The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-03-10

strued, as containing an eXeni ;,iicn frc.n Tho
jurisdiction ut the sovereign within whose
territory she claiius the ritcsof l,ospita..,y.
Upon these principles, by ,he ul,a,,,n,oas
consent OF nations, Il Foreigner is .uncnaL,e
to the laws OF The place bat cerlaii,lv in
practice, nations have not yet asserted their
jurisdiction over the pttosic a.nsed ships OK a
foreign sovereign en:erii.g u port o,.cn for
their reseption.
Bynkershoe.l, jnrist of great reputation,
has indeed maintained that the property of
foreign sovereign is not distinsuishaole By
ahy legal exemption from tile properly OF an
ordinary individual. and has Quoted several
cases in which COURT have exercised iuris-
Giction ovcr'causes III which Il foreign sove
reign was made I party defendant.
Without indicating any opinion on this
question, it may safely be affirmed that
there is a manifest distinction between the
private property OF the person who Happens
to be Prince, and that military force,
which supports the sovereign power, & MAIN
tains the dignity and the independence of a
nation: Aprince, by acquiring private pro
Perty IN foreign country, may possibly be
sldered as subjecting that property to the
territorial jurisdiction he may l.e consider
&c as SO far laying down the Prince and as
Stunning the character of u private individual;
but this he cannot be presumed to do with
respect to any portion of that armed force
which upholds his crown, and the nation he
is entrusted to govern.
The only applicable case cited by Byn-
kershoeck is that of the Spanish saips of war
seized in Flushing for debt due. from the
King OF Spain. In that case, the States
General interposed; and there is reason to
believe, from the manner in which the trans
action Is stated, that, either by the intcrfe-
renee OF government, or the decision of the
SQUIRT, the vessels we're released. d.
ms case OF the Spanish vessels is, it is
believed, the only case furnished by the
history OF the world, of an attempt made by
an individual to assert a claim against a
foreign Prince by seizing the armed YES.
sells OF the nation. That this proceeding was
at once arrestedby the government, in a ma
ton which appears to have asserted the
power or proceeding in the same manner "a
gainst the private property of the Prince,
would seem to furnish no feeble argu aent
IN support of the universally. of the opinion
IN favor OF the exemption claimed for ships
OF war. The distinction made in our own
laws between public and private ships would
appear to proceed from the-same opinion
1t seems then to the court to be princi-
pie OF public law that national ships of war,
entering the port of friendly power open
Tor their reception, are to be considered as
exempted by the consent of tina. power from
its Jurisdiction.
Without doubt. the sovereign of the place
Is capable of destroying this implication
ne may claim and exercise jurisdiction Ell
ther by employing force or by subcctinp
such vessels to the ordinary tribunals. But
until such power be eXerted In a manner not
TO be misunderstood, the sovereign cannot be
considered as having impaired to the ordi-
nary tribunals Jurisdiction, which it would
De breach OF faith to exercise. / muse ge-
neral statut cry provisions therefore which
are descriptive of the ordinary jurisdiction
OF the judicial tribunals, which give an in !.
dlvidual whose property has been wrested
from him right to claim that property in
the court OF the country in which it is found,
ought not, in the opinion of this court to be
so construed as to give them jurisdiction in
case which the sovereign power has inn
Pllediy consented to wave its Jurisdiction
The. arguments in favor OF this opinion
which have been drawn from the general
Inability of the judicial power to enforce its
decisions in cases of this description, from
the consideration, that the sovereign power
OF the nation is alone Competent to avenge
wrongs committed by sovereign, that the
questions TO which such wrongs give birth
are rather questions of policy than of law,
that they are diplomatic rather than legal
discussion, are of great weight and merit Sc
rious attention. But the argument has al
ready been drawn to length which forbids
particular examination OF these points
The principles which have been stated
VIII now be applied to the case at bar.
In the present state of the evidence and
proceedings the Exchange must be consider
ed as vessel which was the property of
the libellants, whose claim is repealed by the
tact that she issllow a national vessel com
missioned by, and in the service of, the EN-
peror of France. The evidence OF this fact
is not contioverte But tits contenIled that
1T constitutes no; bar to an enquiry into the
validity of the title BY which the Emperor
holds this vessel. Every person, it is al
LEGGED, who is entitled to property brought
within the jurisdic.i of our courts, has a
right to assert his title in those courts, un-
less there be some law taking his case our
or the general rule. 1t is there fore said
10 be the right and If it be the right, it is the
duty OF the court, to enquire whether this
title has been extiasushcd BY an act the
validity OF which is recognised by national
or municipal law.
Ii the preceding reasonngbe correct, the
Exchange, being public armed ship IN the
service or a foreign sovereign with whom the
government OF the u. States is at peace, and
havia, entered an American port open for
her reception on the terms ON which ships
of war are generally permitted to enter the
ports of friendly power, must be consider
ed as having come into the American ter
,1tory under all implied promise that while
necessarily within it, and demeaning her.
sell IN friendly Uanner, she should be
exempt from the jurisdiction ofthc country.