the presence of his consul.

It is permitted to ask whether any American captain would not have acted in the same way in any European port.

Should Article X of the convention concluded between the United States and Austria-Hungary on the 11th July, 1870, not be applicable to this case?

At least the simple international courtesy would have suggested to acquaint the foreign consul of the issue of the warrant, a courtesy which the American Government certainly expects and will receive from the courts in any foreign ports.