subject only to such conditions as Spain might reasonably impose for her own security or fiscal accommodation, not amounting to an absolute or virtual prohibition. Questions of this sort, however, are usually adjusted by treaty between all the nations interested in the river.

With respect to the ocean, the general rule is, that it is the common property of all nations, for the purposes of navigation and fishing; and no part of it can ever become the exclusive property of any one nation. It is held, however, that each nation bordering on the ocean may exercise exclusive dominion to the distance of a cannon shot from its own shore, as well for the sake of its own security, as because, to this extent, it may command the neighboring sea by means of its fortifications. And as the distance of a cannon shot would be a vague designation, the modern usage is to substitute a marine league, as the limit of such exclusive control. The rest of the ocean, therefore, is the common highway of all nations; though, as we have seen, each nation there exercises exclusive jurisdiction over its own citizens and their property. Thus far, then, notwithstanding the ancient controversy respecting free navigation, the law of nations is now clear and definite. But with respect to those branches of the sea which come under the name of bays, gulfs, straits, friths, estuaries, arms of the sea, or narrow seas, there is more difficulty. According to the foregoing rule, the criterion would be the distance across from one cape or headland to the other; and if this were less than two leagues, a nation owning both the capes or headlands would have exclusive dominion over the included waters; if otherwise, they would be common like the rest of the occan. Claims have, indeed, been set up to exclusive dominion in some cases where the distance across is much greater; sometimes on the ground of national security, and sometimes of prescription; but in these claims there has been no such general acquiescence as to establish an exception to the limit of a marine league before mentioned.

$250. Diplomatic Rights. (a) The term diplomacy is used to designate the political intercourse carried on between nations, through their recognized agents. Of the ceremony and etiquette which belong to this intercourse, my plan will not permit me to speak. Every nation has a right to send diplomatic agents to every other nation; and the usage is to reciprocate, by sending to each nation one of the same rank as is received from that nation. On extraordinary occasions such agent is denominated an ambassador or envoy, who is charged with the execution of some specific trust. But the ordinary intercourse of nations is conducted by resident agents, called ministers or chargés d'affaires, according to their

(a) In addition to the works on the law of nations, see Diplomacy of the United States, a work in two volumes, comprising an interesting history of our foreign relations. See ante, p. 574. An important act of Congress was approved March 1, 1833, which regulates the duties, compensation, and titles of persons appointed in the diplomatic and consular service. 10 U. S. Stat. at Large, 619.

rank. The mode of designating such agents depends upon the constitution of each nation. In this country, as we have before seen, they are appointed by the president, with the assent of the senate. Every diplomatic agent carries a letter of credence from his government, stating the general object of his mission, and requesting that full faith and credit may be given to his acts. If the object of the mission be special, the requisite powers may be contained either in the letters of credence or in a separate letter. In time of peace, a public minister requires no other protection on his way than a passport from his own government; but during war, he requires, in addition, a passport from the government to which he is sent. If it be necessary to travel through intermediate nations, his public character is respected by them, though not to the extent of absolute inviolability. (a) On arriving at the post of destination, his first duty is to present his credentials, and be formally received in his diplomatic capacity. We have seen that the receiving of foreign ministers is one of the functions devolved. upon our president; but this is nowhere a peremptory duty. Every government exercises its discretion upon the question of receiving or not; and when the nation sending is in a state of civil war, this question is often one of exceeding delicacy; because the reception or rejection is almost sure to give umbrage to one or the other of the contending factions.

During his official residence, a public minister is as completely exempt from the local jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, as if he were not within the territory. This absolute immunity is secured to him, not only because he is the representative of sovereignty, but in order that he may discharge the high duties of his mission without fear. And that he may be as independent of bias from favor as from fear, our constitution forbids an American minister to receive even a present from a foreign government. Nor is the immunity, thus held sacred among all nations, confined to the person of the minister. It also embraces his family, suite, servants, house, and furniture; but in order to secure it to his servants, the usage of nations and our act of Congress require the minister to furnish an official list of them for that purpose. When speaking of offences against the law of nations, we have seen that a violation of the immunity here spoken of is one of the principal. And a similar immunity is secured to messengers sent with despatches to or from foreign legations, providing they carry passports attesting their official character; for the violation of such passports is another offence against the law of nations. It hardly need be added, that while public ministers and their families are thus exempted from foreign jurisdiction, they remain as amenable to the jurisdiction of their own government as if they had continued at home.

After the first formal reception of a minister, all diplomatic

(a) Holbrook v. Henderson, 4 Sandf. 619.

intercourse, saving that of mere ceremony, is conducted through the officer having charge of foreign affairs. Here, this officer is the secretary of state, who transmits the instructions of this government to our ministers abroad, and negotiates with the foreign ministers resident here. It is to be observed that the instructions here spoken of, are for the private guidance of the minister; and the government to which he is sent has no right to demand an exhibition of them. When negotiations upon any subject have been concluded, the result usually takes the form of a treaty; but however ample the powers of the negotiators may be, treaties are not usually regarded as consummated until they have been ratified by the respective governments. To remove all doubt on a question so important, a provision to this effect is usually inserted in the treaty itself; but even if this were omitted, a treaty with this government could not be claimed to be binding until such ratification, because all nations may be presumed to know that our constitution requires such ratification by the senate before a treaty can he recognized by us as the supreme law of the land. After ratification thus made, should legislation be necessary to carry the treaty into effect, we have seen that the national faith is considered as pledged to pass the requisite laws.

