The cases of the Cassius, 3 Dallas, 121, and the Invincible, 1 Wheaton, 238, decide that neither a public vessel of another nation, nor its officers, are liable to answer in our courts for a capture on the high seas, but do not touch the question of jurisdiction over her prizes lying in our ports, which extends to libels in rem for restitution of such prizes made in violation of our neutrality. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283. See, also, The Gran Para, 7 Wheat. 471; and Moore, Int. Arbitrations, The Geneva tribunal, in its award of September 14, 1872, declared: "The privilege of exterritoriality accorded to vessels of war has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality." Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 655. Mr. Bancroft Davis, in his notes to the treaties of the United States, says: "This is in accordance with the settled practice of the United States." He cites the opinion of Attorney-General Lee, 1 Op. 87, (Treaty Volume, 1776-1887, p. 1288.) Wharton, in his Int. Law Digest, I. § 37, referring to Mr. Davis's statement, says: "But this pretension was resisted and resented by the United States when the Chesapeake was visited' and searched by the Leopard in 1809, and was withdrawn by the British Government. See criticism in Creasy's Int. Law, 177 et seq." It appears, however, that the case of the Chesapeake was one of the attempted visit and search and hostile attack, within the territorial waters of the United States, or on the high seas just beyond, of an American man-of-war by a British man-of-war, on the ground that the former had among her crew persons who had deserted from the British fleet, at Norfolk, Virginia. Supplies. "As I am informed by the Secretary of the Treasury, the practice in exempting from duty supplies, etc., for foreign vessels of war, is governed by section 2982 of the Revised Statutes, and the privilege is only extended to vessels of war of such nations as reciprocate towards vessels of war of the United States while in the ports of such nations.'" Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Viscount das Nogueiras, Portuguese min., The privilege granted to foreign men-of-war under section 2982, Revised Statutes, of purchasing supplies from the public warehouses duty free when that privilege is reciprocated in the ports of the nation to which the vessel belongs, is limited to purchasing in the bonded warehouses supplies deposited therein pending withdrawal for consumption. The duty referred to from which the supplies so purchased shall be free is the import duty. Griggs, At.-Gen., March 9, 1901, 23 Op. 418. The Peruvian minister of foreign affairs, his attention having been called to the examination by custom-house employees at Callao of packages of naval stores received" for the use of the American squadron anchored in the bay," expressed regret at the occurrence, and stated that he had referred the matter to the minister of hacienda, "for the prevention of a similar abuse and to avoid its repetition in the future." Mr. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Chandler, Sec. of Navy, Nov. 18, 1884, 153 MS. Dom. Let. 232. "The remission of customs duties on the property of foreign governments, as in the case of transshipped or bonded naval stores, materials of equipment and repair, consular supplies and the like, is a matter of usage and good understanding, and this Government, while always ready to promote the freest reciprocity in such regard, can not complain if, as is actually the case, other governments should not concede an equal measure of privilege. It is gratifying to see that the Mexican practice is much the same as our own, and it is trusted that the late incident may emphasize such friendly understanding." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bragg, min. to Mexico, June 21, 1888, In May, 1885, boilers were admitted free into the United States for the (4) POLICE REGULATIONS. $ 255. By a circular of June 14, 1866, in relation to the admission of friendly foreign men-of-war into Austrian waters, it is declared that such vessels "are bound to observe the existing port, sanitary, and financial regulations in Austrian ports, the same as the ImperialRoyal war ships, and to comply with the requisitions of the competent authorities in these matters." 63 Br. & For. State Papers, 1073. The German regulations touching the treatment of foreign men-of-war in German ports were sent to the Department of State by Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, in his No. 12, Sept. 17, 1884, and were communicated to the Navy Department. (35 MS. Desp. from Germany.) "Art. 11. That foreign ships and vessels of war shall respect the existing police, sanitary and fiscal laws and regulations, and shall further submit to all the rules and regulations of the port, in both cases to the same extent as is demanded of the national ships and vessels of war." Royal decree of Feb. 2, 1893, concerning the admission of foreign ships of war into the waters of the Netherlands, enclosed with the dispatch of Mr. Thayer, min. to the Netherlands, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, No. 398, April 19, 1893, 31 MS. Desp. from the Netherlands. By art. 12 it is provided that any foreign ship or vessel infringing the regulations may be required to withdraw, and that force may if necessary be used for the purpose; and by art. 13 it is provided that the regulations shall be communicated to the Netherlands pilots, who are to give all necessary information concerning them to the commanders of vessels of war which they are piloting. "In regard to the payment of the charges for pilotage at Tahiti, this Government overrules the objections which were made by Captain Stanley of the Tuscarora,' and accepts the instruction of the authorities of Tahiti." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Berthemy, French min., Nov. 19, 1867, With reference to the United States Fish Commission vessel Grampus, it was stated by the British minister, in a note of Sept. 15, 1887, that by the regulations then in force in Newfoundland the public vessels of foreign governments were liable to compulsory pilotage dues, but that the authorities were considering a proposal to amend the regulations so as to require the payment of dues only when the services of pilots were requested. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Sir L. West, Brit. min., Sept. 22, 1887, MS. Notes to Gr. Br. XX. 545, acknowledging the receipt of the latter's note of Sept. 15, 1887, with a copy of the regulations then in force. See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Whitney, Sec. of Navy, Sept. 22, 1887, 165 MS. Dom. Let. 433, with copies of correspondence. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the letter from your Department, dated the 9th of August last, enclosing for an expression of this Department's views in the matter, a copy of a letter from the chief of the Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department, with enclosures, relative to the propriety and feasibility of issuing an order to naval vessels directing that when pilots are not employed, local foreign laws requiring the employment of pilots are not to be held to compel the payment of pilotage by public vessels. "In reply I have the honor to say that the laws of some of our States require the payment of pilotage fees, when pilots are not employed, and these laws, by their terms, apply to all vessels. "The doctrine of international law is that all vessels are subject to the revenue and police regulations, including those in regard to pilotage, of the territorial waters which such vessels may enter. In the statement of the doctrine no exception is made in favor of public vessels. "In Secretary Chandler's letter of July 12, 1884, enclosed in yours, the statement is made that certain exemptions are allowed by international law to public vessels; and in Secretary Frelinghuysen's letter, also enclosed with yours, the same statement is made. No authorities are cited in support of the proposition, while the doctrine above mentioned is stated in Lawrence, International Law, pages 223 and 226; Hall, International Law, page 192; Pradier-Fodéré, International Law, section 2379. "The latter says that the ports, the roadsteads, the harbors form a dependency of the national public domain and the ships of foreign nations are under the obligation to observe rigorously the general and special regulations in force in the harbors, roadsteads, and ports.' "In view of the foregoing the Department could not advise the adoption of the rule suggested." Mr. Hill, Acting Sec. of State, to Sec. of the Navy, Oct. 6, 1899, 240 MS. "I have the honor to enclose herewith copy of a note dated the 22d In October, 1898, the German embassy at Washington was advised, on the strength of a letter from the Treasury Department, that a German man-of-war, coming to New Orleans, La., from Hamburg, which was not an infected port, would not be detained at quarantine nor disinfected; but that "the Geier, coming from Vera Cruz, which is a yellow fever infected port, will in all probability be disinfected and detained by the Louisiana quarantine authorities, the New Orleans quarantine being a State establishment and not under the direct management of the Federal Government. The governor of Louisiana has been advised of the facts by this Department and requested to extend all possible consideration to the Geier." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Baron Speck von Sternburg, Oct. 15, 1898, (5) OFFICERS AND CREWS. § 256. The officers of a vessel of war belonging to a friendly foreign nation can not set up extraterritoriality when unofficially on shore in a port in whose harbor their vessel is temporarily moored. Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hammond, July 23, 1794, 7 MS. Dom. "At the time when I had the honor of receiving your letter of 16 October last, concerning a transaction in the port of Marseilles, in which Captain Gamble of the sloop-of-war Erie, a public ship in the service of the United States, was summoned before the tribunal of commerce at that port for damage asserted to have been done to the cable of an English vessel called the Herald, and was alleged to have prevented the execution of the citation upon him, on board of his own vessel, that officer being absent from the United States it was thought due to justice, before I should answer your letter, to wait for his report upon the circumstances of the case. That report was expected to be shortly received, having been already required of him, upon a complaint which had been received at this Department from the British minister, Mr. Bagot, in behalf of Captain Snowden, the master of the British vessel, the cable of which was stated to have been damaged. Captain Gamble's report has accordingly been received; from which it appears that the place occupied by the Erie, at the time when the accident happened, had been assigned to Captain Gamble, at the time of his arrival in the harbor, by the proper officer of the port, and without any objection from the master of the English vessel; that the damage done to the cable was altogether accidental, without any intention or fault of Captain Gamble; that the conduct of the master of the Herald was rude and offensive towards him, and |