Tucker, vol. i, page 513. the President reserved for further consideration a part of the one which related to the equipment of two privateers in the port of Charleston. The part alluded to was that wherein you express your confidence that the Executive Government of the United States would pursue measures for repressing such practices in future, and for restoring to their rightful owners any captures which such privateers might bring into the ports of the United States. The President, after a full investigation of this subject and the most mature consideration, has charged me to communicate to you that the first part of this application is found to be just, and that effectual measures are taken for preventing repetitions of the act therein complained of; but that the latter part, desiring restitution of the prizes, is understood to be inconsistent with the rules which govern such cases, and would, therefore, be unjustifiable towards the other party. The principal agents in this transaction were French citizens. Being within the United States at the moment a war broke out between their own and another country, they determined to go into its defence; they purchase, arm, and equip a vessel with their own money, man it themselves, receive a regular commission from their nation, depart out of the United States, and If then commence hostilities by capturing a vessel. under these circumstances the commission of the captors was valid, the property according to the laws of war was by the capture transferred to them, and it would be an aggression on their nation for the United States to rescue it from them, whether on the high seas or on coming into their ports. If the commission was not valid, and consequently the property not transferred by the laws of war to the captors, then the case would have been cognisable in our Courts of Admiralty, and the owners might have gone thither for redress. So that on neither supposition would the Executive be justifiable in interposing. With respect to the United States, the transaction can in no wise be imputed to them. It was in the first moment of the war, in one of their most distant ports, before measures could be provided by the Government to meet all the cases which such a state of things was to produce, impossible to have been known, and therefore impossible to have been prevented by that Government. The moment it was known the most energetic orders were sent to every State and port in the Union to prevent a repetition of the accident. On a sugges tion that citizens of the United States had taken part in the act, one who was designated was instantly committed to prison for prosecution, one or two others have been since named and committed in like manner; and should it appear that there were still others, no measures will be spared to bring them to justice. The President has even gone further. He has required, as a reparation of their breach of respect to the United States, that the vessels so armed and equipped shall depart from our ports. You will see, Sir, in these proceedings of the President unequivocal proofs of the line of strict right which he means to pursue. The measures now mentioned are taken in justice to the one party, the ulterior measure of seizing and restoring the prizes is declined in justice to the other, and the evil thus early arrested will be of very limited effect; perhaps, indeed, soon disappear altogether. I have, &c. (Signed) TH. JEFFERSON. Shortly afterwards a case occurred in which M. Genet openly defied the authority of the Government. An English letter of marque, the "Little Sarah,” had been captured by a French frigate and sent into Philadelphia, where she was fitted out as a privateer under the name of the "Little Democrat." M. Genet was applied to to stop this vessel from sailing, but he refused to interfere, and said that force would be repelled by force. A detachment of 120 militia were sent to guard the vessel, but on M. Genet entering Mr.Jefferso into an implied engagement that the vessel should not Instructions to the Collector of Customs. vol. i, p, 51 Mr. Hamil ton to the Collectors of Customs 1793. Sir, It appearing that repeated contraventions of our Neutrality Laws have taken place in the ports of the United States, without having been discovered in American time for prevention or remedy, I have it in command State Pape from the President to address to the collectors of the vol. i., p. 14 respective districts a particular instruction on the subject. It is expected that the officers of Customs in each district will, in the course of their official functions, have a vigilant eye upon whatever may be passing within the ports, harbours, creeks, inlets, and waters of such district, of a nature to contravene the Laws of Neutrality, and upon discovery of anything of the kind, will give immediate notice to the Governor of the State, and to the attorney of the judicial district comprehending the district of the Customs within which any such contravention may happen. To assist the judgment of the officers on this head, I transmit herewith a schedule of rules concerning sundry particulars which have been adopted by the President, as deductions