A diplomatic mission is usually terminated by a letter of recall. If the minister be recalled because the object of the mission has been accomplished, or for any other reason not affecting the friendly relations of the two governments, the minister presents his letter of recall, and takes a ceremonious leave. In case of misconduct in a minister, the government to which he is sent usually demands his recall, which is of course complied with. But, on the other hand, if a minister be so treated by the government where he is stationed, as, in his opinion, to justify the step, he may assume the responsibility of demanding his passport, and terminate the mission without a recall. In any event, however, be the cause or form of terminating the mission what it may, the minister retains all the privileges of his public character until his return to his own country.

In past times the term diplomacy has had a meaning almost sinister annexed to it, being associated in the mind with every form of cunning, intrigue, stratagem, and overreaching. But the history of our diplomacy bears no such reproach. Thus far the subjects of negotiation between this government and other nations have been chiefly those of commerce and boundary, requiring the exercise of no diplomatic arts, but simply intelligence, firmness, and a sense of justice. It has been our wise and settled policy to keep aloof from those complicated political alliances which have rendered European diplomacy so intricate and embarrassing. And it may be observed generally that the spirit of diplomatic intercourse has been improving. The frequent mediation of friendly powers, when the parties in controversy have been unable to adjust their differences, is one of the most gratifying features in the

history of the times. Sanguine philanthropists have even been encouraged to hope, that, at no distant day, the civilized nations. of the earth may be able to agree upon a permanent tribunal to settle all disputes. This may prove to be a visionary dream; but the very fact that it is cherished at all, is a high compliment to the diplomacy of the age.

§ 251. Commercial Rights. It follows from what has before been said, that every nation has a right to decline all commercial intercourse with other nations in the same manner as an individual may decline all society with his fellow-creatures; but the one would be deemed as blind to its best interests as the other. Nature herself, by assigning different products to different climes, has ordained that nations should interchange them with each other; and, accordingly, except in time of war, no civilized nation adopts the selfish and barbarian policy of consuming only its own products. We have already seen that commerce with foreign nations is one of the great national objects provided for in our constitution; and that a very large proportion of the acts of Congress are commercial regulations. But whence the necessity of so much local regulation? If commerce be a matter of such universal interest, why is it not governed by the universal law? I answer that, to a great extent, this is the case. There are no rules of law so universal in their operation among all nations, as those which form the body of commercial law. But hitherto the doctrines of free trade, however inviting in their theory, have never been adopted in practice. Could they meet the assent of all nations, perhaps a happier condition of the human race would be the consequence. But so long as any one nation chooses to impose restrictions upon commerce, selfdefence will prompt other nations to adopt countervailing regulations; and the result is, that hitherto all nations have exercised the undoubted right of placing their commerce with other nations upon such terms as they deem most conducive to their own interests. Accordingly, in the absence of free trade, the first step towards establishing commercial relations between nations is to have them ascertained by treaty; and the grand principle which runs through all our commercial treaties is that of entire reciprocity. In other words, we grant to each nation the same privileges, and impose upon each the same limitations, which that nation grants to or imposes upon us. And when the outlines of commercial intercourse have thus been defined by treaty, the numberless details are supplied from the vast body of commercial law before referred to.

Much of the next lecture will be occupied with matters growing out of commerce between nations; and in this connection, I shall only advert to certain officers recognized by the law of nations in all commercial affairs. I have already mentioned notaries public, and it is sufficient here to say, that full faith and credit are everywhere given to their acts connected with commerce, from the simple verification of their official seals. But the most important

officers connected with foreign commerce are consuls, who are strictly commercial, and not diplomatic agents. Every nation appoints them to reside in foreign seaports, and watch over the commercial interests of its citizens who traffic there. We have already seen that our consuls are appointed by the president and senate. Before a consul can act in his official capacity, he must present his credentials to the government under which he is to reside, and be formally recognized. In some instances consuls have been invested with judicial power to decide controversies between their own countrymen; but this can only be done by treaty, and is not usual. Nor is it necessary; for a foreign tribunal would act impartially in such cases; or if not, the dispute could be adjourned until their return home. The principal duties of our consuls have been prescribed by Congress, in the acts of 1792 and 1803. In the absence of the master, owner, or consignee, they take charge of the effects of stranded vessels. They receive protests in relation. to all commercial matters where protests are required; and our courts give full faith and credit to their certificates and seals. They provide for our destitute seamen within their consulates, and send them home, if necessary, at the public expense. If our citizens die there, leaving no legal representatives, they administer upon their estates, unless prohibited by the local law. In general, they are admitted to prosecute and defend suits for their countrymen, without any special authority for that purpose. But being merely commercial agents, they have none of the immunities attached to public ministers. (a) They are subject to the jurisdiction of the government where they are stationed, to the same extent as private persons travelling under a safe-conduct or passport. If guilty of misconduct, their recognition as consuls is liable to be withdrawn; and they may either be punished where they are, or sent home for punishment.

§ 252. Belligerent Rights. I have thus far considered the rights of nations at peace. Let us now turn to those that result from war. Here we have one class of rights for those nations actually engaged in war, and thence called belligerent; and another class of rights for those who take no part in the war, and thence called neutral. I shall consider these two classes in the order above named. I have already said that war can only be justified on one of the three grounds of self-defence, retaliation, or redress; all of which ultimately resolve themselves into the one grand principle of self-defence. But theorize as we may, each nation must determine

(a) By the Judiciary Act of 1789, now chap. 12, Revised Statutes, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is exclusive of the courts of the several States in "all suits or proceedings" against consuls or vice-consuls. The defect of jurisdiction of a State court in an action against a consul, may be suggested after the defendant has pleaded to the merits, and may be suggested as error in fact after judg ment against him. Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41, 7 Pet. 276: Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer, 656; Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 576; Manhardt . Soderstrom, 1 Binn. 138; Sartori v. Hamilton, 1 Green (N. J.) 107. Hence a consul cannot be prosecuted for crime in a State court. Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545; contra, State v. De la Foret, 2 N. & M. 217.