laws of her own country... A ship, say the publicists, though at anchor in a foreign harbour, preserves its jurisdiction and its laws. It is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, though at sea, as the State retains its jurisdiction over them; and, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessel even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion.

This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down by writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as it is supposed, with the practices of modern nations.

If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel, by one of the crew upon another, or upon a passenger, or by a passenger upon one of the crew, or another passenger, while such vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdiction of a foreign State or sovereignty, the offence is cognizable and punishable by the proper court of the United States, in the same manner as if such offence had been committed on board the vessel. on the high seas. The law of England is supposed to be the same.

It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel belonging to it, while lying in the port of another, is not necessarily wholly exclusive. We do not so consider or so assert it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus lying in port, and for all contracts entered into while there, by her master or owners, she and they must doubtless be answerable to the laws of the place.. Nor, if her master or crew while on board in such port break the peace of the community by the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for them. But nevertheless, the law of nations, as I have stated it, and the statutes of Governments founded on that law, as I have referred to them, show that enlightened nations, in modern times, do clearly hold that the jurisdiction and laws of a nation accompany her ships, not only over the high seas, but into ports and harbours, or wheresoever else they may be water-borne, for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, duties, and obligations of those on board thereof; and that to the extent of the exercise of this jurisdiction they are considered as parts of the territory of the nation herself.

man.

If a vessel be driven by weather into the ports of another nation, it would hardly be alleged by any one that by the mere force of such arrival within the waters of the State, the law of that State would so attach to that vessel as to affect existing rights of property between persons on board, whether arising from contract or otherwise. The local law would not operate to make the goods of one man to become the goods of another Nor ought it to affect their personal obligations, or existing relations between themselves; nor was it ever supposed to have such effect, until the delicate and exciting question which has caused these interferences in the British islands arose. The local law in these cases dissolves no obligations or relations lawfully entered into, or lawfully existing, according to the laws of the ship's country. If it did, intercourse of civilized men between nation and nation must cease. Marriages are frequently celebrated in one country in a manner not lawful or valid in another. But did anybody ever doubt that marriages are valid all over the civilized world, if valid in the country in which they took place? Did any one ever imagine that local law acted upon such marriages to annihilate their obligations, if the parties should visit a country in which marriages must be celebrated in another form? It may be said that in such instances personal relations are founded in contract, and therefore to be respected; but that the relation of master and slave is not founded in contract, and therefore is to be respected only by the law of the place which recognizes it. Whoever so reasons, encounters the authority of the whole body of public law, from Grotius down, because there are numerous instances in which the law itself presumes or implies contracts; and prominent among these instances is the very relation which we are now considering, and which relation is holden by law to draw after it mutuality of obligation.

Is not the relation between a father and his minor children acknowledged when they go abroad? And on what contract is this founded, but a contract raised by general principles of law, from the relation of the parties?

Your Lordship will please bear in mind that the proposition which I

am endeavouring to support, is, that by the comity of the law of nations, and the practice of modern times, merchant vessels entering open ports of other nations, for the purpose of trade, are presumed to be allowed to bring with them, and to retain for their protection and government, the jurisdiction and laws of their own country. All this, I repeat, is presumed to be allowed, because the ports are open, because trade is invited, and because, under these circumstances, such permission or allowance is according to general usage. It is not denied that all this may be refused; and this suggests a distinction, the disregard of which may perhaps account for most of the difficulties arising in cases of this sort; that is to say, the distinction between what a State may do, if it pleases, and what it is presumed to do, or not to do, in the absence of any positive declaration of its will. A State might declare that all foreign marriages should be regarded as null and void within its territory; that a foreign father, arriving with an infant son, should no longer have authority or control over him; that on the arrival of a foreign vessel in its ports, all shipping articles, and all indentures of apprenticeship between her crew and her owners or masters, should cease to be binding. These and many other things equally irrational and absurd, a Sovereign State has, doubtless, the power to do. But they are not to be presumed. It is not to be taken for granted, ab ante, that it is the will of the Sovereign State, thus to withdraw itself from the circle of civilized nations. It will be time enough to believe this to be its intention, when it formally announces that intention by appropriate edicts, enactments, or other declarations.

In regard to slavery within the British territories, there is a well known and clear promulgation of the will of the sovereign authority, that is to say, there is a well known rule of her law. As to England herself, that law has long existed; and recent Acts of Parliament establish the same law for the Colonies. The usual mode of stating the rule of English law is, that no sooner does a slave reach the shore of England than he is free. This is true; but it means no more than that when a slave comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of England, he ceases to be a slave, because the law of England positively and notoriously prohibits and forbids the existence of such a relation between man and man. But it does not mean, that English authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, may enter where the jurisdiction of another nation is acknowledged to exist, and there destroy rights, obligations, and interests, lawfully existing under the authority of such other nation. No such construction, and no such effect, can be rightfully given to the British law. It is true, that it is competent to the British Parliament, by express statute provision, to declare that no foreign jurisdiction of any kind should exist in or over a vessel, after its arrival, voluntarily in her ports. And so she might close all her ports to the ships of all nations. A State may also declare, in the absence of treaty stipulations, that foreigners shall not sue in her courts, nor travel in her territories, nor carry away funds or goods received for debts. We need not inquire what would be the condition of a country that should establish such laws, nor in what relation they would leave her towards the States of the civilized world. Her power to make such laws is unquestionable, but in the absence of direct and positive enactments to that effect, the presumption is that the opposites of these things exist. While her ports are open to foreign trade, it is to be presumed that she expects foreign ships to enter them, bringing with them the jurisdiction of their own Government and the protection of its laws, to the same extent that her ships and the ships of other commercial States carry with them the jurisdiction of their respective Governments into the open ports of the world; just as it is presumed, while the contrary is not avowed, that strangers may travel in a civilized country, in a time of peace, sue in its courts, and bring away their property.