from the Laws of Neutrality, established and received among nations. Whatever shall be contrary to these rules will, of course, be to be notified as above mentioned. There are some points which, pursuant to our Treaties, and the determination of the Executive, I ought to notice to you. If any vessel of the Powers at war with France should bring or send within your district a prize made of the subjects, people, or property of France, it is immediately to be notified to the Governor of the State, in order that measures may be taken, pursuant to the 17th Article of the Treaty with France, to oblige such vessel and her prize, or such prize, when sent in without the capturing vessel, to depart. No privateer of any of the Powers at war with a district of the United France, coming within States, can, by the 22nd article of our Treaty with France, enjoy any other privilege than that of purchasing such victuals as shall be necessary for her going to the next port of the Prince or State from thing beside this, it is immediately to be reported to which she has her commission. If she should do anythe Governor, and the attorney of the district. You will observe by the rules transmitted, that the term privateer is understood not to extend to vessels armed, for merchandise and war, commonly called with us letters of marque, nor, of course, to vessels of war in the immediate service of the Government of either of the Powers at war. No armed vessel which has been or shall be originally fitted out in any port of the United States, by either of the parties at war, is henceforth to have asylum in any district of the United States. If any such armed vessel shall appear within your district, she is immediately to be notified to the Governor and to the attorney of the district, which is also to be done in respect to any prize that such armed vessel shall bring or send in. At foot is a list of such armed vessels of the above description as have hitherto come to the knowledge of the Executive. The purchasing within and exporting from the United States, by way of merchandise, articles commonly called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and military stores, is free to all the parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If our own citizens undertake to carry them to any of the parties, they will be abandoned to the penalties which the laws of war authorize. You will be particularly careful to observe, and to notify as directed in other instances, the case of any citizen of the United States who shall be found in the service of either of the parties at war. In case any vessel shall be found in the act of contravening any of the rules or principles which are the the ground of this instruction, she is to be refused a clearance until she shall have complied with what the Governor shall have decided in reference to her. Care, however, is to be taken in this, not unnecessarily or unreasonably to embarrass trade or to vex any of the parties concerned. In order that contraventions may be the better ascertained, it is desired that the officer who shall first go on board any vessel arriving within your district shall make an accurate survey of her then condition as to military equipment to be forthwith reported to you: and that, prior to her clearance, a like survey be made, that any transgression of the rules laid down may be ascertained But, as the propriety of any such inspection of a vessel of war in the immediate survey of the Government of a foreign nation is not without question in reference to the usage of nations, no attempt is to be made to inspect any such vessel till further orders on the point. The President desires me to signify to you his most particular expectation that the instructions contained in this letter will be executed with the greatest vigilance, care, activity, and impartiality. Omissions will tend to expose the Government to serious imputations and suspicions, and proportionably to commit the good faith and peace of the country, objects of too much importance not to engage every proper exertion of your zeal. With consideration, I am, sir, &c. ALEXANDER HAMILTON. "1. The original arming and equipping of vessels in the ports of the United States by any of the belligerent parties for military service, offensive or defensive, is deemed unlawful. "2. Equipments of merchant vessels by either of the belligerent parties in the ports of the United States, purely for the accommodation of them as such, is deemed lawful. "3. Equipments in the ports of the United States of vessels of war in the immediate service of the Government of any of the belligerent parties, which, if done to other vessels, would be of a doubtful nature, as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful; except those which shall have made prize of the subjects, people, or property of France, coming with their prizes into the ports of the United States, pursuant to the XVIIth Article of our Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France. "4. Equipments in the ports of the United States, by any of the parties at war with France, of vessels fitted for merchandise and war, whether with or without commissions, which