eaty Reparation of prize ships. REPARATION OF PRIZE SHIPS. It is reasonable, as applicable to all nations, to permit a portion of a prize cargo PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1796. SIR: The four questions propounded to you by the minister of the republic of France, in his letter of the 12th October, are severally answered in your letter of the 24th of the same month, agreeably to the opinions I have formed on those subjects. I will barely observe, relative to one of the questions, which at first sight seems doubtful, that to permit a part of a prize cargo to be sold for the necessary reparation of the prize-ship, under the actual superintendence of our public officers, is reasonable in itself, as applicable to all nations; and as to France, seems to be within the provision of the 19th article of our treaty of 1778 with that nation; the benefits of which cannot be, and never were intended to be, impaired by anything in our treaty of 1794 with Great Britain. Therefore, the 24th article of the last-mentioned treaty may be considered as inoperative upon this question. But if it were to be considered as operative upon it, I think the article should receive rather a liberal than a literal interpretation; and cases of necessity and distress ought to be deemed out of the meaning and intent of it. The prize-ship should be permitted to sail whenever the captors wish, though their conduct has been illegal, and though the French consul at Charleston has highly misbehaved in holding a court within the United States for condemning the capture as prize, and in causing a sale to be made under his authority. If a deception has been practised with success on the collector and naval officer, as to the goods, yet this affords no ground for detaining the ship. These officers appear to have acted honestly and honorably in this affair; and if they have been mistaken in believing it their duty to detain the prizeship, under the particular circumstances which had occurred, until they should receive explicit instructions from the higher authorities, they are not liable to any censure; nor ought the Territorial Rights-Florida. United States to be responsible to the captors for the loss which happened to a part of the goods by the conflagration in Charleston. If the captors had acted legally and fairly, no difference would have taken place between them and the public officers at that city; and they have been fortunate in obtaining an export. ation of any of the goods in neutral bottoms, when the captured ship is actually repaired and fitted for sea; which alone would have been authorized to export these goods, if the collector of the customs had been duly and truly informed of the condition of the prize-ship. I am, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF STATE. CHARLES LEE. TERRITORIAL RIGHTS-FLORIDA. It is an offence against the laws of nations for any persons, whether citizens or foreigners, to go into the territory of Spain with intent to recover their property by their own strength, or in any manner other than its laws permit. For the recovery of their property in Florida, and for redress of injuries done there, our citizens must apply to the tribunals of that Province. If a Spanish subject who has violated the territorial law of Florida shall be within the United States at the time of demand for him as a subject and fugitive from justice, he ought to be given up for trial and punishment; yet there is no law directing the mode of proceeding. If the commandant of the island of Amelia were arrested in Georgia at the suit of an individual, the United States have no power to interfere; if, however, the suit be a public prosecution in the name of the State of Georgia, or of the United States, it would be proper for the Executive to interfere. The treaty with Spain does not extend the jurisdiction of our courts to offences committed in Spain, nor vice versa; and according to the common law, the commandant of the island of Amelia is not liable to any public prosecution before any of our courts for his transactions in Florida. PHILADELPHIA, January 26, 1797. SIR: The letter of the minister of Spain, of the 11th of this month, representing a violation of the territorial rights of his Catholic Majesty, by William Jones, and others his associates; and also complaining of the arrest and prosecution of Don Onofre Gutierrez y Rosa, commandant of the island of Amelia, has been, agreeably to your request, duly considered. It is an offence against the laws of nations for any persons, whether citizens or foreigners, inhabiting within the limits of Territorial Rights-Florida. the United States, to go into the territory of Spain with intent to recover their property by their own strength, or in any other manner than its laws authorize and permit. If William Jones, a Spanish subject, had been apprehended in Florida, as he might lawfully have been, he might have been treated and punished for the transgression as a subject of Spain, according to the laws of that province. So, too, the Americans who joined, aided, and