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

no" VI tue 90 q "ians l'aitc'iir state oil the 1. s.,
sccoiTlin: to the DEGREES n:id xs os France IN sac,,
~.sc provided. Ami tic said attorney s,,bmtt,ns-
whether, IN considerations OF the premises the cout
viii take cosnIncc oi The caSc respee tfiy bray
that the court will he pleased order aud decree
that the process of attac heretofore issued .
q;,ashcd thu, the ie. bc dismissed Will, ant, t.at
the SAIL inb'c, vessel, her .csiS tackle Sc beio.-
i'g 10 MS sail Imperial ala. ioyal Majesty be re-
t'ascd Sc AID die s:ii .,;o-ney brings here into
court the original commission Of the said ,Sea BE
goi; sc. hffE
O',he 9th of September 1911. the libcllsnts flee,
their answer to the Suggestion oi tire dist let attor.e,
to which they except because il does not appear In
be in"e for or ON behalf ut the instance of the
Y: States, orany other body polite or person.
Hey aver that the schooner is not a public vessel
heionang to his Imperial and Royal Majesty, but is
the private property Of the lbellants. They ,leny
that she was compelled by OF weather TO c,.,cr
the port OF i'ia,elphia, that she came otherwise
tha voluntarily; anu that the property of the libel
lants in the vessel never was ,yestc<l o., vested in
his Imperial and loyal Majesty within port of hi.
empire or OF a country occupied By his arms
he district attorney produced the aidayits of the
Sie0T BeSon and the French consul yeri,iyip,, the
commission of The captain and stating tb.. fact thai
the public vessels OF the Emperor of France neyer
earry with them any other document or evidence
that they belong to him, thnn his Tag the commission
and the possession of his officers.
In the commission it was stated that the vessel vo,
armed at Bayonne.
On the Attn OF October, 1911, the district i,s,o
dismiss ed the libel vial, costs, upon the ground that
puhic armed vessel OF foreign sovereign, in amity
with our government is not subject to the or,por,
Judicial tribunals Of the country s.. far MS regards t
question OF title by which such sovereign claims to
hold the vessel.
From this sentence the lbellants appealed to the
Octpier 1871. 80 "
From this sentence Of reversal the district attorne
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States
where the cause was fully and ably argued.
H., ~. n -rl
On the "a ct March 1879, the opinion Of the court
all the Judges being present) delivered as fol.
lows--by F.,
MARSHALL, CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE SCHOONER EXCHANGE.
Us.
John NcFadon g UfAiani Greetham.
This case involves the very delicate and
citizen can assert in an American Court a
title to an armed national vessel, found with
In the waters of the y. States
1 he question has been considered witt, an
earnest solicitude, that the decision NAV
Conform to those principles of the national
and municipal law by which 1t ought to be
regulated. b. ~.
In exploring an unbeaten path, with few,
II any, aids from precedents orwritten law.
the court has found it necessary to rel,
much on general principles, and on a train
OF reasoning founded on cases in some de-
gree analogous to this.
The jurisdiction of courts is a branch of
that which is possessed by the nation as an
independent sovereign power.
The Jurisdiction of the nation within its
own territory is necessarily exclusive and
absolute. It's susceptible of no limitation
not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon
1T, deriving validity from an external source,
would imply diminution of its sovereignty
to the extent Of the restriction, and an in
vestment OF that sovereignty to the same ex-
tent in that power which could impose such
restriction.
All exceptions, therefore. to the full and
complete power of nation within it's own
territories, must be traced up to the consent
OF the nation itself. They can flow from no
other legitimate source.
This consent may be either express or i'm
pied. In the latter case, it is less determi-
nate, exposed more to the uncertainties of
construction; but, it understood, not less o.
bligatory.
The world being composed of distinct So
verelgnties, possessing equal rights x equal
independence, whose mutual benefit is pro
noted by intercourse with each other, and
by an interchange of those good Offices which
humanity dictates and its wants require, all
sovereigns have consented to relaxation in
practice, in cases under certain peculiar cir
OF that absolute and complete
jurisdiction within their respective terrific
ries which sovereignty confers.
Ibis consent may in some instances be
tested by common usage, and by common O.
plnion, growing out or that usage
A nation would justly be considered as
violating its faith, although that faith might
not be expressly plighted, which should sud
denly and without previous notice, exercise
Its territorial powers in manner not con-
sonant to the usages and received obligations
of the civilized world.
This full and absolute territorial iuris(,ic-
ton being alike the attribute of every soye
reign, and being incapable of conf, rring ex-
ira territorial power, would not seem to
contemplate foreign sovereigns nor their so.
veregn rights as it's objects. One sovereign
being III no respect amenable to another; &
being bcund by obligations Of the highest
character not To degrade the dignity Of his
nation by placing himself or It's sovereign,
rights within the jurisdiction Of another, can
be supposed to enter Il foreign territory only
under an expresslicenCe, or in the confidence
that the immunities belonging TO his indie
pendent sovereign station, though not ex
pressly stipulated, are reserved by ilnplica-
ton, and will be extended to him.
This perfect equality and absolute indie
pcndence of sovereigns, and this common in
terest impelling them to mutual intercourse.
and an interchange of good Offices with each
oshcr, have given rise to class of cases in
Which every sovereign is understood to
wave the exercise of part of that com :,
plete exclusive territorial jurisdiction which
has been stated to be the attribute of ever,