In the United States v. Eaton case of 1891, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning diplomatic authority and succession. John Silliman Eaton was appointed as vice consul in Bangkok by General George F. Seward, who was serving as consul general there at that time. When Seward left for Japan due to health issues, he designated Eaton as acting consul general during his absence without seeking approval from the State Department or President Harrison's administration. The issue arose when Eaton began issuing certificates with his new title and charged fees for these services which were then claimed by him personally rather than being submitted to the Treasury Department according to standard procedure. Upon review, The Supreme Court held that while it is generally necessary for an officer's appointment to be approved by both Senate and President under Article II of Constitution; however in this case they found an exception because consular officers could delegate their duties temporarily if unable due to illness or other reasons. Therefore, even though not officially recognized by government authorities back home, Eaton’s actions were deemed lawful given circumstances surrounding his temporary promotion.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Eaton, Justice Brewer argued that Mr. Eaton should not be considered a vice consul and thus could not be charged under Section 1679 of the Revised Statutes which criminalizes false claims made by consular officers. He contended that while Mr. Eaton was performing some duties of a vice consul, he had never been officially appointed or recognized as such by either the President or Senate, nor did he receive any salary from the government for his services in this capacity. Therefore, according to Justice Brewer's interpretation of law and constitutionality, it would be inappropriate to charge him with crimes specific to an office he did not formally hold.