abetted him in the misdemeanor, were amenable to the laws of the province where they committed the offence, and might have been apprehended, tried, and punished there, according to those laws. William Jones, and the Americans who accompanied him, are less excusable when it is recollected that, by the 20th article of the treaty between Spain and the United States, free access to the courts of justice. in each nation is stipulated and reciprocally granted to the inhabitants of the other; consequently, to the tribunals in Florida our citizens are bound to apply for recovery of their property in that province, as well as for the redress of injuries done them. there; and more especially William Jones, a Spanish subject, ought to have applied to them respecting his runaway slaves The constitution gives to Congress, in express words, the power of passing a law for punishing a violation of territorial rights, it being an offence against the law of nations, and of a nature very serious in its consequences. That the peace of mankind may be preserved, it is the interest as well as the duty of every government to punish with becoming severity all the individuals of the State who commit this offence. Congress has passed no act yet upon the subject, and Jones and his associates are only liable to be prosecuted in our courts at com. mon law for the misdemeanor; and if convicted, to be fined and imprisoned. The common law has adopted the law of nations in its fullest extent, and made it a part of the law of the land. If a demand were formally made that William Jones, a subject and fugitive from justice, or any of our own citizens, heinous offenders within the dominion of Spain, should be delivered to their government for trial and punishment, the United States are in duty bound to comply; yet, having omitted to make a law directing the mode of proceeding, I know not how, accord Territorial Rights-Florida. ing to the present system, a delivery of such offender could be effected. To refuse or neglect to comply with such a demand, may, under certain circumstances, afford to the foreign nation just cause for war; who may not be satisfied with the excuse that we are not able to take and deliver up the offenders to them. This defect appears to me to require a particular law. It is not distinctly stated by the minister, whether the commandant of the island of Amelia was arrested in Georgia at the suit of an individual prosecuting for himself, or at the suit of the State of Georgia, or of the United States. If the suit be of the first description, the United States have no power to interfere, but the laws are to have their course. Though the commandant went from Florida into Georgia, by the orders of the governor, he remained, according to the laws of nations, liable to be arrested at the suit of an individual; the immunities or privileges such as an ambassador is permitted to enjoy not being attached to him, by reason of that particular function which he was sent to perform. However uncivil the treatment he has received may appear, neither the law of nations, nor any law of the United States, forbids such a functionary from being sued by an individual, even though the suit be without sufficient cause, or otherwise not maintainable. Supposing, in the present case, the action to have been brought by the individual for a tort committed out of the jurisdiction of the United States, in a foreign country, by a foreign officer, under the orders of the sovereign authority: in my opinion, it cannot be sustained. Yet, I do not admit that any right exists in the government of the United States to interpose; and the bail cannot be discharged, but in the ordinary forms, according to the laws of Georgia. But, if the suit be a public prosecution, in the name of the State of Georgia, or of the United States, it is proper for the Executive to interfere;-in the former case, by writing to the governor of that State, requesting him to cause the necessary steps to be taken for dismissing it; or, in the latter, by directing the district attorney of the United States to the same purport. The 20th article of the treaty is not construed to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to offences committed in Spain, or vice versa; and it is well established, that, according to the doctrine of the common law, the commandant is not liable to any be and, tion cuse em. comthe it of it be er to the rders ions, uni njoy tion ent ny ng ent sent tort in a E the Libellous Publications. public prosecution before any of our courts for his transactions Though some inconveniences may occasionally occur to for- Probably the instances will rarely happen when any incon- To the SECRETARY OF STATE. CHARLES LEE, ned. at of dis s of me for the ary Eng t. the or Oc. ny LIBELLOUS PUBLICATIONS. Certain letters addressed to Philip Fatio, and published, concerning the King of A malicious defamation of any person, and especially a magistrate, by printing, If a foreign ambassador commit an offence in our country, it belongs to the PHILADELPHIA, July 27, 1797. 1 |