It may be safely affirmed that when a merchant vessel of one coun try visits the ports of another for the purposes of trade, it owes temporary allegiance and is amenable to the jurisdiction of that country, and is subject to the laws which govern the port it visits so long as it remains, unless it is otherwise provided by treaty.

Any exemption or immunity from local jurisdiction must be derived from the consent of that country."

Mr Bayard, See, of State, to Mr. Hall, March 12, 1885. MSS. Inst. Cent. Am.
Por. Rel, 1895.

"Generally speaking, the consul in Hayti has jurisdiction of all disputes on ship board, not affecting the peace of the port, but as this right is not specially conceded by treaty it could only be claimed and exorcised by comity, and in the absence of any competent claim of jurisdiction by the local courts, unless indeed the right may spring from AR. XXXIII of said treaty, the most favored nation clause."

Me Ravant, Sec of State, to Mr. Thompson, July 31, 1885. MSS. Inst., Hayti.
Now as to furisdiction in Japan, jedra, § 12

The local port authority has jurisdiction of acts committed on board or a foreign merchant ship while in port, provided those acts affect the petce of the port, but not otherwise; and its jurisdiction does not extend to acts infernal to the ship, or occurring on the high seas.

The Away' anchority has right to enter on bound a foreign merchantwere the perpose of inquiry universally, but for the purpose #vas only in matters within its asvertored jurisdiction.

the French nation do not assert their police law against the crews of those vessels unless the aid of the French authority be invoked by those on board, or unless the offense committed leads to some disturbance in their ports." "As far as America is concerned" (the defendant was an American citizen), "she has by statutes made regulations for those on board her vessels in foreign ports, and we have adopted the same course in this country. When vessels go into a foreign port they must respect the laws of that nation to which the port belongs, but they must also respect the laws of the nation to which the vessel belongs." To sustain the position that in such cases the admiralty has jurisdiction were cited: Thomas v. Lane, 2 Sumner, 1, and U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet., 72, which cases, it was maintained, overruled U. S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76.

In R. v. Keyn, L. R., 2 Ex. D, 23; 13 Cox, 403, a case growing out of the Franconia disaster, it was ruled in England, that the court of criminal appeal has no jurisdiction to try a foreigner, who, in a foreign ship, is chargeable with a negligent collision, producing death in the colliding English ship, though the collision was within three miles of the English coast. The vote of the court, however, on this point was seven to six: Aff., Cockburn, C. J., Kelly, C. B., Bramwell, J. A., Lush, J., Pollock, B., Field, J., and Sir R. Phillimore; diss., Lord Coleridge, C. J., Brett, J., Amphlett, J. A., Grove, Denman, and Lindley, JJ.

This case, with the subsequent legislation, is discussed in 1 Crim. Law Mag., 701, ff.

The points taken by Cockburn, C: J., in which a majority of the judges agreed, were as follows:

"The extent of the realm of England is a question, not of international but of English law.

""There is no evidence that the sovereigns of this country ever either claimed or exercised any special jurisdiction over a belt of sea adjacent to the coast, though there is evidence that the admiral has always claimed jurisdiction over persons on board of British ships, wherever they might be, and that he formally claimed jurisdiction over all persons and all ships in the four narrow seas. This claim, however, has long since been given up and no other claim has ever been substituted for it. "Hence there is no evidence that any British court has jurisdiction over a crime committed by a foreigner on board a foreign ship on the high sea, but within three miles of the coast.'"

2 Steph. Hist. Cr. Law, 31; 1 Whart. Cr. Law (9 ed.), § 269.

In R. v. Keyn, above cited, it was said by Sir R. Phillimore that "the consensus of civilized nations has recognized a maritime extension of frontier to the distance of three miles from low-water mark, because such a frontier or belt of water is necessary for the defense and security of the adjacent state." By Lindley, J., it was said that "it is conceded that even in time of peace the territoriality of a foreign merchant-ship, within three miles of the coast of any state, does not exempt that ship or its crew from the operation of those laws of that state which relate to its revenue or fisheries." In this doctrine the judges generally concurred, though it was held, by a majority of seven to six, that the jurisdiction, without some legislative action, could not be exercised for the purposes of criminal prosecution over foreigners within such limits. In 1878 was passed the act of Parliament giving such jurisdiction. [Quoted supra, § 32.]

See Whart. Conf. of Laws, § 818.

XIII. NOT SO AS TO PUBLIC SHIPS.

$ 36.

As to reception in neutral ports of belligerent cruisers, see infra, § 394.

As to permitting such cruisers to arm and proceed to sea, see infra, §§ 393, 396, 399.

A ship-of-war, when in a foreign friendly port, is ordinarily exempt. from the jurisdiction of such port.

Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hammond, July 23, 1794. MSS. Notes, For.
Leg.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Romero, May 25, 1882. MSS. Notes,

Mex.

