CONDEMNATION OF PRIZE.

A captured vessel must be brought within the jurisdiction of the country to which the captor belongs, before a regular condemnation can be awarded.

DECEMBER 19, 1797.

THE Attorney General has considered the case of the English ship John, as represented in the note of the Secretary of State dated yesterday. If it be a rule established by the laws of nations, (which the Attorney General thinks is the case,) "that a captured vessel must be brought within the jurisdiction of the country to which the captor belongs, before any regular condemnation can be awarded," it must follow that the ship John has not yet been legally divested from the original British owners, who, in case of recapture, on paying salvage will be entitled to restitution; or, in case the ship should be found in any of the British dominions, might recover her in an action of detinue.

The rule before mentioned is designed to prevent piracy and other unjust seizures on the high seas, which it is the interest of all nations to prevent.

As to the United States, they have a right to order the ship out of their territory; and, until regularly condemned, they may refuse to permit her to remain in their ports. Perhaps it will be most prudent to be passive. It need scarcely be added, that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, the ship John ought not to be either bought, or employed for any purposes whatsoever, on account of the United States.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

PATENTS FOR VIRGINIA LANDS.

Patents under the act of June 9th, 1794, for lands in Virginia, cannot be issued until the claimant shall have first complied with the laws of Virginia to which the act refers.

PHILADELPHIA, December 21, 1797. SIR: I have considered the question proposed in your letter of the 16th instant, which I did not receive until the 19th.

The act of June 9th, 1794, provides and requires that patents be issued in those cases where the laws of Virginia have been complied with, and every applicant for a patent must produce "a survey, agreeably to the laws of Virginia," for the tract to which he is entitled, to the Secretary of the Department of War. If a survey be produced, and it be not according to the laws of Virginia, a patent ought not to be granted. Whether a Survey be agreeable to the laws of Virginia, is subject to the decision, in the first instance, of the Secretary of War, as the act requires it to be produced to him,-which must be understood to be for some useful purpose; and this would answer no useful purpose, unless he can investigate and decide that question, and can prevent a patent from issuing in any case where it shall appear to his judgment that there has not been a compliance with the laws of Virginia.

A law was passed in Virginia at the October session, 1783, entitled "An act for surveying the lands given by law to the officers and soldiers on continental and State establishments, and for other purposes," to which I take leave to refer you. This prescribed many things to be done for a

fair appropriation among the claimants of the lands set apart for the mili tary bounties; and particularly how the locations of warrants, in order of priority, were to be made. It is suggested by Gen. Morgan, in his caveat, that the surveys upon which patents are sought by R. C. Anderson, Massey O'Bannion, and W. Lytle, have not been made in conformity with this law, but in a manner injurious to his and other officers' rights; and, therefore, that the emanation of the patents should be stayed until an investigation shall be made into the question whether these surveys have or have not been made agreeably to the laws of Virginia. The informa tion of General Morgan is not on oath; yet it is notice to the Secretary of State of his objection, and may justify him in desiring the Secretary of War to make the proper inquiry, with whom affidavits should be lodged verifying the objections to be made by any credible person acquainted with the truth of thein, before any person authorized to administer an oath. I pretend not to pass any opinion, now, whether the allegations of General Morgan be well or ill founded; they being left open to inquiry and proof before another tribunal.

To answer your question more distinctly, I add, that if the parties applying for patents comply with the act of Congress of the 9th of June, 1794, the issuing of patents ought not to be delayed. But no person can be said to comply with this act of Congress, who has not complied with the laws of Virginia to which it refers, and with which it requires a compliance. General Morgan alleges that there has not been a compliance with the laws of Virginia, and solicits an inquiry into this allegation be fore patents are issued in certain cases, which he describes. The request is, in my opinion, reasonable in itself, and tending to promote justice. I have, &c., &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHARLES LEE.

ACTIONS AGAINST FOREIGNERS.

The President will not interfere with judicial proceedings between an individual and the commissioner of a foreign nation where the controversy may have a legal trial. But a person acting under a commission from the sovereign of a foreign nation is not amenable for what he does in pursuance of his commission, to any judicial tribunal in the United States.

PHILADELPHIA, December 29, 1797.

SIR: I have taken into consideration your letter of the 23d, enclosing the note of his Britannic Majesty's minister, and the copy of Henry Sin clair's memorial, complaining of two suits now depending against him in a court of law at Alexandria.

If the cause of action is fully and truly stated in the memorial, Henry Sinclair, upon a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, ought to prevail before the court; for it is as well settled in the United States as in Great Britain, that a person acting under a commission from the sovereign of a foreign nation is not amenable for what he does in pursuance of his commission, to any judiciary tribunal in the United States.

Though this be so, yet, according to the constitution and laws of the United States, the Executive cannot interpose with the judiciary proceedings between an individual and Henry Sinclair, whose controversy is en

titled to a trial according to law, and to whom it is hoped justice will be impartially and speedily administered.

The principle on which the interference of the President might be thought proper is the same that has been settled in the case of General Collot, and I believe in some other cases; in all of which there has been one and the same opinion against the power of the Executive to interfere. I am, &c., &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHARLES LEE.

TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

Public officers should furnish authenticated documents in their custody when demanded, and d assist in bringing forward testimony according to the duties of their several stations, and individuals should not refuse to give testimony.

PHILADELPHIA, January 3, 1798.

SIR: I have considered with attention the representation bearing date the 16th of December last, made by his Britannic Majesty's minister, of the difficulties which the creditors alluded to in the 6th article of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation have experienced, and are likely to experience, in obtaining proofs necessary to substantiate their claims before the tribunal appointed under the treaty. It was neither known nor imagined by me, before I read the communication of the minister, that clerks or other persons holding offices of record have refused to furnish authenticated copies of documents in their custody, or that individuals would refuse to give testimony against the debtors. I hope instances of this kind have been rare, and will not occur again.

