from ambassadors, (which is the highest grade,) down to common resident ministers, whose rank, and diplomatic precedence, and authority, are well known, and well ascertained, in the law and usages of nations. But whatever may be their relative rank and grade, public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns, As such representatives, they owe no subjection to any laws, but those of their own country, any more than their sovereign; and their actions are not generally deemed subject to the control of the private law of that State, wherein they are appointed to reside. He, that is subject to the coercion of laws, is necessarily dependent on that power, by whom those laws were made. But public ministers ought, in order to perform their duties to their own sovereign, to be independent of every power, except that by which they are sent; and, of consequence, ought not to be subject to the mere municipal law of that nation, wherein they are to exercise their functions. The rights, the powers, the duties, and the privileges, of public ministers, are, therefore, to be determined, not by any municipal constitutions, but by the law of nature and nations, which is equally obligatory upon all sovereigns, and all states. What these rights, powers, duties, and privileges are, are inquiries properly belonging to a treatise on the law of nations, and need not be discussed here. But it is obvious, that every question, in which these rights, powers, duties, and privileges are involved, is so intimately connected with the public peace, and policy, and diplomacy, of the nation, and touches the dignity and interest of the sovereigns of the ministers concerned so deeply, that it would be unsafe, that they should be submitted to any other, than the highest judicature of the nation.

§ 322. Consuls, indeed, have not in strictness a diplomatic character. They are deemed to be mere commercial agents and, therefore, partake of the ordinary character of such agents; and are subject to the municipal laws of the countries, where they reside. Yet, as they are the public agents of the nation, to which they belong, and are often entrusted with the performance of very deli

cate functions of state, and as they might be greatly embarrassed by being subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of inferior tribunals, State and National, it was thought highly expedient to extend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to them also. The propriety of vesting jurisdiction, in such cases, in some of the National courts, seems hardly to have been questioned by the most zealous opponents of the Constitution. And in cases against ambassadors, and other foreign ministers, and consuls, the jurisdiction has been deemed exclusive.

323. The next clause extends the judicial power "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." § 324. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, (and the word, "maritime," was doubtless added to guard against any narrow interpretation of the preceding word, "admiralty,") conferred by the Constitution, embraces two great classes of cases; one dependent upon locality, and the other upon the nature of the contract. The first, respects acts, or injuries, done upon the high sea, where all nations claim a common right and common jurisdiction; or acts, or injuries, done upon the coast of the sea; or, at farthest, acts and injuries done within the ebb and flow of the tide. The second, respects contracts, claims, and services purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. The former is again divisible into two great branches, one embracing captures, and questions of prize arising by the rights of war; the other embracing acts, torts, and injuries, strictly of civil cognizance, independent of belligerent operations.

§ 325. By the law of nations, the cognizance of all captures, jure belli, or, as it is more familiarly phrased, of all questions of prize, and their incidents, belongs exclusively to the courts of the country, to which the captors belong, and from whom they derive their authority to make the capture. No neutral nation has any right to inquire into, or to decide upon, the validity of such capture, even though it should concern property belonging to its own citizens or subjects, unless its own sovereign or territorial rights are violated; but the sole and exclu

ligerent. And this jurisdiction, by the common consent of nations, is vested exclusively in courts of admiralty, possessing an original, or appellate jurisdiction. The courts of common law are bound to abstain from any decision of questions of this sort, whether they arise directly or indirectly in judgement. The remedy for illegal acts of capture is, by the institution of proper prize proceedings in the prize courts of the captors. If justice be there denied, the nation itself becomes responsible to the parties aggrieved; and if every remedy is refused, it then becomes a subject for the consideration of the nation, to which the parties aggrieved belong, which may vindicate their rights, either by a peaceful appeal to negotiation, or by a resort to arms.

