to Marseilles, where, on the application of the consul of the United States, they were received and imprisoned by the local authorities on shore. Six of them were afterwards, on his application, taken from prison and placed on board of the Atalanta for conveyance to the United States, under charge of crime. Then, with notice to the consul, but in spite of his remonstrantes, the local authorities went on board of the Atalanta, forcibly resumed possession of the prisoners, and replaced them in confinement on shore. Mr. Mason, in a note of the 27th of June, 1856, says: 'It is the first instance in which a vessel wearing the flag of the United States, lying in a French port, or a French ship lying in a port of the United States, has, since the date of the treaty, been visited by police officers without the authority of the consul.' (MS. Department of State.) The correspondence between the two Governments having been submitted to the Attorney-General of the United States, he concurred in opinion with the American minister, that the local authority of Marseilles exceeded its lawful power, in substance as well as in form, and that there could be no conflict on the part of France with other powers on account of the nationality of the prisoners, for they were always in the constructive, if not in the actual, custody of the United States. Opinion of Attorneys General, vol. viii, p. 73.” Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, p. 207. ** "The state of international law on the subject of private vessels in foreign ports * may be said to be this: So far as regards acts done at sea before her arrival in port, and acts done on board in port by members of the crew to one another, and so far as regards the general regulation of the rights and duties of those belonging on board, the vessel is exempt from local jurisdiction; but, if the acts done on board affect the peace of the country in whose port she lies, or the persons or property of its subjects, to that extent that state has jurisdic tion. The local authorities have a right to visit all such vessels to ascertain the nature of any alleged occurrence on board. Of course, no exemption is ever claimed for injuries done by the vessel to property or persons in port, or for acts of her company not done on board the vessel, or for their personal contracts or civil obligations or duties relating to persons not of the ship's company." Dana's Wheaton, § 95, note 58. XII. CRIMES ON SUCH VESSELS, HOW FAR SUBJECT TO PORT LAW. § 35a. The sovereign of a port has, by the law of nations, jurisdiction of criminal offenses aboard merchant vessels of such port, which disturb the peace of the port. See Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Roux de Rochelle, Jan. 27, 1831. MSS. An assault committed on board a United States merchant ship in a New Granada port, on a citizen of New Granada, is cognizable by New Granada, and not by the United States. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Paredes, Sept. 27, 1853. MSS. Notes, Colomb. "As to the jurisdiction over offenses committed on board of a merchant vessel by the officers or company of the vessel, towards each other, while in the harbor or waters of a foreign power, there is considerable diversity of opinions. Some nations yield the jurisdiction in such cases, and some assert it. "If the United States claim jurisdiction over all offenses committed on board of foreign private vessels in their harbors or waters, they cannot, with consistency, assert the right to have their citizens exempt from the jurisdiction of the local authorities when they commit similar offenses in foreign ports. "This question of jurisdiction has been under the consideration of the Supreme Court of the United States. The views expressed by that court are those which this Government approves, and is disposed to abide by in its intercourse with foreign nations. "As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a nation is exclusive and absolute within its own territories, of which harbors and littoral waters are as clearly a part as the land. Restrictions may be imposed upon it by treaties and a few have been yielded by common consent, and thus have come to be regarded as rules of international law. "There is nothing in our treaty with Peru which debars her from taking cognizance of such an offense as is imputed to Captain Adams. Our right to withdraw him from her general jurisdiction over offenses committed within her territories must be derived, if we have such a right, from the law of nations." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, Ang. 31, 1855. MSS. Inst., Peru. "We should undoubtedly deny the right of any foreign power to demand the exemption from trial and punishment by our courts, of one of its subjects, who had committed a crime on board of a foreign trading vessel in one of our harbors, though the offense should be one which only affected the officers, crew, or company of that vessel. Circumstances might render it proper to forego the exercise of the right to try such an offender, but still the right would exist, and it would be at our option to yield or enforce the exercise of it. "This being our position towards all nations where treaty stipulations do not interfere, they can hold the same position towards us without our being able to gainsay it." Ibid. "This Government does not apply the doctrine of extraterritoriality to its private or merchant ships in foreign ports, except in cases where it has been conceded by treaty or established usage, and it does not pretend that it has been so conceded in criminal cases to American merchant vessels in British ports. "While each country can unquestionably exercise jurisdiction in its own ports over the private or merchant vessels of the other, it is presumed there is a mutual disposition on both sides not to exert it in a way which will interfere with the proper discipline of the ships of either nation. If every complaint of any individual of the crew of the vessel against the officers for ill-treatment is to be taken up by the civil authorities on shore, and these officers prosecuted as criminals, commercial intercourse will be subjected to very great annoyance and serious detriment." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crampton, Apr. 19, 1856. MSS. Notes, Great "The right of the Italian authorities to search a (merchant) vessel in their ports for a person charged with crime is entire, unless it shall have been surrendered by treaty, which was not the fact in this instance. . Though the deserter did not prove to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the local authorities, as he was arrested by toem at the instance of the British consul, they may have supposed that they were only discharg ing their duty in the matter." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, May 2, 1876. MSS. Inst., Italy. