nations admits or establishes as within jurisdic tional limits—a marine league being the distance usually so considered.

gal made with

isdiction.

It follows, therefore, that if captures are made by Captures illebelligerent parties anywhere within such neutral in neutral jurjurisdiction, they are illegal and void, and restitution of the captured property must be ordered on behalf of the owner or claimant. This doctrine is asserted by all the great writers upon the law of nations, with but one exception, that of Bynkershoek, who, while admitting the general validity of the rule. of immunity, contends that an exception or qualification exists in the case of a vessel that has been chased by a cruiser within neutral jurisdiction, and has been captured there dum fervet opus, if such capture can be made without injury to the neutral power. But this exception seems never to have been recognized or acted upon; on the contrary, the immunity has been uniformly held to be absolute, without any exception whatever.1

So vigorous, indeed, has been the enforcement of this rule, that prizes made by vessels cruising off and on or near a neutral port, have been ordered to be restored by the British courts of admiralty; and many neutral states have adopted regulations whereby a belligerent vessel is not allowed to leave their ports within twenty-four hours after the departure of another belligerent vessel from the same port.

But though captures may not be made within Neutral states neutral jurisdiction, yet, being made outside, and release cep

1

Bynkershoek, Qu. Jur. Pub., Lib. I., c. viii.; vide Jefferson Correspondence, vol. III., page 243 et seq.

no power to

into their

gerents.

tures brought brought into neutral ports, no power of restitution ports by belli. or release exists on the part of the neutral, except where some treaty intervenes, or the capture has been made in violation of its own neutrality laws and regulations.

Formerly captors were not allowed to carry their prizes into neutral ports; now, however, the custom and practice of nations is altogether otherwise, and it is the invariable opinion, even of such as are most jealous of neutral rights and privileges, that a neutral state has no power to interfere with prizes brought into her ports, with the exception specified.

In a great number of instances, however, treaty stipulations have intervened, and changed the rule of non-interference.

As early as the year 1406 such a treaty was made between Henry IV. and the Duke of Bur gundy.

The United States government has a treaty stip ulation, modifying the rule of non-interference, so far only as to prohibit the sale of prizes taken by belligerents at war with either party in their ports, with France, in 1778; and again in 1800, a treaty between the United States and the United Prov inces, made in 1782, allows to each party the right to sell any prizes brought by it into the ports of the other.

No treaty stipulation upon the subject exists be tween the United States and Great Britain.

THE CASE OF THE "TRENT."

SINCE the publication of the first edition of this work, a case of historic interest and importance has arisen, growing out of the civil war in the United States, connected with the subject of the foregoing chapter, which demands something more than a cursory notice, for it involves a virtual abandonment by Great Britain, of certain belligerent rights, as against neutral commerce, always theretofore pertinaciously asserted and maintained by that nation, and the consequent vindication of the position hitherto assumed by the United States government, in the negation of such asserted rights.

On the 8th of November, 1861, the United States war steamer San Jacinto overhauled the British merchant steamer Trent, in the Bahama Channel, pursuing a voyage from Havana to Southampton, England, via St. Thomas. In the legitimate exercise of the belligerent right of search, the merchant steamer was brought to, and upon being boarded, a demand was made for the exhibition of her papers and passenger list, to the boarding officers. This demand was resisted, and it became necessary to resort to force to accomplish the search.

On board the vessel were found two persons, named Mason and Slidell, with their clerks or secretaries. These two persons were citizens of the United States-for many years they had been senators in the Congress of the nation, and had been pampered with places of honor, and trust, and power, and emolument, in their country's service. They had become conspirators, rebels, and traitors against that country to which they owed so deep a

debt of love, and honor, and gratitude. They were leaders in that vile revolt, whose gigantic enormity of wickedness finds no parallel in the world's history.

Availing of the fit opportunity of darkness and storm, they had evaded the blockade of the port of Charleston, and were on their way, in the capacity of ambassadors, armed with dispatches from their insurgent chiefs, the one to England, and the other to France, and clothed with the mission of enlisting the sympathy and aid of those nations, in their unholy effort. to extinguish republican liberty in the United States.

The character of these persons, the nature of their mission, and their clandestine departure from their country, were well known to the master and all on board the merchant vessel, who had aided in their escape, and endeavored to conceal their persons The commander of the San Jacinto, notwithstanding their protest and resistance, caused these persons, with their secretaries, to be removed from the Trent, and taken on board his ship, in which they were conveyed to the United States, where, upon their arrival, they were confined as prisoners of state.

In his report of their capture, addressed to the secretary of the navy of the United States, on the 15th of the month, he says: "It was my determination to have taken possession of the Trent, and sent her to Key West as a prize, for resisting the search, and carrying these passengers, whose character and objects were well known to the captain; but the reduced number of my officers and crew, and the large number of passengers on board, bound to Europe, who would be put to great inconvenience, decided me to allow them to proceed."

There can be no doubt that, had he pursued his first intent, by the law of nations, as well estab lished, both in Great Britain and the United States,1 the vessel must have been condemned as lawful prize, by reason of her resistance to the search of the belligerent cruiser—and, guided alone by that law as laid down by the courts of England, her condemnation would have been quite as certain, by reason of her voluntary employment in the carrying of these rebel emissaries and their dispatches.

In the light of subsequent events, however, it may well be doubted, whether that law would have been allowed its legitimate operation, without the armed protest of that power in whose jurisprudence it was established, and whose flag had been desecrated by the infamous service in which the vessel had been employed.

แ

The secretary of the navy of the United States, in a brief note, addressed to the commander of the San Jacinto, on the 30th of November following, congratulated him "on the great public service he had rendered in the capture of the rebel commissioners," and while refraining from the expression of an opinion on the course pursued in omitting to capture the vessel which had these public enemies on board," nevertheless declares "that the forbearance exercised in this instance, must not be permit ted to constitute a precedent hereafter, for infrac tions of neutral obligations."

Immediately after information of the arrest of these malefactors was received at Washington, the secretary of state addressed a brief note to the

1 The Maria,, 1 Rob., 368. The Antelope, 10 Wheat., 119.