r into the sea does the general territorial jurisdiction

According to the current of modern authority, it extends into the sea as far as cannon shot will reach, and no farther, and this is generally calculated to be a marine league.

14. How have Congress recognized this limitation ?-29.

By authorizing the District Courts to take cognizance of all captures made within a marine league of the American shores.

15. To what distance around our territory should the neutral immunity extend?―30.

It ought, at least, to be insisted that no belligerent rights should be exercised within "the chambers formed by headlands, or anywhere at sea within the distance of four leagues, or from a right line from one headland to another."

16. Have maritime states a right of visitation and inquiry, within those parts of the ocean adjoining to their shores ?-31.

It was so judicially declared in England; and the exercise of jurisdiction to that distance, for the safety and protection of the revenue laws, was declared, by the Supreme Court, to be conformable to the laws and usages of nations.

17. Why should nations cultivate a free intercourse for commercial purposes ?--32.

To supply each other's wants, and promote each other's prosperity.

18. How is the freedom of trade to be regarded ?-32.

However reasonably and strongly it may be inculcated in the modern school of political economy, it is but an imperfect right, and necessarily subject to such regulations and restrictions as each nation may think proper to prescribe for itself. Every state may monopolize as much as it pleases of its own internal and colonial trade, or grant to other nations, with whom it deals, such distinctions and particular privileges as it may deem conducive to its interests.

19. Has a nation, in time of peace, the right to interfere with commerce not its own ?-33.

No nation has a right, in time of peace, to interfere with,

or interrupt, any commerce which is lawful by the law of nations, and carried on between other independant powers, or between different members of the same state.

20. How far is the right to make commercial treaties recognized by the law of nations?—34.

Every nation may enter into such commercial treaties, and grant such special privileges as they may think proper; and no nation, to whom the like privileges are not conceded, has a right to take offence, provided those treaties do not affect their perfect rights. A state may enter into a treaty, by which it grants exclusive privileges to one nation, and deprives itself of the liberty to grant similar privileges to any other. These are matters of strict legal right.

21. How far is the right of passage over foreign territory recog nized by the public law?-34.

Every nation is bound, in time of peace, to grant a passage, for lawful purposes, over their lands, rivers, and seas, to the people of other states, whenever it can be permitted without inconvenience; and burthensome conditions ought not to be annexed to the transit of persons and property. If, however, any government deems the introduction of foreigners, or their merchandise, injurious to those interest of their own people which they are bound to protect and promote, they are at liberty to withhold the indulgence.

22. Is this entry of foreigners and their effects an absolute right ?-35.

It is not an absolute right, but only one of imperfect obligation, and it is subject to the discretion of the government which tolerates it.

23. May the state levy a tax, or toll, upon the persons and property of strangers in transitu over its territory ?-35.

It may, by way of recompense for the expense which the accommodation creates.

24. What if a nation possess only the upper parts of a naviga ble river ?-35.

She is entitled to descend to the sea without being embar

rassed by useless and oppressive duties or regulations. It is a right of an imperfect obligation, but one that can not justly be withheld without good cause.

25. Are strangers entitled to protection ?—36.

When foreigners are admitted into a state upon free and liberal terms; the public faith becomes pledged for their protection. The courts of justice ought to be freely open to them as a resort for the redress of their grievances.

26. Are strangers bound to obey the laws ?-36.

They are equally bound with natives, to obedience to the laws of the country during the time they sojourn in it, and they are equally amenable for infractions of the law.

27. Are governments bound to surrender, upon demand, fugitives from justice?-36.

It is declared, by some of the most distinguished public jurists, that every state is bound to deny an asylum to criminals, and, upon application and due examination of the case, to surrender the fugitive to the foreign state where the crime was committed. It is the duty of government to surrender up fugitives upon demand, after the civil magistrate shall have ascertained the existence of reasonable grounds for the charge, and sufficient to put the accused upon his trial.

28. What difficulty lies in the way of discharging the duty?—37. The only difficulty, in the absence of positive agreement, consists in drawing the line between the class of offenses to which the usage of nations does, and to which it does not apply, inasmuch as it is understood, in practice, to apply only to crimes of great atrocity, or deeply affecting the public safety.

29. Is legislative provision for the purpose, requisite ?-37.

It is, for the judicial power can do no more than cause the fugitive to be arrested and detained, until sufficient means and opportunity have been afforded for the discharge of this duty, to the proper organ of communication with the power that makes the demand.

30. Do ambassadors form an exception to the general case of for eigners resident in the country?—38.

Yes, they are exempted absolutely from all allegiance, and

from all responsibility to the laws of the country to which they are deputed, as they are representatives of their sovereigns, and requisite for negotiations and friendly intercourse.

31. Are their persons inviolable ?-38.

They are, by the consent of all nations.

32. What if ambassadors insult, or openly attack, the laws or government of the nation to whom they are sent ?—38.

Their functions may be suspended by a refusal to treat with them, or application can be made to their own sovereign for their recall; or they may be dismissed, and required to depart within a reasonable time; and every government has a perfect right to judge for itself, whether the language or conduct of a foreign minister is admissible.

33. May force be applied to confine or send away an ambassador, when the safety of the state absolutely requires it?-38, 39.

The writers on public law allow force to be applied to confine or send away an ambassador, when the safety of the state, which is superior to all other considerations, absolutely requires it.

34. Is an ambassador considered as if he were out of the territory of the foreign power to which he is accredited?—39.

By a fiction of law he is so considered; and it is an implied agreement among nations, that the ambassador, while he resides within the foreign state, shall be considered as a member of his own country, retaining his original domicil, and the government he represents has exclusive cognizance of his conduct and control of his person.

35. Is an ambassador deemed under the protection of the law of nations, in his passage through the territories of a third and friendly power?-39.

He is, while upon his public mission, in going to and returning from the government to which he is deputed.

36. Are the attendants of the ambassador attached to his person, under his protection and privilege?-39.

The attendants of the ambassador, and the effects in his use,

and the house in which he resides, and his domestic servants, are under his protection and privilege, and equally exempt from the foreign jurisdiction.

37. What is the distinction between ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, envoys extraordinary, and resident ministers ?-39.

It relates to diplomatic precedence and etiquette, and not to their essential powers and privileges.*

38. May a government refuse to receive an ambassador ?-40.

It may in its discretion, and without affording any just cause of war, though the act would, probably, excite unfriendly dispositions, unless accompanied with conciliatory explanations.

39. In a state of civil war, to whom belongs the right of sending ambassadors ?—40.

To the government de facto, which is in the actual exercise of power.

40. How far is the sovereign bound by an act of his minister?-40. This will depend upon the nature and terms of his authority. It is now the usual course for every government to reserve to itself the right to ratify, or dissent from, the treaty agreed to by its ambassador. A general letter of credence is the ordinary letter of attorney, or credential, of the minister; and it is not understood to confer a power upon the minister to bind his sovereign conclusively.

41. What are consuls ?-41.

They are commercial agents, appointed to reside in the seaports of foreign countries, with a commission to watch over the commercial rights and privileges of the nation deputing them.

*Chargé d'Affaires is a diplomatic representative or minister of the fourth grade; and a resident minister seems not to be equal to a minister plenipotentiary. Nor is a minister plenipotentiary of equal rank and dignity with an ambassador, who represents the person of his sovereign. A minister extraordinary has not by that title any superiority of rank. The United States are usually represented at the courts of the great powers of the first class by ministers plenipotentiary, and at those of an inferior class by a chargé d'affaires; and they do not send representatives of the rank of ambassador in the diplomatic sense.