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th instant, in relation to the cases of the captains of the Hungarian merchant vessels Ararat and Mimi P., in which you request, on behalf of your Government, to be put in possession of the views of the Government of the United States on the question of local jurisdiction involved in the case referred to. "I inclose herewith a copy of an opinion of the Attorney-General of the 9th July last, in response to the request I made of that functionary on the 27th of June of the same year, and of which I had the honor to inform Count Lippe-Weissenfeld. "Your contention rests on the eleventh article of the consular convention concluded between the United States and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the 11th July, 1870. The article referred to is in the following words, namely: "Consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents shall have exclusive charge of the internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation. They shall have, therefore, the exclusive power to take cognizance of and to settle all differences which may arise at sea or in port between captains, officers, and crew in reference to wages and the execution of mutual contracts, subject in each case to the laws of their own nation. "The local authorites shall in no way interfere, except in cases where the differences on board ship are of a nature to disturb the peace and public order in port or on shore, or when persons other than the officers and crew of the vessel are parties to the disturbance. Except as aforesaid, the local authorities shall confine themselves to the rendering of forcible assistance if required by the consuls, vice-consuls, or consular agents, and shall cause the arrest, temporary imprisonment, and removal on board his own vessel of every person whose name is found on the muster-rolls or register of the ship or list of the crew. "I find no difficulty in agreeing with your statement, that by the general principles of international law private or merchant vessels entering the ports of another nation than their own are subject to the local jurisdiction; and I also recognize at once the convenience and desirability of the rule you suggest as that adopted by France, and followed by some other nations, that local courts should decline to take jurisdiction of cases involving acts of mere interior discipline of the vessel. Such, indeed, has been the course recommended by the executive branch of this Government to the courts, and it gives me pleasure to be able to add that both the Federal and State courts have as a general rule conformed their proceedings in such cases to that suggestion. These tribunals, however, are bound under the Constitution and laws of the United States to entertain every complaint in which is presented a prima facie case of violation of the local laws, and it consequently becomes necessary in such cases that the judge should hear the evidence before he is able to determine whether the case is one of mere discipline connected with the ship, or whether it is of such a nature as to involve a disturbance of the public order in port or on shore; and bound by the same constitutional and statutory provisions the executive branch of the Government must refrain from all interference with the judicial tribunals in regard to cases or questions that may be pending before such tribunals. No doubt is entertained, however, but that the declarations of the courts will always be had, and their decisions be always rendered with a due regard for the obligations of the Government under its treaty stipulations with foreign powers. "The President, I need scarcely add, will ever deem it his duty to give full effect, in spirit and in letter, to the provisions of the convention of July, 1870, between this Government and that of Austria-Hungary, which you so worthily represent." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Baron Schaeffer, Nov. 13, 1883. MSS. In For. Rel. for 1883, 17 ff, is given a full report of the trial of Com. v. Ferlan, As to treaty, infra, § 141. As to consular jurisdiction, infra, § 125. "A merchant vessel in port is within the jurisdiction of the country owning the port, with reference to offenses committed on shore or by any member of the crew on board, when the peace of the port is disturbed. In the United States police officers have frequently gone on board vessels of foreign nations in harbor and arrested persons accused of crimes under our laws, for whose arrest proper warrants were issued. A case of this kind, with which you perhaps are familiar, was decided by a Philadelphia court about a year ago, which arose from the arrest of the master of an Austrian vessel." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Randall, Mar. 14, 1884. MSS. Dom. Let. "It may be safely affirmed that when a merchant vessel of one coun try visits the ports of another for the purposes of trade, it owes temporary allegiance and is amenable to the jurisdiction of that country, and is subject to the laws which govern the port it visits so long as it remains, unless it is otherwise provided by treaty. "Any exemption or immunity from local jurisdiction must be derived from the consent of that country." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, March 12, 1885. MSS. Inst. Cent. Am. "Generally speaking, the consul in Hayti has jurisdiction of, all disputes on ship board, not affecting the peace of the port, but as this right is not specially conceded by treaty it could only be claimed and exercised by comity, and in the absence of any competent claim of jurisdiction by the local courts, unless indeed the right may spring from Art. XXXIII of said treaty, the most-favored-nation clause." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, July 31, 1885. MSS. Inst., Hayti. The local port authority has jurisdiction of acts committed on board of a foreign merchant ship while in port, provided those acts affect the peace of the port, but not otherwise; and its jurisdiction does not extend to acts internal to the ship, or occurring on the high seas. The local authority has right to enter on board a foreign merchantman in port for the purpose of inquiry universally, but for the purpose of arrest only in matters within its ascertained jurisdiction. 8 Op., 73, Cushing, 1856. (For an account of the cases of the Newton and the Sally, involving the question of the jurisdiction of United States consuls over crimes committed on board United States vessels in French ports, see 1 Phillimore Int. Law (3 ed.), 484.) The circuit courts of the United States have not jurisdiction, under the crimes act of the 30th of April, 1790, of a manslaughter committed on an American vessel in a river within the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. U. S. r. Wiltberger, 5 Wheaton, 76. But see Thomas v. Lane, 2 Sumu., 1, and U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet., 72, cited infra. It was held by the English judges, on a case reserved in 1868, that "The admiralty jurisdiction of England extended over British vessels, not only when they are sailing on the high seas, but also when they are in the rivers of a foreign territory at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go. It was also held that all seamen, whatever their nationality, serving on board British vessels, are amenable to the provisions of British law." R. v. Anderson, L. R., 1 C. C. R., 161. "It is clear," said Bovill, C. J., in the course of his opinion, citing Ortolan, "that with regard to merchant vessels of foreign countries, |