of the United States vessels in the Mediterranean to the Turkish ports of the Levant. "As was stated to you by Mr. Gresham on the 5th, and as I had the pleasure to say to you on the 6th instant, the intended visit of our ships is without any unfriendly purpose. Their presence at the ports of the Syrian, Aleppan, and Adanan coasts will, however, afford an opportunity to learn whether there is just ground for the apprehensions of insecurity of life and property which our citizens in that region have expressed, and which have called forth the positive assurances of the Porte that full safety will be guaranteed them, with enjoyment of all their residential and professional rights, in which sense I am informed instructions have been telegraphed by the Porte to the valis of the several Levantine provinces as well as in the interior of Asia Minor." 66 Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., April 8, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1250. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency's note of the 8th instant and to communicate to you the substance of a dispatch I have just received from His Excellency Saïd Pasha, according to which the visit of the American squadron in Ottoman waters can naturally only be considered by the Sublime Porte in the same light as those which the ships of war of the other Powers are in the habit of making annually to Ottoman ports. His excellency adds that the fears of want of security alleged by some American citizens have no foundation in fact, and that these groundless fears are the work of those who are endeavoring, for certain subversive objects, to show to the world an abnormal situation which does not exist in reality." Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, April 30, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II: 1250. "You announce the view of His Excellency Saïd Pasha, that this visit can naturally only be considered by the Sublime Porte in the same light as those which the ships of war of the other Powers are in the habit of making annually to Ottoman ports,' and communicate his excellency's further declaration that the security of American citizens in the Turkish dominions is not threatened. "I do not understand that the position of the United States naval vessels in Turkish waters is to be defined by the especial relations or functions of ships of war of European Powers under their existing treaty obligations with regard to Turkish affairs. Abstaining from intermixture in the internal matters of other states, this Government employs its naval agencies abroad only for keeping up the usual courtesies of friendly intercourse and for the protection of American citizens and American interests in other countries. Performance of this latter function is alike the right and duty of every sovereign state. The state so acting can alone be the judge of the occasion therefor, and may not be called upon to account for the course it may consider wise or necessary.” Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., June 6, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 1251. 2. JURISDICTION OVER MERCHANT VESSELS. (1) APPLICATION OF LOCAL LAW. § 204. "The jurisdiction of every independent nation over the merchant vessels of other nations lying within its own harbors is absolute and exclusive." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wise, min. to Brazil, Sept. 27, 1845, May 6, 1891, the minister of the United States at Santiago was instructed In the case of William Bush, steward of the American barque Childe Harold, who was arrested on board that vessel, at Havana, on a charge of having delivered various packages of papers calculated to create an insurrectionary spirit among the inhabitants of Cuba. the Department of State said: "The American masters in the port of Havana . . . are entirely mistaken in supposing that it would be a violation of, the national flag, and national honor, to arrest one of the crew of a merchant vessel, which had voluntarily entered that port, for a crime committed within the local jurisdiction." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, consul at Havana, Nov. 1, 1848: 10 MS. Disp. to Consuls, 493, citing Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 144, 156, and adding: "In the United States we should be in a sad condition . . . if all crimes committed on board of foreign merchant vessels in our numerous ports should pass unpunished and all criminals who could make their escape on board such vessels should be protected from arrest." The arrest of an American citizen on an American vessel in foreign territorial waters, on process issuing from a competent court, presents no ground for a demand for redress. (Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jordan, Jan. 23, 1849, 37 MS. Dom. Let. 98.) In the case of the alleged abduction of certain seamen from the American whale ship Addison by the marine governor at Valparaiso, which was reported by Mr. Peyton, American minister to Chile, Mr. Webster stated that, while no opinion could be formed of the case sufficiently definite in all particulars, the proceeding on the part of the Chilean authorities seemed to be arbitrary and not justified by any apparent necessity. It was stated by the Chilean Government that the seamen in question, who had been shipped in Chile, being discontented with the treatment they received on board the Addison, invoked the intervention of the marine governor, who had first sought to prevail upon them to remain with the ship, but, as they insisted on leaving it, did not allow them to go ashore, but transferred them to the national frigate Chile. It was alleged that the Chilean Govcrnment, being in need of men for its navy, for that reason impressed the men into its service; but this the Chilean Government denied. With reference to the allegation in question, Mr. Webster said: "Those governments which assert a right to the services of their subjects, who may be seamen on board of the vessels of other nations, do not often exercise this right by taking them from such vessels in time of peace. The Department, however, was not aware that Chile claimed the right even in time of war. The sudden use of the power, even in her own waters, at a period of profound peace, and without justifiable necessity, would be an act at variance with the comity of nations for which her Government may justly be held responsible. It is presumed that the impressment was not authorized by any law of Chile, and that the sailors had not offended against any law of that Republic. If, however, the circumstance that two of the seamen were Chileans might afford some palliation for the proceding, the fact that one of them was a Frenchman heightens its arbitrary character. If we were quietly to submit to this, we could not remonstrate if the many English sailors on board our merchant vessels at Havana, or Rio de Janeiro, were to be removed from them to gratify the caprices of Spanish or Brazilian officers, or to make up any alleged deficiency in the crews of vessels under their command. Such acts would embarrass commercial enterprise, and engender a feeling in this country at variance with that good understanding with foreign governments which we wish to preserve, so far as the most patient moderation and forbearance compatible with a just regard for our interests will allow." