TO MR. GENET
Sir,—I have now to acknowledge and answer your letter of September the 13th, wherein you desire that we may define the extent of the line of territorial protection on the coasts of the United States, observing that governments and jurisconsults have different views on this subject.
It is certain that, therefore, they have been much divided in opinion, as to the distance from their sea coast to which they might reasonably claim a right of prohibiting the commitment of hostilities. The greatest distance to which any respectable assent among nations has been at any time given, has been the extent of the human sight, estimated at upwards of twenty miles; and the smallest distance, I believe, claimed by any nation whatever, is the utmost range of a cannon ball, usually stated at one sea league. Some intermediate distance have also been insisted on, and that of three sea leagues has some authority in its favor. The character of our coast, remarkable in considerable parts of it for admitting no vessels of size to pass the shores, would entitle us in reason to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever. Not proposing, however, at this time, and without a respectful and friendly communication with the powers interested in this navigation, to fix on the distance to which we may ultimately insist on the right of protection, the President gives instructions to the officers acting under his authority, to consider those heretofore given them as restrained, for the present, to the distance of one sea league, or three geographical miles, from the sea shore. This distance can admit of no opposition, as it is recognized by treaties between some of the powers with whom we are connected in commerce and navigation, and is as little or less than is claimed by any of them on their own coasts.
Future occasions will be taken to enter into explanations with them, as to the ulterior extent to which we may reasonably carry our jurisdiction. For that of the rivers and bays of the United States, the laws of the several States are understood to have made provision, and they are moreover, as being land-locked, within the body of the United States.
Examining by this rule the case of the British brig Fanny, taken on the 8th of May last, it appears from the evidence that the capture was made four or five miles from the land; and consequently, without the line provisionally adopted by the President, as before mentioned.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.
TO MR. HAMMOND
Sir,—As in cases where vessels are reclaimed by the subjects or citizens of the belligerent powers as having been taken within the jurisdiction of the United States, it becomes necessary to ascertain that fact by testimony taken according to the laws of the United States. The Governors of the several States to whom the application will be made in the first instance, are desired immediately to notify thereof the Attorney's of their respective districts. The Attorney is thereupon instructed to give notice to the principal agent of both parties who may have come in with the prize, and also to the consuls of the nations interested, and to recommend to them to appoint, by mutual consent, arbiters to decide whether the capture was made within the jurisdiction of the United States, as stated to you in my letter of the 8th instant; according to whose award the Governor may proceed to deliver the vessel to the one or the other party. But in case the parties or consuls shall not agree to name arbiters, then the Attorney, or some person substituted by him, is to notify them of the time and place, when and where he will be, in order to take the depositions of such witnesses as they may cause to come before him, which depositions he is to transmit for the information and decision of the President.
It has been thought best to put this business into such a train as that the examination of the fact may take place immediately, and before the witnesses may have again departed from the United States, which would too frequently happen, and especially in the distant States, if it should be deferred until information is sent to the Executive, and a special order awaited to take the depositions.
I take the liberty of requesting that you will be pleased to give such instructions to the consuls of your nation as may facilitate the object of this regulation. I urge it with the more earnestness because as the attorneys of the districts are for the most part engaged in much business of their own, they will rarely be able to attend more than one appointment, and consequently the party who should fail from negligence or other motive to produce his witnesses, at the time and place appointed, might lose the benefit of their testimony altogether. This prompt procedure is the more to be insisted on, as it will enable the President, by an immediate delivery of the vessel and cargo to the party having title, to prevent the injuries consequent on long delay.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant.
TO THE MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY TO GREAT BRITAIN
Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, on the subject of the British ship Rochampton, taken and sent into Baltimore by the French privateer the Industry, an armed schooner of St. Domingo, which is suggested to have augmented her force at Baltimore before the capture. On this circumstance a demand is granted that the prize she has made shall be restored.
Before I proceed to the matters of fact in this case, I will take the liberty of calling your attention to the rules which are to govern it. These are, I. That restitution of prizes has been made by the Executive of the United States only in the two cases, 1st, of capture within their jurisdiction, by armed vessels, originally constituted such without the limits of the United States; or 2d, of capture, either within or without their jurisdiction, by armed vessels, originally constituted such within the limits of the United States, which last have been called proscribed vessels.
II. That all military equipments within the ports of the United States are forbidden to the vessels of the belligerent powers, even where they have been constituted vessels of war before their arrival in our ports; and where such equipments have been made before detection, they are ordered to be suppressed when detected, and the vessel reduced to her original condition. But if they escape detection altogether, depart and make prizes, the Executive has not undertaken to restore the prizes.
With due care, it can scarcely happen that military equipments of any magnitude shall escape discovery. Those which are small may sometimes, perhaps, escape, but to pursue these so far as to decide that the smallest circumstance of military equipment to a vessel in our ports shall invalidate her prizes through all time, would be a measure of incalculable consequences. And since our interference must be governed by some general rule, and between great and small equipments no practicable line of distinction can be drawn, it will be attended with less evil on the whole to rely on the efficacy of the means of prevention, that they will reach with certainty equipments of any magnitude, and the great mass of those of smaller importance also; and if some should in the event, escape all our vigilance, to consider these as of the number of cases which will at times baffle the restraints of the wisest and best-guarded rules which human foresight can devise. And I think we may safely rely that since the regulations which got into a course of execution about the middle of August last, it is scarcely possible that equipments of any importance should escape discovery.
These principles showing that no demand of restitution holds on the ground of a mere military alteration or an augmentation of force, I will consider your letter only as a complaint that the orders of the President prohibiting these, have not had their effect in the case of the Industry, and enquire whether if this be so, it has happened either from neglect or connivance in those charged with the execution of these orders. For this we must resort to facts which shall be taken from the evidence furnished by yourself and the British vice-consul at Baltimore, and from that which shall accompany this