are doubtful in their nature, as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful, except those which shall have made prize, &c. "5. Equipments of any of the vessels of France, in the ports of the United States, which are doubtful in their nature as being applicable to commerce or war, are deemed lawful. "6. Equipments of every kind, in the ports of the United States, of privateers of the Powers at war France, are deemed unlawful. "7. Equipments of vessels in the ports of the United States, which are of a nature solely adapted to war, are deemed unlawful; except those stranded or wrecked, as mentioned in the XVIIIth Article of our Treaty with France, the XVIth of our Treaty with the United Netherlands, the XVIIIth of our Treaty with Prussia. "8. Vessels of either of the parties not armed, or armed previous to their coming into the ports of the United States, which shall not have infringed any of the foregoing rules, may lawfully engage or enlist their own subjects or citizens, not being inhabitants of the United States, except privateers of the Powers at war with France, and except those vessels which have made prizes, &c.' On the 7th of August Mr. Jefferson wrote to M. Genet, stating that the President had decided that compensation or restitution should be made in the case of vessels brought into United States ports as prizes by privateers fitted out in such ports since the 5th of June, and consequently called on him to restore these prizes, as otherwise the Government of France would be considered liable for the repayment of the compensation paid to the persons aggrieved. Mr. Jefferson adds, "that besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting out privateers in the ports of the United States, they will not give asylum therein to any which shall have been at any time so fitted out, and will cause restitution of all such prizes as shall be hereafter brought within their ports by any of the said privateers." Mr. Hammond was also informed of this decision of the President. MR. JEFFERSON to MR. HAMMOND. American State Papers, 167. vol. i, page MS. Inclosure in Mr. Hammond's despatch to ville August 10, 1793. Sir, Philadelphia, August 7th 1793. A constant expectation of carrying into full effect Lord Grenthe declaration of the President against permitting the armament of vessels within the ports of the United States to cruize on nations with which they are at peace, has hitherto prevented me giving you a final answer on the subject of such vessels and their prizes. Measures to this effect are still taking, and particularly for excluding from all further asylum in our ports the vessels so armed and for the restoration of the prizes the "Lively Lass," the "Prince William Henry," and the "Jane of Dublin," taken by them; and I am authorized in the meantime to assure you that should the measures for restoration fail in their effect, the President considers it as incumbent upon the United States to make compensation for the vessels. M. Genet seems to have tried to test the neutrality of the United States Government on every point. He maintained the right of the French Government not only to issue commissions and to equip vessels, but also openly to man their privateers in American ports. Two seamen, named Henfield and Singletary, were arrested on board the "Citizen Genet" at Philadelphia, for having enlisted in the French service. M. Genet remonstrated in his usual bombastic style, M Genet to demanding their immediate release. This was re- Mr. Jeffer fused, and Henfield brought to trial. The jury, how- son; June 1, ever, acquitted him on the plea of his having been American ignorant of having committed an offence in taking State Papers service in a French privateer. M. Genet also engaged vol. i, page in an intrigue for the seizure of New Orleans by some malcontents in Kentucky. In short, he managed Tucker, vol. during the few months he remained the Representa- i, pages 517 tive of France to damage the interests of his country in every conceivable way; while the temperate re 1793. 151. and 518. monstrances of the English Minister afforded a contrast to these exaggerated pretensions, and served to confirm the President in his policy of neutrality and to influence the Cabinet in favour of England. Certain prizes having been brought in by vessels fitted out after the 5th of June as well as those brought in by vessels fitted out before that date, of which restitution had already been refused, Mr. Hammond wrote on the 30th of August to Mr. Jefferson requesting to be informed of the precise intentions of the Government respecting the restoration of prizes. Mr. Hammond says: "I understand that all captures "made subsequently to the 5th of June, and ante cedently to the 7th of August, by any vessel fitted "out, armed and equipped in the ports of the United "States are either to be restored to the captors, or a 66 compensation for their full value is to be paid to "their owners by the Government of the United "States, and that all prizes made by vessels of this "description subsequently to the 7th of August are to "be seized, and immediately restored by the Govern"ment of the United States, or if the restitution "cannot be effected, a compensation for their full value is to be paid in the same manner as in the "former case." Mr. Jefferson replied on the 5th of September:Sir, Philadelphia, September 5, 1793. I am honoured with yours of August 30. Mine of the 7th of that month assured you that measures were taken for excluding from all further asylum in our ports vessels armed in them to cruize on nations with which we are at peace, and for the restoration of the prizes the "Lovely Lass," "Prince William Henry," and the "Jane," of Dublin, and that should the measures for restitution fail in their effect, the President considered it as incumbent on the United States to make compensation for the vessels. We are bound by our Treaties with three of the belligerent nations, by all the means in our power, to protect and defend their vessels and effects in our ports or waters, or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and restore the same to the right owners when taken from them. If all the means in our power are used, and fail in their effect, we are not bound by our Treaties with those nations to make compensation. Though we have no similar Treaty with Great Britain, it was the opinion of the President that we should use towards that nation the same rule which, under this Article, was to govern us with the other nations, and even to extend it to captures made on the high seas, and brought into our ports, if done by vessels which had been armed within them. Having, for particular reasons, forbore to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was Isaid in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances, and brought in after the 5th of June, and before the date of that letter, yet, when the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due. As to prizes made under the same circumstances, and brought in after the date of that letter, the President determined that all the means in our power should be used for their restitution. If these fail, as we should not be bound by our Treaties to make compensation to the other Powers, in the analogous case, he did not mean to give an opinion that it ought to be done to Great Britain. But still, if any cases shall arise subsequent to that date, the circumstances of which shall place them on similar ground with those before it, the President would think compensation equally incumbent on the United States. Instructions are given to the Governors of the different States to use all the means in their power for restoring prizes of this last description found within their ports. Though they will, of course, take measures to be informed of them, and the General Government has given them the aid of the Custom house officers for this purpose, yet you will be sensible of the importance of multiplying the channels of their information as far as shall depend on yourself or any person under your direction, in order that the Governors may use the means in their power for making restitution. Without knowledge of the capture, they cannot restore it. It will always be best to give the notice to them directly; but any information which you shall be pleased to send to me also, at any time, shall be forwarded to them as quickly as distance will permit. Hence you will perceive, Sir, that the President contemplates restitution or conpensation in the cases before the 7th of August, and after that date, restitution, if it can be effected by any means in our power, and that it will be important that you should substantiate the fact that such prizes are in our ports or waters. Your list of the privateers illicitly armed in our ports is, I believe, correct. With respect to losses by detention, waste, spoliation, sustained by vessels taken as before mentioned, between the dates of the 5th June and the 7th August, it is proposed as a provisional measure that the Collector of the Customs of the district, and the British Consul, or any other person you please, shall appoint persons to establish the value of the vessel and cargo, at the time of her capture, and of her arrival in the port into which she is brought, according to their value in that port. If this shall be agreeable to you, and you will be pleased to signify it to me, with the names of the prizes understood to be of this description, instructions will be given accordingly to the Collectors of the Customs where the respective vessels are. It must be remembered that the United States did not possess any navy at this time, the construction of a naval force not being carried out until 1794; so that even if the Government wished to stop a privateer, they could only do so by employing militia to board her, unless she happened to be lying under the guns of a fort. In October, M. Duplaine, the French Vice-Consul at Boston, having rescued by force a suspected vessel which had been seized by the Marshall, the United States Government withdrew his exequatur. Congress met on the 3rd of December, and in his address the President spoke of the measures adopted for the preservation of neutrality, and the necessity for legislation on the subject in the following State Papers, vol. i. page 167. American State Papers, vol. i, page 