"A vessel navigating the ocean carries with her the laws of her own country, so far as relates to the persons and property on board, and to a certain extent, retains those rights even in the ports of the foreign nations she may visit. Now, this being the state of the law of nations, what were the duties of the authorities at Nassau in regard to the Creole? It is submitted the mutineers could not be tried by the courts of that island, the crime having been committed on the high seas. All that the authorities could lawfully do, was to comply with the request of the American consul, and keep the mutineers in custody until a conveyance could be found for sending them to the United States. "The other slaves, being perfectly quiet, and under the command of the captain and owners, and on board an American ship, the authorities should have seen that they were protected by the law of nations; their rights under which can not be abrogated or varied, either by the emancipation act or any other act of the British Parliament. "Blackstone, 4th volume, speaking of the law of nations, states: 'Whenever any question arises, which is properly the object of its jurisdiction, such law is here adopted in its full extent by the common law.' "The municipal law of England can not authorize a magistrate to violate the law of nations by invading with an armed force the vessel of a friendly nation that has committed no offense, and forcibly dissolving the relations which by the laws of his country the captain is bound to preserve and enforce on board. "These rights, sanctioned by the law of nations-viz: the right to navigate the ocean, and to seek shelter in case of distress or other unavoidable circumstances, and to retain over the ship, her cargo, and passengers, the laws of her own country-must be respected by all nations; for no independent nation would submit to their violation. Having read all the authorities referred to in the arguments on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that the conduct of the authorities at Nassau was in violation of the established law of nations, and that the claimants are justly entitled to compensation for their losses. I therefore award to the undermentioned parties, their assigns, or legal representatives, the sums set opposite their names, due on the 15th of January, 1855." Bates, umpire, case of the Creole, convention between the United States Case of the "York." The British ship York, while stranded on the coast of North Carolina, having been driven ashore by stress of weather while proceeding in ballast from Valencia, Spain, to Lewes, Delaware, was destroyed by two United States cruisers to prevent her from falling into the possession of the enemy. An award was unanimously made of $11,935 in gold, based on the value of the wreck at the time of its destruction. American and British Claims Commission, treaty of May 8, 1871, Article V. INVIOLABILITY OF TERRITORY. 1. RULE OF INVIOLABILITY. $209. A sovereign, according to modern international law, can not exercise the prerogatives of sovereignty in any dominions but his own. Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ternant, French min., May 15, 1793, This principle applies to the commission of unneutral acts, such as the "No principle is better established than that no government has a right to pursue offenders against its laws, or deserters from its service into the dominions of another: that such persons can be recovered by application only to the government within whose jurisdiction they take shelter, and in obedience to its laws and treaties applicable to such a case. A departure from this principle being a violation of sovereignty, seldom fails to produce disagreeable consequences." Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anthony St. John Baker, Dec. 6, 1815, "In the late war with the Regency of Algiers, it is represented that an Algerine sloop of war was captured on the coast of Spain, within a marine league thereof. .. Should it finally appear that the jurisdiction of Spain has been infringed, it will be a circumstance of regret on the part of this Government. This declaration, it can not be doubted, will be satisfactory to His Catholic Majesty, and that the brig will be no longer detained on that account. As by an arrangement on the part of the United States with the Dey of Algiers, the brig is to be restored to them, you will see at once, that by enabling this Government to comply with that engagement, all difficulties with Algiers will be precluded as well on the part of Spain, as of the United States. In making this communication I have full confidence that your early representation to your Government will promote the object of it." Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to the Chev. de Onis, Span. min., Feb. 7, 1816, "An armed force in the service of the Republic of Texas, under the command of General Rusk, has crossed the acknowledged boundary between the United States and that country and has encamped on our soil for the avowed purpose of punishing certain Indians of the Caddo tribe for alleged depredations within the limits of Texas. Against this insult and outrage you will promptly and in strong terms remonstrate, demand satisfactory explanations on the subject and inform the Texian Government that it is expected adequate measures will be adopted by it to prevent a recurrence of such acts, which if repeated, would inevitably lead to collisions between the troops of the two countries which there would be great reason to deplore." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. La Branche, chargé d'affaires to Texas, "Current newspaper reports, which, of course, may not be altogether reliable, give some reason for believing that the United States Steamer, Adirondack, has lately continued the chase of the British vessel the Herald, understood to be engaged in violating the blockade, even within the line of maritime jurisdiction that is to say, within a marine league of the shore of the Island of New Providence. The President desires that you ascertain the truth of this fact, with as little delay as possible, since, if it be true, the commander of the Adirondack has committed an inexcusable violation of the Law of Nations, for which acknowledgment and reparation ought to be promptly made. To guard against any such occurrences hereafter, the President desires that you at once give notice to all commanders of American vessels of war, that this Government adheres to, recognizes, and insists upon the principle that the maritime jurisdiction of any nation covers a full marine league from its coast, and that acts of hostility or of authority within a marine league of any foreign country, by naval officers of the United States, are strictly prohibited, and will bring upon such officers the displeasure of this Government." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, Aug. 4, 1862, 58 "You will exercise constant vigilance to prevent supplies of arms, munitions, and contraband of war from being conveyed to the insur gents, but . . . under no circumstances will you seize any vessel Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, to U. S. Naval Officers, Aug. 18, 1862, Official In view of the fact that steps were being taken for the survey at an early day, by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, of the boundary line between the United States and Canada near Burnt Island, Michigan, in Lake Huron, and that in order to perform the work it would be requisite to erect temporary signals on Canadian soil or in Canadian waters, the British minister at Washington was requested to communicate the facts to the Canadian government, with a view to obtain its permission for the erection by an officer of the Coast Survey "of such temporary signals on the adjacent islands or in the adjacent waters in the locality in question as may be deemed requisite to the speedy or convenient prosecution of the contemplated survey." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Sir L. S. S. West, Brit. min., March 27, 1888, The seizure by a naval vessel of the United States of an American ́ merchant vessel, within the jurisdiction of a friendly foreign power, for a violation of the nonintercourse act of June 28, 1809, "is certainly an offense against that power, which must be adjusted between the two governments. This court can take no cognizance of it; and the majority of the court is of opinion that the law does not connect that trespass, if it be one, with the subsequent seizure by the civil authority, under the process of the district court, so as to annul the proceedings of that court against the vessel." In this case the violation of territory was set up by the claimant, not by the foreign Gov ernment. Ship Richmond v. United States (1815), 9 Cranch, 102, 104. A seizure for the breach of the municipal laws of one nation can not be made within the territory of another. The Apollon, 9 Wheaton, 362. Where an officer of the Navy, without instructions from his Government, seized property in the Falkland Islands, claimed by citizens of the United States, which, it was alleged, had been piratically taken by a person pretending to be governor of the islands, it was held that such officer had no right, without express direction from his Government, to enter the territory of a country at peace with the United States and seize property found there claimed by citizens of the United States. Application for redress should have been made to the judicial tribunals of the country. Davison v. Seal-skins, 2 Paine, 324. See, however, as to the circumstances of this case, and the position of the The seizure by a ship-of-war of the United States of a vessel within the jurisdiction of a foreign government, for an infringement of our revenue or navigation laws, is a violation of the territorial authority of such government. Nelson, At.-Gen. 1843, 4 Op. 285. The United States Government can not purchase a grant of land in, or concession of right of way over, the territories of another nation, as could an individual or private corporation, since, by the law of nations, one government can not enter upon the territories of another, or claim any right whatever therein. Black, At.-Gen. 1859, 9 Op. 286. This opinion appears to have been based upon a misconception as to the power of a government to exercise proprietary as well as strictly political rights. 2. BREACHES BY MILITARY AND NAVAL AUTHORITIES. § 210. "During the war of 1812-15 between the United States and Great Britain, the United States frigate Essex was attacked and compelled to surrender, while at anchor, dismasted, in Valparaiso, by the British frigate Phoebe and sloop-of-war Cherub. The sloop-of-war Levant, a recent prize to the United States frigate Constitution, was chased into Port Praya, and captured while at anchor there by vessels from the British fleet. The United States privateer General Armstrong, lying in the harbor of Fayal, was destroyed by vessels from the British fleet. The demand upon Portugal, by the United States, for indemnification, was ultimately left to the arbitration of Louis Napoleon, then President of the French Republic. He recognized the attack as a violation of neutral rights, but decided against indemnification, on the ground that the privateer did not demand protection from the Portuguèse authorities at the time, but resisted by battle the unjust attack of the British vessels, instead of relying upon the neutral protection. This decision was not satisfactory to the United States, as they did not consider the fact on which it rested as established in proof. The principle of the decision must certainly be |