ship itself, that they have any territorial quality. Take the crew away, let the abandoned hulk be met at sea; it now becomes property, and nothing more." Woolsey, Int. Law, § 54. IX. CRIMES AT SEA SUBJECT TO COUNTRY OF FLAG § 33a. "I have no doubt that an offense, committed on board a public ship of war, on the high seas, is committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the ship belongs. How far the President of the United States would be justifiable in directing the judge to deliver up the offender is not clear. I have no objection to advise and request him to do it." President Adams to Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, May 21, 1799; 8 John Adams's Works, 651. [The district judge of South Carolina had declined to deliver up to Sir Hyde Parker a seaman who had been engaged in a mutiny and murder of the officers of the British frigate Hermione.] As to Robbins' case, see infra, § 271a. "I inclose herewith a copy of a dispatch recently received from A. C. Litchfield, esq., consul general of the United States at Calcutta, in relation to the case of one John Anderson, an ordinary seaman on board the American bark C. O. Whitmore, who, it appears, stabbed and killed the first officer of the ship on the 31st of January last, while that vessel was on her way from New York to Calcutta, sixteen days from her port of departure, and on the high seas in latitude 250 35' N. and longitude 35° 50' W. "You will perceive that the consul-general invoked the aid of the local police authorities in securing the safe custody of the accused, who was a prisoner of the United States, until he could complete the necessary arrangements for sending him to this country for trial, against whose municipal laws only he was accused of having offended, and that while thus in the temporary custody of the local police, the colonial authorities took judicial cognizance of the matter, claiming, under the advice of the advocate-general of the colony, that, under a colonial statute, which confers upon the courts of the colony jurisdiction of crimes committed by a British subject on the high seas, even though such crimes be committed on the ship of a foreign nation, and that inasmuch as the accused, although appearing on the ship's articles under the name of John Anderson, subject of Sweden, had declared that his real name was Alfred Hussey, and that he was a native of Liverpool and therefore a British subject, the case came within the jurisdiction of those courts. "The matter is now believed to have reached that point in the judicial proceedings where effective measures for asserting the jurisdic tional rights of the United States would be unavoidable in this particular case. And whilst I entertain no doubt that the accused will receive as fair a trial in the high court of Calcutta, where it is understood he is to be tried, as he would in the circuit court of the United States, in which tribunal he would be arraigned were he sent here for trial, I deem it proper, at the same time, to instruct you to bring the question to the attention of her Majesty's Government, in order to have it distinctly understood that this case cannot be admitted by this Government as a precedent for any similar cases that may arrise in the future. No principle of public law is better understood nor more universally recognized than that merchant vessels on the high seas are under the jurisdiction of the nation to which they belong, and that as to common crimes committed on such vessels while on the high seas, the competent tribunals of the vessel's nation have exclusive jurisdiction of the questions of trial and punishment of any person thus accused of the commission of a crime against its municipal laws; the nationality of the accused can have no more to do with the question of jurisdiction than it would had he committed the same crime within the geographical territorial limits of the nation against whose municipal laws he offends. The merchant ship, while on the high seas, is, as the ship of war is everywhere, a part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs. "I pass over the apparent breach of comity in the proceeding of the colonial officials as being rather the result of inadvertence and possible misconception on the part of the Government law officer of the colony, than any design to question the sovereignty of the United States in this or cases of a similar nature." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welsh, July 11, 1879. MSS. Inst., Great Brit. ; That a crime by a foreigner in a United States ship is cognizable by the United Cf. notice of Ross' case in President Arthur's first annual message, Dec. 5, 1881, "Referring to my instruction No. 328, of the 11th instant, in relation to the case of John Anderson, alias Alfred Hussey, and the claim of jurisdiction advanced and exercised in relation thereto by the high court of Calcutta, a British tribunal, notwithstanding that the accused was a seaman upon the American bark C. O. Whitmore, and the crime for which he was tried was committed on the high seas, I have now to transmit for your further information, and as material to the intelligent discussion of the points involved, should Her Majesty's Government provoke argument thereon, copy of an additional dispatch, dated the 10th ultimo, received from Consul-General Litchfield, in which the later proceedings of the high court, comprising further assertion and exercise of jurisdictional power in the premises, are so fully set forth that it is found unnecessary to your understanding of the case to send you transcript of the voluminous appendices transmitted by the consul-general. "Pending the reply of Her Majesty's Government to the dispassionate representations you have already been directed to make, I have no further observations to add to those of the consul-general than to remark that, while the verdict of the jury, convicting the man of manslaughter, seems to have been technically right as to the degree of the crime committed, the partiality and unfairness of the proceedings, which this Government had confidently hoped would be marked by the most signal impartiality and fairness, cannot but be deduced from the result of the trial. I refer (specially to the keeping back of the testi mony of witnesses who would have shown aggravating circumstances of guilt; in the notably strong recommendation to mercy; and, more than all, in the character of the sentence, a purely nominal punishment, such as would be usually inflicted for a slight contempt of court, and unheard of before in any British court as a measure of the penalty for manslaughter, the conviction for which rested on the verdict of a jury, the prisoner having been set free within forty-eight hours, without even the form of executive clemency. These facts are here thought to justify what might otherwise seem to be the heated and indignant comments of Mr. Litchfield on the affair; and should the assumption of British jurisdiction in the case be defended by Her Majesty's Government, the circumstances adverted to would seem proper to be brought to Lord Salisbury's attention, with all the temperance of representation permitted by the facts themselves, and as justifying the ground taken, with respect to such assumption of jurisdiction, in my previous instruction No. 328." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welsh, July 29, 1879. MSS. Inst., Great Brit.; "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 17, of the 16th ultimo, inclosing a copy of the correspondence between your legation and the foreign office in relation to the case of John Anderson, who was tried in Calcutta for a crime alleged to have been committed on board a vessel of the United States on the high seas, which correspondence contains an expression of the regret of Her Majesty's Government that the action of the authorities at Calcutta in the case in question should have been governed by a view of the law which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, cannot be supported. "In reply, I have to instruct you to convey to the proper quarter an expression of this Department's appreciation of the candor and goodwill with which Her Majesty's Government have considered this matter, and to say, moreover, that it has afforded this Government great satisfaction to learn that the action of the authorities of Calcutta in the case of Anderson is to be attributed to a misconception, and not to any design to question the jurisdiction of the United States in that or any similar case." Mr. Hay, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, July 7, 1880. MSS. Inst., Great The Government of Chili has no jurisdiction over a merchant vessel of the United States on the high seas so as to enable it to proceed against that vessel or its officers, when in a Chilian port, for cruelty on the high seas to a Chilian subject on board that vessel. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, Oct. 15, 18e3. MSS. Inst., Chili. Murder or robbery committed on the high seas may be cognizable by the courts of the United States, though committed on board of a vessel not belonging to citizens of the United States, if she had no national character, but was held and possessed by pirates or persons not lawfully sailing under the flag of any foreign nation. U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheaton, 412. Infra, § 380, ƒƒ. Where a gun was fired from an American ship lying in a harbor of one of the Society Islands, killing a person on board a schooner belonging to the natives in the harbor, it was held by Judge Story that the act was, in contemplation of law, committed on board the foreign schooner where the shot took effect, and that jurisdiction of the offense belonged to the foreign Government and not to the courts of the United States. Where a prisoner under such circumstances was sent home for trial, it was held that the court had no jurisdiction. U. S. v. Davis, 2 Sumner, 482. Offenses committed on the high seas, on vessels belonging exclusively to the subjects of a foreign power, are not punishable in the courts of the United States. 3 Op., 484, Grundy, 1839. Crimes committed on board a merchant ship on the high seas are triable only by the authorities of the country to which she belongs. The authorities of a foreign country may, at the instance of a consul from the country to which the ship belongs, assist in detaining the persons charged, but they cannot detain them otherwise. A fortiori, they cannot go on board the ship and rearrest them after they have been in their custody and have been returned. The citizenship of the accused does not affect the question of jurisdiction. 8 Op., 73, Cushing, 1856. See discussion of this case in Mr. Marcy's instructions to Mr. Mason, Sept. 8, 1856. MSS. Inst., France. "The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction to redress any supposed torts committed on the high seas upon the property of its citizens by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign and friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of its neutrality. The courts of the captors are open for redress, and an injured neutral may there obtain indemnity for a wanton or illicit capture. Nor is the jurisdiction of the neutral court enlarged by the fact that the corpus no longer continues under the control of the capturing power. The Estrella, 4 Wheat., 298." 2 Halleck's Int. Law (Baker's ed.), 208. As to piracy, see infra, §§ 380 ff. X. PORTS OPEN TO ALL NATIONS. § 34. As to non-intercourse, see infra, § 319. As to embargo and closure of ports, see infra § 320. As to neutral's duty in excluding belligerent operations, see infra, § 398. As to territorial waters in general, see supra, § 26. "It is consistent with the just principles, as it is with the interests of the United States, to receive the vessels of all countries into their ports, to whatever party belonging and under whatever flag sailing, pirates excepted, requiring of them only the payment of the duties, and obedience to the laws while under their jurisdiction, without adverting to the question whether they had committed any violation of the allegiance or laws obligatory on them in the countries to which they belonged, either in assuming such flag, or in any other respect." Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. De Onis, Jan. 19, 1816. MSS. For. Leg. Notes. While it was permissible, under the law of nations, for China, during the French-Chinese war, to sink obstructions in Canton River for the purpose of preventing the access of French men-of-war to Canton, such obstructions can only be retained as long as needed for belligerent purposes. Their removal after peace is required, not merely by the treaties entered into by China making Canton an open port, but by the law of nations. See infra, § 361a. Unless closed by local law, the ports of a friendly nation are considered as open to the public ships of all powers with whom it is at peace, and they are supposed to enter such ports, and to remain in them while allowed to remain, under the protection of the Government of the place. The implied license, under which such vessel enters a friendly port, may reasonably be construed, and, it seems to the court, ought to be construed, as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the sovereign within whose territory she claims the rights of hospitality. The Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch, 116, infra, § 36. The hospitality of the ports of the United States, when a neutral, is extended equally to the vessels of each belligerent, when visiting for |