140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891)
Ross, a subject of Great Britain, enlisted as a seaman on the American merchant vessel Bullion.1 While the ship lay in the port of Yokohama within Japanese waters, Ross murdered the second officer of the vessel.2
Under treaties between the United States and Japan executed in 1857 and 1858, as implemented by sections 4083 through 4091 of the Revised Statutes, Ross was arraigned and tried before the American consular court in Japan.3 The court consisted of the consul general sitting with associates chosen by lot from a list previously approved by the minister, and Ross was convicted of murder and sentenced.4
Ross was subsequently transported to the United States, arriving in San Francisco while en route to Albany.5 Upon arrival, he petitioned the Circuit Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus.6 He asserted that the consular court lacked jurisdiction over him because he was a British subject.7 He also asserted that the offense had been committed on the high seas and therefore was triable only in domestic courts.8
The Circuit Court denied the petition.9 It rested its decision on the uniform acquiescence of the executive, administrative, and legislative departments over thirty years in the validity of the consular tribunal legislation and the procedures followed in the trial.10 The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Circuit Court.11
Whether the United States consular court in Japan had jurisdiction to try a British subject serving as an enlisted seaman on an American vessel for an offense committed on the vessel while in a Japanese port?12
The treaty and statute extend jurisdiction over all citizens of the United States in Japan and over all others to the extent that the terms of the treaty justify or require, bringing within the laws all who are citizens and all who, though not strictly citizens, are by their service equally entitled to the care and protection of the government.13
Yes. Ross enlisted as a seaman on the American merchant vessel Bullion.14 While serving on that vessel in Japanese waters, he committed the murder of the second officer.15 The national character of the petitioner for all purposes of the consular jurisdiction was determinable by his enlistment as one of the crew of the American ship.16 This made him an American seaman subject to the jurisdiction of the consular court.17
The consular court possessed jurisdiction to try Ross for the offense.18
Whether an offense committed aboard an American vessel in Japanese waters was triable exclusively in domestic United States courts rather than before the consular court?19
The jurisdiction to try offences committed on the high seas in the district where the offender may be found is not exclusive of the jurisdiction of the consular tribunal.20 The consular tribunal may try a similar offence when committed in a port of a foreign country in which that tribunal is established.21 The consular jurisdiction extends to offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Japan, including its ports and navigable waters.22
No. The offense was committed while the vessel lay in the port of Yokohama within Japanese waters.23 The provisions conferring jurisdiction upon the consuls in Japan when the offence is committed in that country stand alongside the provisions as to the jurisdiction of domestic tribunals over offences committed on the high seas.24 Both must be given effect.25
The offense was properly triable before the consular court rather than exclusively in domestic courts.26
Whether the constitutional guarantees of indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury applied to criminal proceedings conducted before United States consular tribunals in Japan?27
The guarantees against accusation of capital or infamous crimes except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury and for an impartial trial by a jury apply only to citizens and others within the United States or who are brought there for trial for alleged offences committed elsewhere.28 They do not apply to residents or temporary sojourners abroad.29 The Constitution can have no operation in another country.30
No. The trial occurred before the consular court in Japan.31 The framers of the Constitution were aware of the necessity of having judicial authority exercised by consuls in non-Christian countries.32 The requirement of grand and petit juries would have been impracticable and would have defeated the purpose of investing the consul with judicial authority.33
The constitutional guarantees of grand jury indictment and petit jury trial did not apply to the consular proceedings in Japan.34