The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1811-09-18
MISCELLANY.
From RE .9LBANr kEGISTER.
COMMENTS
On fbe dihtomatick a6sardities and anti-.dmer :
fcan doctrines Of Timothy Pickering.
BY EDMOND C. GENET.
II Citizen Of New- York.

pt LDMOND y. IENEis
II Citizen Of New-York.
Nc. ii.
The maritime dominion Of the u States
being established incontestibly by tie authori-
ties mentioned In my last communication,
they arc entitled by rights 20 exercise (when-
ever they CAM within those bonds, all the
acts OF sovereignty, which they exercise on
the land, tor their defence, for the prcserva-
tion OF their neutrality, or TO prevent the oc-
cuPauon OF their seas whatsoever, by any for-
eign force, for warlike purposes, and they
are also entitled to claim from any foreign
nation, the compliments, honours and pre-
eminencc due to their local sovereignty. The
usages OF war; however, have authorized in
certain cases, belligerent to occupy positions
on the land Of neutral, and to demand the
passage over his territory, in extreme cases
OF necessity but not without obtaining his
consent, and respecting in every other res
pect, his dominion and sovereignty. Grotius
and Putfendortf are o! that opinion, and de-
clare that IT the proceedings Of the belliger-
ent In such case arc not calculated to smooth
the feelings OF the proprietois Of the land,
naturally irrifafea to see any part OF their do
nihion IN the hands OF foreigners, the ocCu-
patton ceasing TO be respectful and decoIons,
becomes an ACT Of hostility, bordering on in
vasion and conquest, and no damage can be
too great TO satisfy tho local sovereignty SO
unJusuy treated. The opinion of those two
eminent civilians, seems to agree perfectly
with the charges of Lionel Jenkins, mention
cd in my lastnumber, and with all the statutes
OF the British Admiralty, and determines the
law OF nations on that point, not only with
respect 10 the violation of the land Of ncutrals,
bur also with respect TO the violation Of their
maritime jurisdiction.
shall not, however, content myself with
those high doctrines. II might be alleeged
that the modern law of nations has altered the
ancient state of things that the dominion OF
country over the adjoining seas, docs not
now extend further than that power can make
it respected, and that the common bearing oi
cannon from the shore, or marine -lssgae,
arc the most natural extent of maritime ju-
risdiction; but those theories are very far
from being supported by substantial diplomat
tick authority. have examined the treaties
concluded by the European powers, before
and since the principles of the armed neu.
trality, (Which constitute what is called the
modern maritime law Of nations, had become
the favouri,e system Of Ca,harinc lId,) and
maritime dominion, such as 1t was under.
stood TO exist Under the old law Of nations.
BY aer treaty with England, Russia, the
great and proud Russia, admits, art. Sd, that
an the British seas, her vessels shall conform
themselves TO the rules and customs of that
power. BY her treaty with Denmark, con-
cluded in 1872, the maritime jurisdiction of
the latter is acknowledged. by her treaty
with France, 1887, the two contracting par
ties, bind themselves to maintain the most
perfect neutrality in all the ports, covcs,
guIphs and seas belonging to them respec-
lively. BY her treaty with the king Of the
wo Sicilies, 1897, the two parties agree that
their men OF war shall mutually observe tho
jurisdiction OF the respective countries over
their surrounding seas. And in all those
treaties it is stipulated that the usual compli-
inent of salu,ing shall be paid to the local
sovereignty though on the high seas that
ceremonial is entirely abolished with France,
and ii is 10 DC ruled with the other powers by
the rank Of the commanding officers, the
highest in grade bring entitled to the 81.
lutte. 1t is true that In several of those trea-
ties, the contracting powers agree, that in
case either of them should be at war, they
will forbear attacking the vessels of their en-
emies within the bearing Of cannon from the
shores of their ally. But that Limitation of
the local sovereignty, cannot be construcdin-
to renunciation Of the pre-cminencc, do
minion and sovereignty Of the country over
the surrounding seas, nor into a relinquish-
ment Of all the advantages which it is cnti-
tied to derive from it, for its defence, police
and profit.
MIR. Jefferson, in letter which he wrote
70 me, the 9th Of Nov. 1893, when was
minister of France, without emitting deci.
dcd opinion on that subject, states that the
President had Professionally given instructions
to the officers acting under his authority, to
consider the line Of territorial frotection on
he coasts Of tie United States, as restrained
or the present TO the distance Of one sea
Ioan,ts .rao1xrar.hil.aI IL. -