was urged as a policy of the United States in the earlier days of the republic. Since slavery is now practically abolished by all members of the family of nations, the right of such slaves to refuge and freedom has become the usage. By Article 28 of the general act of the Brussels conference relative to the African slave trade, signed July 2, 1890, and ratified by the United States and most of the civilized states, it is agreed that any slave who may have taken refuge on board a ship of war flying the flag of one of the signatory powers shall be immediately and definitely freed. Such freedom, however, shall not withdraw him from the competent jurisdiction if he has committed a crime or offence at common law.

Before closing this portion of the subject which deals with the conduct and privileges and obligations of the officers and men of a man-of-war in foreign ports, it is well to give an article of the "United States Navy Regulations" upon the subject of their dealings with foreigners when in foreign ports.

The commander-in-chief of a fleet, or in his absence the commanding officer, is directed to "impress upon all officers and men that when in foreign ports it is their duty to avoid all possible causes of offence to the authorities or inhabitants; that due deference must be shown by them to the local laws, customs, ceremonies, and regulations; that in all dealings with foreigners moderation and courtesy should be displayed, and that a feeling of good-will and mutual respect should be cultivated."

"No officer or man can be allowed to violate the jurisdiction on shore by arresting or attempting to arrest a deserter or straggler from his vessel. If any officer or member of the crew while on shore commits an offence against the laws of the country, the local authorities have jurisdiction over such persons while they are on shore and may cause them to be arrested while there and to be tried and punished in accordance with the laws of the foreign state. The commanding officer of the

'Stockton's "Manual," pp. 63–65.

vessel, or the admiral if he should be present, should be at once informed of the arrest and the causes which led to it, so that either he or the diplomatic or consular agents of his government may procure the return of the person accused to his vessel or be enabled to observe the manner of treatment and trial. If the offender, however, escapes to his vessel he cannot be apprehended by the local authorities; but the commanding officer can, if he sees fit, without loss of dignity or prestige, surrender the offender for trial and punishment by the local courts, or the matter can be left to the usual diplomatic channels, as mentioned above.

"It must not be understood, however, that this doctrine of the immunity of a ship of war goes so far as to deprive a state of all power over the acts of a foreign ship of war. Entrance into the harbors of a state may be denied to any ship refusing to respect the local laws; her stay may be limited; she may be ordered to depart, and, if necessary, force may be used to expel her, as in the case of a diplomatic agent or even a sovereign. Such expulsion is provided for in Section 5288 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in which the President is empowered to use for this purpose the land and naval forces of the United States, or the militia thereof."1

"Finally," as Hall says, "the immunities of a vessel of war belong to her as a complete instrument, made up of vessel and crew and intended to be used by the state for specific purposes; the elements of which she is composed are not capable of separate use for those purposes; they consequently are not exempted from the local jurisdiction. If a ship of war is abandoned by her crew she is merely property; if members of her crew go outside the ship or away from her tenders or boats, they are liable in every respect to the territorial jurisdiction. Even the captain is not considered exempt in respect of acts not done in his capacity of agent of the state."2

In 1871 Rear-Admiral Boggs, U. S. N., commanding the 1 F. Snow, ed. by Stockton, p. 24. 2 Hall, 6th ed., p. 196.

European fleet, refused to give up certain persons on board a vessel of his command who were charged by the Italian Government with larceny. Secretary Fish, while observing that any person attached to a foreign man-of-war was liable to arrest on shore for any offence committed there, said: "In the event that a person on board the foreign ship should be charged with a crime, for the commission of which he would be liable to be given up, pursuant to the extradition treaty, the commander of the vessel may give him up if such proof of the charge should be produced as the treaty may require.

"In such case, however, it would always be advisable to consult the nearest minister of the United States. This was done in this instance, and the decision of Mr. Marsh that the persons were not liable to be given up, pursuant to the treaty with Italy, is approved by the department."

"On January 17, 1879, the United States frigate Constitution went ashore on the English coast, having on board at the time a cargo of machinery belonging to individuals and intended for the Paris exhibition. She was pulled off by tugs. The owners of one of them, being dissatisfied with the amount of remuneration offered him, brought an action for salvage and applied for warrants for the arrest of the ship and cargo. The court refused to issue the warrant, Sir Robert Phillimore, who rendered the decision, saying that 'ships of war belonging to a nation with whom this country is at peace are exempt from the civil jurisdiction.""1

"A midshipman of the U. S. S. Mohican, who had gone on shore at the port of St. Louis in Maranham, Brazil, was arrested and taken before the chief of police for having fired five shots from his pistol in the streets of the city at one of his boat's crew, who had attempted to desert. On learning his official and national character the chief of police discharged him, calling his attention to his disregard of the laws of the land and the safety of the people in the streets and warning him

1 Moore's "Digest," vol. II, p. 579.

against a repetition of the offence. The commanding officer of the Mohican requested the United States consul to make a complaint to the governor of Maranham against the chief of police for his expressions. The case was then presented by the consul to the United States minister at Rio, Mr. James Watson Webb, who declined to bring it to the attention of the government of Brazil but referred it to our Department of State. The State Department replied that the act of the midshipman 'in using a pistol at a deserter in a street of Maranham was a breach of the peace, offensive to the dignity of Brazil, which the government of that country may well expect the United States to disallow and censure.""

"Besides men-of-war, other public vessels, such as transports, colliers, auxiliary vessels, surveying vessels, and vessels fitted out for scientific work by the government, are, to the extent that is required by the service of the state owning them, exempt from the local jurisdiction of the port. In the case of the Parlement Belge, a mail packet, the property of the King of Belgium, carrying his pennant and commanded by officers of the Royal Belgian navy, which had been assimilated by a special treaty to a man-of-war, a decision in the matter of collision was given in 1878 by Lord Justice Brett, of the English Court of Appeals, to the effect: That as a consequence of the absolute independence of every sovereign authority and the international comity which induces every sovereign state to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, each and every one declines to exercise by means of its courts any of its territorial jurisdiction over the person of any sovereign or ambassador of any other state, or over the public property of any state which is destined to its public use, or over the property of any ambassador, though such sovereign ambassador or public property be within its territory and therefore, but for the common agreement, subject to its jurisdiction.""2 "In the case of the British steamer Tartar, chartered by the 1 Moore's "Digest," vol. II, p. 590. 2 Scott's "Cases," p. 222.

government of the United States as a transport in its military service, the position was taken by the State Department that while she was so employed she was entitled to be treated in British ports as a troop-ship of a friendly power and, hence, exempt from the local regulations as to the number of passengers which vessels might carry.'

83. Status of Merchant Vessels in Foreign Ports.-Chief Justice Waite, in his decision in the Wildenhus case, says:

"It is part of the law of civilized nations that when a merchant vessel of a country enters the ports of another for the purposes of trade, it subjects itself to the law of the place. to which it goes, unless by treaty or otherwise the two countries have come to some different understanding or agreement; for, as was said by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of the Exchange, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation if such . . . merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country, and the English judges have uniformly recognized the rights of the courts of the country of which the port is part to punish crimes committed by one foreigner on another in a foreign merchant ship.

As the owner has voluntarily taken his vessel for his own private purposes to a place within the dominion of a government other than his own and from which he seeks protection during his stay, he owes that government such allegiance for the time being as is due for the protection to which he becomes entitled.

"From experience, however, it was found long ago that it would be beneficial to commerce if the local government would abstain from interfering with the internal discipline of the ship and the general regulation of the rights and duties of the officers and crew toward the vessel or among themselves. And so by comity it came to be generally understood among civil

1 Moore's "Digest," vol. II, pp. 577-9.