21. Tucker, vol. i. page 526. American vol. i. page 431. in warlike form within the limits of the United States. It rests with the wisdom of Congress to correct, improve, or enforce this plan of procedure, and it will probably be found expedient to extend the legal code and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States to many cases which, though dependent on principles already recognized, demand some further provisions. "Where individuals shall within the United States array themselves in hostility against any of the Powers at war, or enter upon military expeditions or enterprizes within the jurisdiction of the United States, or usurp and exercise judical authority within the United States, or where the penalties on violations of the law of nations may have been indistinctly marked or are inadequate; these offences cannot receive too early and close an attention, and require prompt and decisive remedies." "In like manner, as several of the Courts have doubted under particular circumstances their power to liberate the vessels of a nation at peace, and even of a citizen of the United States, although seized under a false colour of being hostile property, and have denied their power to liberate certain captures within the protection of our territory, it would seem proper to regulate their jurisdiction in these points." Soon after the opening of the sessions Jefferson retired from the Cabinet into private life, and did not take any active part in politics for the next three years. Washington was thus left free to carry out his policy and to establish relations with England on a more friendly footing. The early part of the session was occupied with discussions on the imposition of a protective duty on trade with nations not having Commercial Treaties with the United States. This measure was aimed at British trade, and was a consequence of the illfeeling that had been occasioned by the British Orders in Council of June and November 1793, authorizing the seizure of United States merchant-ships laden with corn for France, or found attempting to break the blockade. The next measure introduced was for the construction of a navy, and was intended as a provision against the contingency of a war with England, although nominally adopted as a defence for American commerce against the Algerine pirates. On the 27th of March Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey, offered a resolution for sequestering all debts due to British subjects, as a fund to indemnify citizens of the United States for the unlawful depredations of British cruizers. Before any vote was taken, Mr. Clarke of New Jersey proposed that all intercourse with Great Britain should be prohibited until satisfaction was obtained. While these subjects were pending, the President, State Papers, on the 4th of April, communicated to Congress a despatch from Mr. Pinckney, the United States Minister in London, forwarding a copy of an Order in Council of the 8th of January, modifying the instructions to cruizers contained in the previous Orders. Tucker, vol. i. page 541. Vie de Washington. par De Witt This caused the popular feeling to incline in favour of England, and the Republican or anti-Federal party abandoned their scheme of commercial retaliation, and assented to a proposition made by the Federalists, that a Special Mission should be sent to England to settle the various questions in dispute. Mr. Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a descendant of one of the families which took refuge in England at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, a Federalist and friend of the English cause, was selected for the post of Envoy.* He was nominated on the 16th of April but did not arrive in London until the 15th of June. The inadequacy of the existing law to deal with even the grossest breach of the Neutrality Proclamation had been shown a short time previously by the grand jury of Philadelphia having refused to find a true Bill against the French Vice-Consul Duplaine (the Vice-Consul whose exequatur had been withdrawn in October 1793) for the forcible rescue of the "Greyhound." It was apparent that no time must be lost in amending the law on this subject, and in accordance with the recommendation in the President's message, a bill was now introduced for the purpose. The bill was vigorously opposed by the Republicans, Tucker, vol. and "would have been defeated in the Senate, if i. page 546. repeated motions made with that view had not been lost by the vote of the Vice-President. "The Republican party had a majority in the Senate of one member, but the seat of Mr. Gallatin from Pennsylvania, one of that majority, having been contested and set aside on the ground that he had not been a citizen so long as the constitution required, the two parties were exactly balanced." States Statutes at Large; third sess. 1, ch. 50, Congress, June 5, 1794. British This Act which forms the basis of the United States United Neutrality Laws, contains ten clauses and is entitled "An Act in addition to the Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States." (The Act thus referred to is the Act of April 30, 1790, providing for the punishment