§ 326. It is obvious, upon the slightest consideration, that the cognizance of all questions of prize, made under the authority of the United States, ought to belong exclusively to the National courts. How, otherwise, can the legality of the captures be satisfactorily ascertained, or deliberately vindicated? It seems not only a natural, but a necessary, appendage to the power of war, and of negotiation with foreign nations. It would otherwise follow, that the peace of the whole nation might be put at hazard, at any time, by the misconduct of one of its members. It could neither restore, upon an illegal capture; nor, in many cases, afford any adequate redress for the wrong; nor punish the aggressor. It would be powerless and palsied. It could not perform, or compel the performance, of the duties required by the law of nations. It would be a sovereign, without any solid attribute of sovereignty; and move in chains, only to betray its own imbecility. Even under the Confederation, the power to decide upon questions of capture and prize was exclusively conferred, in the last resort, upon the National court of appeals. But, like all other powers conferred by that instrument, it was totally disregarded, wherever it interfered with State policy, or with extensive popular interests. We have seen, that the sentences of the National prize court of appeals were treated as mere nullities; and were incapable of being enforced, until after the establishment of the

ducts us to the conclusion, that the National courts ought to have jurisdiction of this class of admiralty cases, conducts us equally to the conclusion, that, to be effectual for the administration of international justice, it ought to be exclusive. And, accordingly, it has been constantly held, that this jurisdiction is exclusive in the courts of the United States.

§ 327. The other branch of admiralty jurisdiction, dependent upon locality, respects civil acts, torts, and injuries done on the sea, or, in certain cases, on waters of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, without any claim of exercising the rights of war. Such are cases of assaults, and other personal injuries; cases of collision, or running of ships against each other; cases of spoliation and damage, (as they are technically called,) such as illegal seizures, or depredations upon property; cases of illegal dispossession, or withholding possession from the owners of ships, commonly called possessory suits; cases of seizures under municipal authority for supposed breaches of revenue, or other prohibitory laws; and cases of salvage for meritorious services performed, in saving property, whether derelict, or wrecked, or captured, or otherwise in imminent hazard from extraordinary perils.

§ 328. It is obvious, that this class of cases has, or may have, an intimate relation to the rights and duties of foreigners, in navigation and maritime commerce. It may materially affect our intercourse with foreign states; and may raise many questions of international law, not merely touching private claims, but national sovereignty, and national reciprocity. Thus, for instance, if a collision should take place at sea between an American and a foreign ship, many important questions of public law might be connected with its just decision; for it is obvious, that it could not be governed by the mere municipal law of either country. So, if a case of recapture, or other salvage service, performed to a foreign ship, should occur, it must be decided by the general principles of maritime law, and the doctrines of national reciprocity. Where a recapture is made of a friendly ship from the hands of its

1

it upon salvage, if the foreign country, to which it belongs, adopts a reciprocal rule; or to condemn it to the recaptors, if the like rule is adopted in the foreign country. And, in other cases of salvage, the doctrines of international and maritime law come into full activity, rather than those of any mere municipal code. There is, therefore, a peculiar fitness in appropriating this class of cases to the National tribunals; since they will be more likely to be there decided upon large and comprehensive principles, and to receive a more uniform adjudication; and thus to become more satisfactory to foreigners.

§ 329. The remaining class respects contracts, claims, and services purely maritime. Among these, are the claims of material-men and others, for repairs and outfits of ships belonging to foreign nations, or to other States; bottomry bonds, for moneys lent on ships in foreign ports, to relieve their distresses, and enable them to complete their voyages; surveys of vessels damaged by perils of the seas; pilotage on the high seas; and suits for mariners' wages. These, indeed, often arise in the course of the commerce and navigation of the United States; and seem emphatically to belong, as incidents, to the power to regulate commerce. But they may also affect the commerce and navigation of foreign nations. Repairs may be done, and supplies be furnished, to foreign ships; money may be lent on foreign bottoms; pilotage and mariners' wages may become due in voyages in foreign employment; and in such cases, the general maritime law enables the courts of admiralty to administer a wholesome and prompt justice. Indeed, in many of these cases, as the courts of admiralty entertain suits in rem, (that is, upon the thing,) as well as in personam, (that is, upon the person,) they are often the only courts, in which an effectual redress can be afforded, especially when it is desirable to enforce a specific maritime lien, or claim, in the nature of a pledge.

§ 330. So that we see, that the admiralty jurisdiction naturally connects itself, on the one hand, with our diplomatic relations and duties to foreign nations, and their subjects; and, on the other hand, with the great interests