I am persuaded that both the honor and interest of the United States

concur in a speedy and due execution of the 6th article of the treaty, and that it is reasonable and proper to pass a law to enable the claimants to produce regular testimony of the various facts which the treaty requires to be proved. It is expressly stipulated "that the commissioners shall have power to examine all such persons as shall come before them, on oath or affirmation; and also to receive in evidence, according as they may think most consistent with equity and justice, all written depositions, or books, or papers, or copies or extracts thereof; every such deposition, book, or paper, or copy or extract, being duly authenticated, either according to the legal forms now respectively existing in the two countries, or in such other manner as the said commissioners shall see cause to require or allow." This stipulation implies that public officers should furnish copies of papers when demanded, and should assist in bringing forward testimony according to the duties of their several stations; and, also, that individuals should not refuse to give testimony. To aid and facilitate the true operation of this provision, when difficulties occur in the United States, is an obligation of good faith, and I believe will otherwise protoote their interest. It is my opinion, therefore, that a law ought to be passed, with the proper regulations for removing the difficulties complained of, but not exactly as suggested by the British minister,) by enforcing individuals to give testimony, and all public officers to do their duty, to

the end that this article may be carried into full execution according to justice and its true intent.

I have the honor, &c., &c.,

To the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

CHARLES LEE.

EXTRADITION.

A requisition from the British minister is not authorized by the 27th article of the treaty of 1794, unless the persons demanded are charged with murder or forgery committed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain.

PHILADELPHIA, March 14, 1798.

SIR: I have considered the affidavits of William Brigstock, alias John Johnson, and Yellis Mandeville. Neither of these states where the crime of murder or piracy was committed,-whether within the jurisdiction of England or any of the British dominions, or whether on the high seas. I have supposed the latter; and if this be the fact, it is plain that the requisition of the British minister is not authorized by the 27th article of the treaty of 1794, which is confined expressly to persons who are charged with murder or forgery committed within the jurisdiction of either nation, and who seek refuge in the other-meaning their territorial jurisdiction, respectively.

The criminal tribunals in the United States are fully competent to try and punish persons who commit murder on the high seas, or piracy, as may appear from the 8th, 9th, and 10th sections of the act of 30th April, 1790. One of the persons (Brigstock) is a citizen of the United States; and it is not to be reasonably expected that his country will not exercise the right of trying him, as he is already in the hands of its officers of justice. The other two, perhaps, are citizens also, and entitled to the like treatment exactly that Brigstock is. But, supposing them to be foreigners, the stipulation in the 27th article is not applicable to their case; and as they are triable in the courts of the United States, and in the custody of our laws for trial, I deem it more becoming the justice, honor, and dignity of the United States, that the trial should be in our courts.

Suppose it was not the British nation, (whose system of jurisprudence is humane, fair, and just,) but the French, Spanish, or Prussian, that had made the requisition: would it be right to comply with it? I think not; and on a matter of this kind, the same measure should be meted by us to all nations, especially where our own citizens are concerned, and treaties do not require a different rule.

I think the evidence of that kind, that the prisoners should be committed for trial in New Jersey; and it is my sincere wish that, if guilty of the horrid crime of which they are accused, they may be convicted, and may suffer the punishment of our law.

I am, &c., &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHARLES LEE.

TREASON.

tis treason for a citizen or other person, not commissioned within the United States, to abet France during a maritime war with her.

BUCK TAVERN, August 21, 1798.

SIR: Having taken into consideration the acts of the French republic relative to the United States, and the laws of Congress passed at the last session, it is my opinion that there exists not only an actual maritime war between France and the United States, but a maritime war authorized by both nations. Consequently, France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen or any other person within the United States not commissioned under France. But in a French subject, commissioned by France, acting openly according to his commission, such assistance will be hostility. The former may be tried and punished according to our laws; the latter must be treated according to the laws of war.

I have thought it my duty to make this communication in consequence of the information you received from Rhode Island, of the intentions of a Frenchman, whose name I do not now call to mind, who is said to be somewhere in this country, on the business of buying ships and supplies of a military kind, for the West Indies. He should be apprehended and tried as a traitor, unless he has a commission, and acts according to it; in which case he should be treated as an enemy, and confined as a prisoner of war.

I have the honor, &c., &c.,

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHARLES LEE.

PRIZE SHIP AND CREW-HOW TO BE DISPOSED OF.

If the prize be a pirate, the officers and crew are to be prosecuted in the circuit court of the United States without respect to the nation to which each individual may belong.

If it be regularly commissioned as a ship of war, the officers and crew are to be detained as prisoners, except such as are citizens of the United States.

Citizens of the United States who aid a nation with whom we are at war on the high seas, against the United States, are guilty of treason.

Offenders against the United States may be arrested, imprisoned, or bailed, agreeably to the usual mode of process in a State, but can be tried only before the court of the United States having cognizance of the offence.

Proceedings against the ship and cargo are to be had before the district court of the United States, according to the laws of Congress and the usage and practice of courts of admiralty in prize causes.

ALEXANDRIA, September 20, 1798. SIR: I take the liberty of writing to you on an interesting subject, concerning which you will perhaps hear from the Secretary of State.

According to the account given in the Norfolk paper of the 15th, it seems propable that the ship Nigre, prize to the Constitution, will be found to be a pirate. If, after due inquiry, (which you are requested to make, and for that purpose to go to Norfolk,) it shall appear to be the case, the officers and crew, and all others on board having any agency in the ship, are to be prosecuted (witnesses excepted) in the circuit court of the United