of high treason and other offences against the state or individuals.) As this Act is substantially the same as the Act of 1818, and as, in referring to that Act, attention will be called to the points in which they differ, it will be sufficient to give here a short abstract of the different Articles. Sect. 1. Any citizen of the United States within the jurisdiction of the same accepting or exercising a commission to serve a foreign Prince or State by sea or land liable to a fine of 2,000 dollars, or imprisonment for not more than three years. Sect. 2. Any person within the jurisdiction of the United States entering himself or enlisting others, or hiring or retaining another person to enlist for the service of the army or navy of any foreign Prince or State, liable to a fine of 1,000 dollars, or three years' imprisonment. This not to apply to foreigners transiently within the United States. Any person so enlisted giving information within thirty days to be indemnified from punishment. Sect. 3. Any person within any of the ports, harbours, bays, rivers, or other waters of the United States, fitting out and arming, or attempting to fit out and arm, or procuring to be fitted out and armed, or attempting to, &c., or knowingly concerned in the furnishing, &c., of any ship or vessel, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign State, to cruize or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of another State, with which the United States shall be at peace, or commissioning any such vessel, to be liable to a fine of 5,000 dollars or three years' imprisonment, and the vessel, tackle, &c., to be forfeited, one half to the informer and the other half to the United States. Sect. 4. Any person augmenting or procuring to be augmented the force of any ship of war in the service of a State at war with a State with which the United States are at peace, by adding to the number or size of the guns of such vessel, or by the addition thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war, to be liable to a fine of 1,000 dollars or imprisonment for one year. Sect. 5. Any person within the jurisdiction of the United States setting on foot or preparing any military enterprise against any State with which the United States are at peace, to be liable to a fine of 3,000 dollars or one year's imprisonment. Sect. 6. District courts to have cognizance of captures made within the waters or within a marine league of the coasts or shores of the United States. Sect. 7. The militia or land or naval forces to be employed for enforcing this Act, for detaining any vessel contravening it and her prizes, and for restoring such prizes when restoration may be adjudged, and for preventing illegal military expeditions. State Papers (Hertslet's) vol. iv. page 339. American vol. i. page 520. Sect. 8. The militia, &c., to be employed as shall be necessary to compel any foreign ship or vessel to depart the United States in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the Treaties of the United States, they ought not to remain within the United States. Sect. 9. Prosecution of treason or piracy not to be impaired. * Sect. 10. The Act to continue in force for two years, and thence to the end of the next session of Congress." This Act afforded an answer to M. Genet's pretensions and to Mr. Hammond's complaints. It now only remains to be seen how the British claims acknowledged in Mr. Jefferson's letter of the 5th of September 1793 were disposed of. This was done by the insertion in the Treaty conState Papers, cluded by Mr. Jay on the 19th of November,† 1794, of Articles providing for the appointment of Commissioners to consider the compensation to be awarded (Article VII.) in cases of complaints made by United States merchants of loss and damage sustained "by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property under colour of authority or commissions from His Majesty ;" and also in cases of complaints of His Majesty's subjects, "that in the course of the war they have sustained loss and damage by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the States, and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by vessels originally armed in ports of the said States," Decisions in "where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, September 5, 1793." And (Article XXI.) it is likewise "agreed that the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall not do any acts of hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign Prince or State," &c. "Art. XXIV. It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers (not being subjects or citizens of either of the said parties) who have commissions from any other Prince or State in enmity with either nation, to arm their ships in the ports of either of the said parties, nor to sell what they have taken," &c. "Art. XXVIII. It is agreed that the first ten Articles of this Treaty shall be permanent, and the subsequent Articles, except the twelfth (providing for trade with the West Indies), shall be limited in their duration to twelve years " from the exchange of ratifications. As previously stated, Mr. Jefferson's letter of the 5th of September 1793, was