A merchant vessel enters the port of a friendly State, and enjoys while there the protection of her own laws, and is under the jurisdiction of her own Government, not in derogation of the Sovereignty of the place, but by the presumed allowance or permission of that sovereignty. This permission or allowance is founded on the comity of nations, like the other

cases which have been mentioned, and this comity is part, and a most important and valuable part, of the law of nations, to which all nations are presumed to assent, until they make their dissent known. In the silence of any positive rule, affirming or denying, or restraining the operation of foreign laws, their tacit adoption is presumed to the usual extent. It is upon this ground that courts of law expound contracts according to the law of the place in which they are made; and instances almost innumerable exist in which, by the general practice of civilized countries, the laws of one will be recognized, and often executed in another. This is the comity of nations; and it is upon this, as its solid basis, that the intercourse of civilized States is maintained.

But while that which has now been said is understood to be the voluntary and adopted law of nations in cases of the voluntary entry of merchant vessels into the ports of other countries, it is nevertheless true that vessels in such ports, only through an overruling necessity, may place their claims for exemption from interference on still higher principles; that is to say, principles held in more sacred regard by the comity, the courtesy, or indeed the common sense of justice of all civilized States.

Even in regard to cases of necessity, however, there are things of an unfriendly and offensive character, which yet it may not be easy to say that a nation might not do. For example, a nation might declare her will to be, and make it the law of her dominions, that foreign vessels cast away on her shores should be lost to their owners and subject to the ancient law of wreck. Or a neutral State, while shutting her ports to the armed vessels of belligerents, as she has a right to do, might resolve on seizing and confiscating vessels of that description which should be driven to take shelter in her harbours by the violence of the storms of the ocean. But laws of this character, however within the absolute competence of Governments, could only be passed, if passed at all, under a willingness. to meet the last responsibility to which nations are subject.

The presumption is stronger, therefore, in regard to vessels driven into foreign ports by necessity, and seeking only temporary refuge, than in regard to those which enter them voluntarily and for purposes of trade, that they will not be interfered with; and that unless they commit, while in port, some act against the laws of the place, they will be permitted to receive supplies, to repair damage, and to depart unmolested.

If, therefore, vessels of the United States, pursuing lawful voyages from port to port along their own shore, are driven by stress of weather or carried by unlawful force into English ports, the Government of the United States cannot consent that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage of such misfortunes, and enter them for the purpose of interfering with the condition of persons or things on board as established by their own laws. If slaves, the property of citizens of the United States, escape into the British territories, it is not expected that they will be restored. In that case, the territorial jurisdiction of England will have become exclusive over them and must decide their condition. But slaves on board of American vessels, lying in British waters, are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of England, or under the exclusive operation of English law; and this founds the broad distinction between the cases. If persons guilty of crimes in the United States seek an asylum in the British dominions, they will not be demanded until provision for such cases be made by treaty. Because the giving up of criminals fugitive from justice, is agreed and understood to be a matter in which every nation regulates its conduct according to its own discretion. It is no breach of comity to refuse such surrender.

On the other hand, vessels of the United States, driven by necessity into British ports, and staying there no longer than such necessity exists, violating no law, nor having intent to violate any law, will claim and there will be claimed for them, protection and security, freedom from molestation, and from all interference with the character or condition of persons or things on board.

In the opinion of the Government of the United States, such vessels so driven and so detained by necessity in a friendly port, ought to be regarded as still pursuing their original voyage, and turned out of their

direct course only by disaster or by wrongful violence; that they ought to receive all assistance necessary to enable them to resume that direct course; and that interference and molestation by the local authorities, where the whole voyage is lawful, both in act and in intent, is ground for just and grave complaint.

Your Lordship's discernment and large experience in affairs cannot fail to suggest to you how important it is to merchants and navigators engaged in the coasting trade of a country so large in extent as the United States, that they should feel secure against all but the ordinary causes of maritime loss. The possessions of the two Governments closely approach each other. This proximity, which ought to make us friends and good neighbours, may, without proper care and regulation, itself prove a ceaseless cause of vexation, irritation, and disquiet.

