Dallemagne v. Moisan

Citations

• 197 U.S. 169
• 25 S. Ct. 422
• 49 L. Ed. 709
• 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1208

Syllabus

<p>Power may be conferred upon a átate 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.</p> <p>There is no constitutional or statutory provision of California prohibiting the arrest of a seaman on the request of a French consul under the treaty with France of 1853, and such arrest, being for temporary detention of a- sailor whose contract is an exceptional one, does not deprive him of his liberty without duo process of law, and if the chief of police voluntarily performs-the request of the consul the arrest is not illegal on that ground.</p> <p>•The only method of enforcing treaty provisions for arrest of seamen on requisition of foreign consuls is pursuant to the act of June 11, 1804, 13 Stat. 121, now §§ 4079,. 4080, 4081, Rev. Stat., and thereunder the requisition must be made to the District Court or judge and the arrest made by the marshal, and an arrest by a local chief of police is not authorized; but if after a seaman so arrested has been produced before the District Court on habeas corpus and the court finds that his case comes under the treaty and he should be held, the mere fact that he was arrested by a person not authorized to do so does not entitle him to his discharge.</p> <p>After a seaman has been properly arrested on the request of the French consul under the treaty of 1853 with France, he can he held in prison at the disposal of the consul for sixty days, as provided for in § 4081, Rev. Stat.r and the court cannot discharge him within that period against the protest of the consul because the vessel to which he belonged has left the port at which he was arrested.</p>