The republic., 1851-09-10

all vessels violating the revenue laws. A third
mode-and perhaps this is the only instance
in which the employment of the naval force is
ndispensably necessary-would be TO seize
such vessels on the high seas, without the ter
ritories or the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.
But the argument is that at the very moment
the naval force becomes indispensable-aft
the illegal expedition has reached the high
seas-the power of the Executive under this
law ceases, and he has no farther authority to
prevent the carrying on OF their predatory en-
terprises We find no such limitation of the
authority of the statute We do not admit that
the PRESIDENT is released from the obligation
it imposes, because the revenue officers of
particular port have neglected their duty,
through fear, or sympathy, or guilty collusion,
and made the high interpositon of the PREsI-
DENT unavoidable to employ the naval forces
of the nation to discharge the duty which the
law imposes ON him of PREVENTING the carry
ing of any such expedition against nation
with which the United States are at peace.
From its very nature, this power is one to be
exercised by the PRESIDENT, not on ordinary
occasions, but in exigencies where the civil
power proves, or is likely to prove, inadequate
and Intellectual. In illustration of this point,
we shall cite pertinent passage from the judg
ment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gels
ton v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. R., 33l, delivered by
Mr. Justice STORY, in 1918. The reasoning
of the Court refers to the 7th section of the
statute of 1894, chapter so, which corresponds
to the 9Th section of the act of 1918, above
cited:
ssThe power thus entrusted to the President is of
a very high and delicate nature, and manifestly
intended to be exercised only when, by the ordi-
nary process exercise Of cipl authority The ptr-
poses of the atr cannot be eGsctuated Ii is to be
e1erted on extraordinary occasions, and subject
to that high responsibility which all Executive
acts necessarily involve Whenever it is exerted,
all persons who act in obedience to the Executive
instructions, in within the act, are com
petely justified in taking possession Of and detai
ing, the offending pesse and not responsible in
damages for any injury which the party may
suffer by reason of such proceeding. Surely it
never could have been the intention of Congress
that such power should be allowed as shield to
the seizing officer, in cases where that seizure
might be made by the ordinary civil means. One
of the put in the section Is, where any pro-
cess of the courts of the United States is disc.
beyed and resisted; and this abundantly
shows that the authority of the President was
not intended to be called into exercise, unless
where military and naval force necessary to
ensure The erectition of the la,Ds In terms the sec
ton is confined to the employment of military
and naval forces; and there is neither public poll
icy principle to justify extension of the
prerogative, beyond the terms IN which il is
given Congress might be perfectly willing to
entrust the President with the power to take and
detain, whenever, in his opinion, the case
fragrant that military Hauai force necessary
TO enforce the latps and yet with great prop riety
deny it, where, from the circumstances of the
case, the civil officers of the Government might,
upon their private responsibility, without any
danger to the public peace, completely execute
them"
But it is said that the United States have no
jurisdiction on the high seas and that there
fore the moment any vessel escapes from one
of our ports and reaches the open sea, there is
no po,rer in the Government to seize and ar
rest her. 1t would be more proper to say that
all nations have jurisdiction on the high seas,
which they are continually in the habit of ex-
ercising. There is jurisdiction which civil
society has over the persons of its members, CO.
Incident with their claim of protection, and
which affects them Immediately, whether they
are within its territories or without them. This
IS the personal jurisdiction mentioned by Mr..
JEFFERSON in his letter to Mr.. GENET of June
II, 1893. 1t is a personal, as distinct from a
territorial jurisdiction, and equally well esta-
bshed and defined (Ruhetorth's Institutes,
Book H., CHAP. v. and ix.) Chancellor KENT
says | Commentaries, 26 and 1859 that, ac-
cording to the law and practice of nations, it is
a clear and settled principle that the jurisdiction
of every nation extends to its own citizens, on
board of its own public and private vessels at
sea. With regard to these, in one sense, it
may be said territorial jurisdiction is main
tanned, for they may be considered as portions
of its Ia nations territory, and persons on
board are protected and governed by the law of
the country to which the vessel belongs They
may be punished for offences against the NUM-
cipal laws of the State, committed on board its
public and private vessels at sea, and on board
of its public vessels in foreign ports" Chill
dren born in vessel on the high seas are re-
puted to be born in the territories of the nation
to which the vessel belongs, because the nation
preserves its jurisdiction in these vessels. And
this jurisdiction, (VATTELL, B. l., ch. xix, Sec
2l6,) according to the commonly received Gus
tom, is preserved over vessels of nation even
in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion
In the case, indeed, of the Mariana Flora, Ol
Wheaton r., ! ) it was expressly adjudicated
by the Supreme Court that not only may Amer
lean ships offending against the laws of the
United States be seized upon the ocean, but
that foreign ships thus offending within the
territorial jurisdiction may be pursued and
brought into the courts Of the United States
for adjudication. The same doctrine was laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of the
.4poLlon, % Wheaton r., 80, 81 y in which
the opinion was delivered by Mr.. Justice
STORY. From this opinion we cite the follow
ing passages:
"The laws of no nation justly extend be-