If your Lordship has no authority to enter into a stipulation by treaty for the prevention of such occurrences hereafter as have already happened, -occurrences so likely to disturb that peace between the two countries which it is the object of your Lordship's mission to establish and confirm, you may still be so far acquainted with the sentiments of your Government as to be able to engage that instructions shall be given to the local authorities in the islands, which shall lead them to regulate their conduct in conformity with the rights of citizens of the United States and the just expectations of their Government; and in such manner as shall in future take away all reasonable ground of complaint. It would be with the most profound regret that the President should see that, whilst it is now hoped so many other subjects of difference may be harmoniously adjusted, nothing should be done in regard to this dangerous source of future collisions. I avail myself, &c., (Signed)

DANL. WEBSTER.

No. 2.

Sir,

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster.

Washington, August 7, 1842. YOU may be well assured that I am duly sensible of the great importance of the subject to which you call my attention in the note which you did me the honour of addressing me the 1st instant, in which you inform me that the President had been pleased to express his regret that I was not empowered by my Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the better security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters in passing between the United States and the Bahama Islands, and driven by such disasters into British ports.

It is, I believe, unnecessary that I should tell you that the case of the "Creole" was known in London a few days only before my departure. No complaint had at that time been made by Mr. Everett. The subject was not therefore among those which it was the immediate object of my mission to discuss. But at the same time I must admit, that from the moment I was acquainted with the facts of this case, I was sensible of all its importance, and I should not think myself without power to consider of some adjustment of, and remedy for, a great acknowledged difficulty, if I could see my way clearly to any satisfactory course, and if I had not arrived at the conclusion, after very anxious consideration, that, for the reasons which I will state, this question had better be treated in London, where it will have a much increased chance of settlement on terms likely to satisfy the interests of the United States.

The immediate case of the "Creole" would be easily disposed of, but it involves a class and description of cases which, for the purpose of affording that security you seek for the trade of America through the Bahama Channel, brings into consideration questions of law, both national and international, of the highest importance; and, to increase the delicacy and difficulty of the subject, public feeling is sensitively

alive to everything connected with it. These circumstances bring me to the conviction, that although I really believe that much may be done to meet the wishes of your Government, the means of doing so would be best considered in London, where immediate reference may be had to the highest authorities on every point of delicacy and difficulty that may arise, Whatever I might attempt, would be more or less under the disadvantage of being fettered by apprehensions of responsibility, and I might thereby be kept within limits which my Government at home might disregard. In other words, I believe you would have a better chance in this settlement with them, than with me. I state this after some imperfect endeavours by correspondence to come at satisfactory explanations. If I were in this instance treating of ordinary material interests, I should proceed with more confidence; but anxious as I unfeignedly am, that all questions likely to disturb future good understanding between us should be averted, I strongly recommend this question of the security of the Bahama Channel being referred for discussion in London.

This opinion is more decidedly confirmed by your very elaborate and important argument on the application of the general principles of the law of nations to these subjects; an argument to which your authority necessarily gives great weight, but in which I would not presume to follow you with my own imperfect means. Great Britain and the United' States, covering all the seas of the world with their commerce, have the greatest possible interest in maintaining sound and pure principles of international law, as well as the practice of reciprocal aid and good offices in all their harbours and possessions. With respect to the latter, it is satisfactory to know, that the disposition of the respective Governments and people leaves little to be desired, with the single exception of those very delicate and perplexing questions which have recently arisen from the state of slavery; and even these seem confined, and likely to continue to be confined, to the narrow passage of the Bahama Channel. At no other part of the British possessions are American vessels with slaves ever likely to touch, nor are they likely to touch there otherwise than from the pressure of very urgent necessity. The difficulty, therefore, as well as the desired remedy, is apparently confined within narrow limits.

Upon the great general principles affecting this case, we do not differ: you admit that if slaves, the property of American citizens, escape into British territories, it is not expected that they will be restored, and you may be well assured that there is no wish on our part that they should reach our shores, or that British possessions should be used as decoys for the violators of the laws of a friendly neighbour.

When these slaves do reach us by whatever means, there is no alternative. The present state of British law is in this respect too well known to require repetition, nor need I remind you, that it is exactly the same with the laws of every part of the United States, where a state of slavery is not recognized; and that the slave put on shore at Nassau, would be dealt with exactly as would a foreign slave landed under any circumstances whatever at Boston.

But what constitutes the being within British dominion, from which these consequences are to follow? Is a vessel passing through the Bahama Channel, and forced involuntarily either from storm or mutiny into British waters, to be so considered? What power have the authorities of those islands to take cognizance of the condition of persons or property in such vessels? These are questions, which you, Sir, have discussed at great length, and with evident ability. Although you have advanced some propositions which rather surprise and startle me, I do not pretend to judge them, but what is very clear is, that great principles are involved in a discussion, which it would ill become me lightly to enter upon, and I am confirmed by this consideration in wishing that the subject be referred to where it will be perfectly weighed and.

examined.

It behoves the authorities of our two Governments well to guard themselves against establishing by their diplomatic intercourse false drecedents and principles, and that they do not for the purpose of meet

G