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peyton, min. to Chile, July 2, 1851, Merchant vessels in port are subject to the police law of the port. Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ingersoll, Feb. 17, 1853, MS. Inst. H. Doc. 551-vol 2- -18 See an article on "Jurisdiction over Foreign Ships in Territorial Waters," by Charles Noble Gregory, Michigan Law Review (Feb. 1904), .vol. 2, No. 5. "A copy of your dispatch in relation to the sailor Francis Boyle, under date of August 5th, addressed to the Hon. D. D. Bernard, late minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary, has been transmitted by him to this Department. "It appears, so far as the facts have been presented to the Department, that Francis Boyle, the sailor above mentioned, belonged to the crew of the ship Talleyrand, an American vessel, commanded by Captain Young, lying on the 2d of August in the port of the free city of Hamburg; that, on this day, the Hamburg police went on board the said vessel, during the absence of the captain, and, under pretence of his having been concerned in a riot on shore, arrested Francis Boyle, who held at the time a protection as a citizen of the United States, and who was so designated on the crew list; that the cause assigned for the arrest was merely a pretence, since, in point of fact, it was done at the instigation of the Prussian authorities of Stettin who forwarded a requisition for the sailor, as being a Prussian by birth, and as such liable to military service; that it was alleged by the Prussian minister, and the chief of the police at Hamburg, that his protection' could not shield him, as it was assumed by them that the said Boyle, not having been five years in the United States, could not be a citizen thereof; and, finally, that the chief of police, after declaring that he must surrender the man to the Prussian authorities, having been deterred from so doing by the energetic remonstrances of yourself and of Captain Young, referred the matter to the syndicus, in charge of foreign affairs, by whom the sailor, after a detention of three days, was liberated and sent back on board his vessel. 66 These facts, as they are thus presented, exhibit a case of so gross a violation of the rights of an American sailor, that I deem it unnecessary at this time to do more than to assure you that your active exertions to prevent the consummation of a high-handed outrage deserve and have received the strong approbation of the President. "It is for the authorities of the so-called 'Republic and Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg' to determine how it may affect the commerce of that flourishing state, to permit their police officers to become the instruments of foreign nations in acts of violence and oppression, and upholding them in their entry, under a false pretext, on board of an American vessel, lying peacefully at their wharves engaged in commercial transactions under the sanction of solemn treaty stipulations, and arrest one of its crew, shipped as an American sailor, holding an American protection and relying upon it, and upon the flag, which floated over him, as his safeguards from all illegal acts. "It is for the Government of the United States to determine what steps it will take to vindicate its sovereignty, violated in the person of one under its protection, and to make known its determination to protect those who place themselves under the banner of the Republic. "I do not deem it necessary at the present time to enter into any argument as to the question whether Francis Boyle was or was not a native-born citizen of the United States, whether he had been naturalized or had not resided five years in the United States, as contended by the Prussian authorities. The principles heretofore laid down, and acted upon by this Government, in regard to the citizenship of seamen are plain and well settled and require no elaborate vindication. The various questions which have arisen in respect to the protection to be extended to those who have taken the incipient steps to become American citizens, do not apply to them. "The rule laid down by the distinguished person who first held the office of Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, was, 'that the vessel being American shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such,' and fifty years afterwards it was restated, with no less precision by one of the most eminent of American statesmen, one of my predecessors. that in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them.' "This is the principle which will hereafter, certainly not less than heretofore, be maintained, in its fullest extent, by the Government of the United States." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bromberg, consul at Hamburg, Sept. 1, 1853, 17 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 70. "As to the jurisdiction over offenses committed on board of a merchant vessel by the officers or company of the vessel, towards each other, while in the harbor or waters of a foreign power, there is considerable diversity of opinions. Some nations yield the jurisdiction in such cases, and some assert it. "If the United States claim jurisdiction over all offenses committed on board of foreign private vessels in their harbors or waters, they cannot, with consistency, assert the right to have their citizens exempt from the jurisdiction of the local authorities when they commit similar offenses in foreign ports. "This question of jurisdiction has been under the consideration of the Supreme Court of the United States. The views expressed by that court are those which this Government approves, and is disposed to abide by in its intercourse with foreign nations. "As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a nation is exclusive and absolute within its own territories, of which harbors and littoral waters are as clearly a part as the land. Restrictions may be imposed upon it by treaties and a few have been yielded by common consent, and thus have come to be regarded as rules of international law. |