Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

REPUBLIC OF CHINA v. PANG-TSU MOW

December 10, 1951

REPUBLIC OF CHINA
v.
PANG-TSU MOW et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KIRKLAND

There are before the Court at this time the following preliminary matters.

 Motion for preliminary injunction,

 Motion to vacate and/or modify order designating a disinterested person to take possession of the premises, etc.

 Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process and/or insufficiency of service of process

 Motion to vacate temporary restraining order.

 This Court is a Court of the United States, 28 U.S.Code, § 88, and has general jurisdiction of all cases in law and equity between parties who are residents of or who are found within the District of Columbia. D.C. Code 1940 Ed. Sec. 11-306. The plaintiff is represented in the District Of Columbia by its agent, the Ambassador of the Republic of China to the United States. The defendants are allegedly residents of the District of Columbia and are before the Court by virtue of a general appearance entered by their authorized counsel.

 The first point to be considered is the allegation that the government of the Republic of China has not authorized this suit in its behalf. In support of this contention defendants urge that there is a question within the government of the Republic of China concerning the identity of its president. Defendants urge that this Court is without jurisdiction to determine internal controversies of a foreign power. With this point the Court agrees. However, it is not necessary for the Court to decide this controversy if one there be.

 The recognition by the political department of the United States government of a foreign government is conclusive of its legal status as far as the United States Court are concerned. Oetjen v. Central Leather Company, 1918, 246 U.S. 297, 38 S. Ct. 309, 62 L. Ed. 726. In a case decided the same day by the Supreme Court, the Court considered the effect of recognition by the United States government of the government of Carranza as the de facto and later the de jure government of Mexico and said: 'It is settled that the court will take judicial notice of such recognition, as we have here, of the Carranza government by the political department of our government ( Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 11 S. Ct. 80, 34 L. Ed. 691), and that the courts of one independent government will not sit in judgment on the validity of the acts of another done within its own territory.' Ricaud v. American Metal Company, Ltd., 1918, 246 U.S. 304, 38 S. Ct. 312, 313, 62 L. Ed. 733. The Court has received through an interchange of letters with the State Department a certification that this government recognizes the Honorable V. K. Wellington Koo as the duly authorized ambassador of the Republic of China in the United States. This procedure of obtaining such certification is well established. Sullivan v. Sao Paulo, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 503.

 The letter of the Honorable James Webb, Acting Secretary of State, to the Court under seal of the State Department, dated November 28, 1951, is conclusive of Ambassador Koo's position as the duly recognized ambassador of the Republic of China to the United States. In the case of Agency of Canadian Car & Foundry Company, Ltd., et al., v. American Can Company, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered the extent of the authority of an ambassador and the effect of his recognition by the State Department, and ruled, 'So that the certificate of the Secretary of State, above referred to, certifying to the official character of Boris Bakhmetieff as the Russian ambassador to the United States is not only evidence, but it is the best evidence, of Mr. Bakhmetieff's diplomatic character, and is to be regarded by the courts as conclusive of the question, and the court could not proceed upon argumentative and collateral proof. And the certificate of Mr. Bakhmetieff, given under his hand and seal as Russian ambassador, concerning the membership and powers of the Russian Supply Committee, must be regarded in like manner as an authoritative representation by the Russian government on that subject, and as such binding and conclusive in the courts of the United States against that government on the matters to which it relates.'

 The law of that case requires this Court to give conclusive effect to the authorization of Ambassador Koo to institute this suit on behalf of his government.

 Counsel for the defendants concede the power of this Court to entertain this suit otherwise, but contend that the Court should decline to take jurisdiction because of the grave international problems involved, and that fact is probably the strongest reason for exercising jurisdiction. No problem of international law is before the Court. The problem of the applicable law herein, if a problem there be, is one of conflict of laws, and since the acts complained of which are cognizable in this Court- the acts of the ambassador- took place in this forum, the Court is bound to apply the law of the forum.

 For purposes of illustration, assume that the Court declined jurisdiction of this case. This would leave a friendly power with no alternative but to resort to acts of force to deal with its citizens on foreign soil. The orderly administration of justice and the policy of co-operation with a friendly foreign power require this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to aid that country's control over its representatives in the United States. The Court will not interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country, but no such interference is prayed for in this action. The Court is merely exercising its jurisdiction in aid of the power of an ambassador to this country to enforce his orders and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.