But the officers of a vessel-of-war belonging to a friendly foreign nation cannot set up extraterritorality 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. MSS. For. Leg.
Notes.

"The President highly disapproves that a public vessel-of-war, belong. ing to a foreign nation, should be searched by officers of the customs upon a suspicion of illicit commerce. The propriety of representing such a suspicion to the consul of that nation, or the commander of the vessel, will not be controverted, this being a course respectful and customary. A general instruction will be therefore given to pursue this course, with the view that if it should be ineffectual the Government of the United States may adopt those measures which the necessity of the case and their rights may require."

Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fauchet, Nov. 17, 1794, cited in letter of same to same, June 13, 1795. MSS. Notes, For. Leg.

A foreign ship-of-war admitted by courtesy into a port held by military occupation, in time of war, by forces of the United States, is subject, so far as concerns the right to carry off persons from such port, to the military orders governing the port.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tassara, July 2, 1863. MSS. Notes, Spain;
Dip. Corr., 1863.

"Having submitted the question thus raised to the President of the United States, I have now to express to you my regret at the conclu sion at which the Spanish Government has arrived. It seems to me, in effect, to set up, although unconsciously, a claim that a Spanish ship-of-war, admitted by courtesy into a place actually held in military occupation by the forces of this Government, may disregard existing military orders, which are issued with a view to the military situation of that place. This seems, in effect, nothing less than a claim of Spanish sovereignty over American citizens on board a Spanish ship, not merely within the civil jurisdiction, but even within the military lines

of the United States in their own territories. The claim thus understood cannot be conceded. I am, therefore, to inform you that the Government adheres to its former declaration that no ship-of-war, of whatever nation, will be expected to carry into or out from any port of the United States, which is either occupied by their forces or is in possession of the insurgents, any person who does not actually belong to the civil, military, or naval service of the country whose flag that vessel carries, and especially that such ships-of-war shall not, without express leave of the military authorities, carry into or out of such ports any citizen of the United States. It can be only on an expected compliance with these terms that any foreign ship-of-war can enter ports of the classes I have designated during the continuance of the present civil war."

Ibid.

If there be no prohibition, the ports of a friendly nation are considered as open to the public ships of all powers with whom it is at peace; and those vessels are supposed to enter such ports and remain in them under the protection of the Government of the place. Whether the public ships-of-war of one nation enter the ports of another friendly nation under the license implied by the absence of any prohibition, or under an express stipulation by treaty, they are equally exempt from the local jurisdiction.

The Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116, 145. (See The Pizarro v. Matthias, 10 N. Y. Leg. Ob., 97.)

The exemption of foreign public ships from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is not founded upon any notion that a foreign sovereign has an absolute right, in virtue of his sovereignty, to an exemption of his property from the local jurisdiction of another sovereign when it comes within his territory. It stands upon principles of public comity and convenience, and arises from the presumed consent or license of nations, that foreign public ships coming into their ports and demeaning themselves according to law and in a friendly manner shall be exempt from the local jurisdiction. But as such consent and license is implied only from the general usage of nations, it may be withdrawn upon notice at any time without just offense, and, if afterwards, such public ships come into our ports they are amenable to our laws in the same manner as other vessels.

The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 283; aff'd., 1 Brock., 478.

Whatever may be the exemption of a public ship herself, and of her armament and munitions of war, from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, any prize property which she brings into our ports is liable to such jurisdiction for the purpose of examination and inquiry, and, if a proper case is made out, for restitution. And if goods are landed from the public ship in our ports, by the express permission of our Government, this does not vary the case, since such permit in

volves no pledge that, if illegally captured, the goods shall be exempted from the ordinary operation of the laws of the United States.

The Santissimos Trinidad, 7 Wheat., 2-3, 352.

4he causes of the Cassins, 3 Dallas, 121, and the Invincible, 1 Wheaton, 598, decides 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 Bantissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat., 283.

A writ of habeas corpus may be awarded to bring up an American subject unlawfully detained on board a foreign ship-of-war, the commonder being amenable to the usual jurisdiction of the state where he happens to be, and not entitled to claim the extraterritoriality which is annexed to a foreign minister and to his domicil.

Op. 47, Bradford, 1794.

Criminal and civil process may be served under treaty upon a person on board a British man of war lying within our territory.

10p 37, Lee, 1799

Foreign armed vessels, adopting the character of merchant ships by earrying merchandise, render themselves subject to the revenue laws.

A foreign (British) ship of war, or any prize of hers in command of a pable officer, possesses, in the ports of the United States, the rights of extraconterolog, and is not subject to the local jurisdiction.

Hese sovet de man da donat such a foreign si p-of war, or of De missal dy. Tahots 2077 18

ing from courts “So long as they the pris A men = de terminory and paris