annexed to this Treaty, so that the effect of the 7th Article was to make compensation to Great Britain for all prizes taken by vessels fitted out by France in the United States after the 5th of June 1793, (the date of Mr. Jefferson's letter of prohibition to M. Genet,) if such prizes had been brought into ports of the United States; but not to make compensation for any prizes brought in by vessels fitted out before the 5th of June 1793, or for any prizes whatever, not brought into United States ports. Having thus traced the United States Neutrality Law from its origin in the Proclamation of the 22nd of April 1793, to the Act of 1794, it may be convenient to notice some of the principal decisions in the Supreme Court of cases illustrative of the operation of the law as thus originally framed. February 1794. The sloop " Betsy " (a vessel capthe Supreme tured by the French privateer the "Citizen Genet" United and sent into Baltimore). Court of the States. Curtis, vol. i. page 74. Judgment.-No foreign Power can rightfully erect any Court of Judicature within the United States unless by force of a Treaty. *Re-enacted March 2, 1797, and made perpetual April 24, 1800. This was the first Treaty providing for a Commission to investigate British and American claims. A second Commission was appointed under the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 to consider claims arising from the seizure of slaves; and a third under the Convention of February 8, 1853, for the general settlement of outstanding claims. The Admiralty jurisdiction exercised by Consuls of France in the United States is not of right. August 1795. Talbot v. Janson. Case of a Dutch Curtis, vol.i. vessel, the "Magdalena," brought into Charleston by page 128., the privateer "L'Ami de la Liberté," alleged to have been an American-owned Ship, armed and equipped in Chesapeake Bay and Charleston. Judgment. The capture of a vessel of a country at peace with the United States, made by a vessel fitted out in one of our ports, and commanded by one of our citizens, is illegal; and if the captured vessel is brought within our jurisdiction, the District Courts, upon a libel for a tortious seizure, may inquire into the facts and decree restitution. Restitution decreed with damages. August 1796. Moodie v. the ship "Alfred." Judgment-It is not a violation of the neutrality Ibid, vol. i. laws of the United States to sell to a foreigner a vessel page 234. built in this country, though suited to be a privateer, and having some equipments calculated for war, but frequently used by merchant-ships. Restitution refused. August 1796. Moodie v. the ship "Phoebe Anne." Judgment..-Under the XIXth Article of the Ibid, vol. i. Treaty with France a privateer has a right to make page 237. repairs in our ports. The replacement of her force is not an augmentation of it. Restitution refused. In June 1797 a short Act was passed prohibiting any citizen of the United States, "without the limit of the same," from fitting out and arming, &c., any private ship or vessel of war with intent, &c., or taking the command of or entering on board of, or purchasing any interest in any such vessel under penalty of a fine of 10,000 dollars, or imprisonment for not more than ten years. This Act was entirely repealed by the Act of 1818. The restriction imposed on intercourse with France in 1799 by the Act of Congress of the 9th of February put a stop to any further privateering cases, and the next report of a decision affecting international relations occurs in February 1804. "Church v. Hubbart." Case of the 66 99 Aurora Curtis, vol. i. seized at Para for attempted smuggling. The case page 470. was brought before the United States Court on an insurance claim. In pronouncing judgment, Chief Justice Marshall observed: "The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory. Upon this principle, the right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on the high seas for contraband of war is universally admitted. A case arose in 1808 as to the validity of the cap- Curtis, vol. ii. ture by a French privateer of a ship despatched from page 87. a port held by the St. Domingo rebels, and the subsequent condemnation of her cargo in the Court of the French Delegate at Santo Domingo, (Rose v. Himely. Case of the "Sarah," February 1808). Amongst other matters affecting the Law of Prize, it was laid down that, whether a revolted Colony is to be treated as a sovereign State, is a political question to be decided by Governments, not by Courts of Justice; and the Courts of the United States must consider the ancient state of things as remaining until the sovereignty of the revolted Colony is acknowledged by the Government of the United States. Restitution decreed without costs. In March 1866 Miranda's expedition against Caracas Annual Register, was fitted out at New York. The expedition con- 1866. sisted of the "Leander," armed vessel of 18 guns, and two schooners. Miranda was met by two Spanish ships of war off Puerto Cabello. An action ensued, in which he lost his schooners and was compelled to take refuge at Grenada. Fity-seven of his followers were taken in the schooners and carried to Puerto |