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


allowed To remain under the protection of
she government IF the place.
Ia almost every instance, the treaties be-
."een civilized nations contain stipulation
~ TINS ciect IL. favor of vessels driven in by
stress OF weatcr or other urgent necessities.
N such cases the sovereign is bound by
compact 10 authorise foreign vessels to en-
tei MS ports. The treaty binds hum to al
low vessels IN distress To lind refuge and a.
y'nin IN his ports, and this is 4 liccnce
winch lie is not at liberty to retract. II
would be difficult to assign reason fur
Withholding from a lcence thus granted, a.
ny immunity from local jurisdiction which
wcu;d be implied i'll a special license.
III there be no treaty applicable to the
case, ana the sovereign, from motives Ceem-
cd adequate by himself, permits his ports
70 remain open to the public ships of foreign
friendly powers. the conclusion seems IRE
sistaole that they enter by his assent. And
II they enter by his assent necessarily inn
pied, no Just reason is perceived by the
court for distinguishing this case from that
OF vessels which enter by express assent
In all the cases Of exemption which !
nave been reviewed, much has been impli-
ed, but the obligation of what was implied
has been found cqnal to the obligation of
shat which was expressed. Are there rea-
sons ior denying the application of this prin-
ciplc to ships OF WARP
In this part of the subject difficulty is
20 De encountered, the seriousness Of whichis'
acknowledged, hu: which the court will
not attempt to escape.
Those treaties which provide for the adj
mission and safe departure of public YES
seisentering port from stress of weather or
othcr urgent cause, provide i'll like manner,
Tor the private vessels Of the nation and
where public vessels enter a port under-
the general licence which is implied mere
| ~ from the absence of a prohibition, they
arc, 1t may be urged, i'll the same condition
with merchant vessels entering the same
pors Tor the purposes of trade who cannot
thereby claim any exemption from the iu-
rlsdictlon OF the country. 1t may be con-
tended, certainly with much plausibility
II not correctness, that the same rule and
same principle is applicable to public and
private ships and since it is admitted that
private ships entering without special Ii
cence become subject to the local juristic-r
ton, 1t is demanded on what authority an ex-
! cePtion Is made in favor Of ships of WARP =
IS by no means Conceded that q private
vessel really availing herself of an asylum
provided by treaty, and not attempting to
trade, would become amenable to the local
Jurisdictlon unless she committed some act
FORGETTING the protection she claims under
compact On the contrary, motives NAV
be assigned for STIMULATING and according
immunitles to vessels in cases of distress,
winch would not be demanded for or allow.
| ed to those which enter voluntarily and for
| ordinary purposes. On this part of the.
subject, however, the court does not mean
TO indicate any opinion. The case itself
may possibly occur, and ought not to be
prejudged.
Without deciding how far such stipulati-
ons IN favor OF distressed vessels as are usu-
=: treaties, may exempt private ships
from the jurisdiction of the place, it may
safely be asserted that the whole reasoning
upon winch such exemption has been i'm
pheo I'D other cases, applies with full force
10 tne exemption OF ships of war III this
1t rs impossible to conceive" says Vat
tel, = that Prince who sends an ambas-
saoor or any otheraminister can have any
intention OF subjecting him to the authority
OF foreign power; and this consideration
furnishes AN additional argument which
completely establishes the independence of
public minister. If it cannot be reasona-
bly, presumed that his sovereign means to
subject him to the authority of the prince
to whom he is sent, the latter. in receiving
the minister, consents to admit him OH the
Footing OF Independence * thus there exis.s
between the two princes a; tacit convention
which gives a new force to the natural OBJ
| ligation.',
Equallyimpossible is it to conceive, what
ever may be the constructions as to private
| piihSS q passage
for ms troops o. an asylum for his ships of
war IN distress, should mean to subject his
| army or his navy to the jurisdiction of TO-
reign sovereign. And if this cannot be pre-
sumed, the sovereign of the port must be
| considered as having conceded the privilege
| 10 the extent in which it must have been un-
derstood to be asked.
10 the court it appears that where, with
out treaty, the ports of a nation are open to
the private and public ships OF friendly
power whose subjects have also liberty with
out special licence to enter the country for
business or amusement, a clear distinction
is to be drawn between the rights accorded
to private individuals or private trading YES
sells, and those accorded to public armed
ships which constitute u part Of the military
force of the nation.
| The preceding reasoning has maintained
the propositions that all exemptions from ter
ritoriai jurisdiction must be derived from
the consentof the sovereign of the territory,
that this consent may be implied or express
sed and that when implied its extent must
be regulated by the nature Of the case and
the views under which the parties requir-
ing and conccding it, must be supposed to
act.
when private indiv idGals of one natio,,
spread themselves through another AS bust
'iess or caprice may direct, Hingling indis-
criminately with the inhabitants of that o.
ther or when merchant vessels enter for