The Placer herald., 1855-11-10
Rights Of Belligerents in the Ports of the
United States,

Our readers will recolect that during last
winter II. b. Nj. ship President arrived in the
harbor of San Francisco, with the Russian
ship .Sitka as prize, having several Russian
prisoners on board; and that during her stay
here writ of habeos corpus on behalf of the
prisoners was sued out of the Twelfth Dis
trict Court. which proceeding the command
er of the Sitka defeated by leaving port sum-
marily with his ship and prisoners, without
the tormality of making return to the writ.
1t was understood at the time that the
matter would be brought to the notice of our
Government by the gentlemen here who had
interested themselves for the Russian prison
ers. 1t appears that the subject was prompt
ly submitted at Washington by the Secretary
of State (Mr. Marcy to the Attorney Gen
eral (Mr. Cushing), for his opinion upon the
important general questions of law involved,
and also upon the proprety of making to
the British Government formal complaint
against the commander of the .Sitko if his
conduct should be considered an intraction
of the rights of the United States as neu-
tral power in the war.
In his opinion, dated in April, 1855, though
very recently published for the first time, the
Attorney General examines fully the case
and the authorities, and reviews the estab-
ed doctrines of international law upon the
rights of neutrals and those of beligerents
in neutral ports. His conclusions are, we
believe, not only so we'll fortified by author
ity and usage, but by the general assent of
the profession, both in San Francisco at the
time and generally since, that we suppose
they may be regarded, taken in connection
with their high official character, as virtually
settling the law in this country upon the
great questions involved.
These conclusions are:
l. That IT. B. NJ. s. President. together
with her prize, the .SitAa and the prisoners
on board were lawfully in the port of San
Francisco, as Il neutral port; and while there
and demeaning herself in friendly manner
she and her prize remained a part of the ter
rltory OF her sovereign, and were of course
exempt from the jurisdiction of the United
States.
2. That the courts of the State of Cali
fornia had no jurisdiction whatever as to the
prisoners on board the .Sitka: and therefore
that the commander Of the .Sika was under
no obligations to obey the writ of habeas cor
pus, even if served upon him ashore though
as a matter Of courtesy to the courts of the
State, he might well have made his return to
the writ. But his omission to do so, wher-
ever served furnishes no ground of complaint
to his government, especially as he had the
right, (and it was his duty) if he apprehend-
ed the escape or rescue of his prisoners, to
remove them elsewhere"
On the whole, the opinion will, we think,
be accepted by the bar and country, as an
able and entirely satisfactory paper, which
determines upon grounds of clear law and
sound policy, the rights of the United States
as neutral power in this great war, and of
the beligerents in her ports These are
questions of the highest magnitude and we
rejoice to have them settled thus, as we'll for
the sake of our national relations with the
belligerents, as of the local interests Of San
Francisco, which are protected by the same
law which protects the rights Of the contend
ing nations in our harbor.
State Journal.