use of English convoy. A number of vessels from the United States, bound to Russia, had placed themselves under English protection, and on their return, were seized and condemned in Denmark, not for resistance to search, nor for the character of their traffic, but for violating an ordinance to them unknown. The arguments of our negotiator setting forth the injustice of this proceeding, are given at large in Dr. Wheaton's Elements (IV. 3, § 32, 556-566), and Mr. Manning has expressed a brief opinion on the contrary side, in favor of the Danish rule. (III. 11, p. 369.) The ships appear to have been engaged in an innocent trade, and to have dreaded the treatment they might meet with from French cruisers, but not to have sought to avoid the allies of the French, the Danes. The case was a peculiarly hard one, when they were condemned; and this Denmark admitted in 1830, by paying an indemnity to our government for the sufferers. As for the principle on which the case is to be decided, it seems to run between making use of the enemy's flag, and putting one's goods on board an armed enemy's vessel. The former is done to enjoy certain privileges, offered by a party at war, which could not otherwise be secured; the latter may be done without complicity with the intentions or conduct of the captain of the armed ship, or may be done with the design of having two strings to one's bow,— of availing one's-self of force or not, as circumstances shall require. Upon the whole, the intention to screen the vessels behind the enemy's guns, is so obvious, that the act inust be pronounced to be a decided departure from the line of neutrality, and one which may justly entail confiscation on the offending party. $194. Search during It is admitted by all, that within the waters which may be calied the territory of nations, as within a marine league, or in creeks and bays, the vessel of a peace to execute friendly state may be boarded and searched on suspicion of being engaged in unlawful commerce, or of violat ing the laws concerning revenue. But further than this, on revenue laws. account of the ease with which a criminal may escape beyond the proper sea-line of a country, it is allowable to chase such a vessel into the high sea, and then execute the arrest and search which flight had prevented before. Furthermore, suspicion of offences against the laws taking their commencement in the neighboring waters beyond the sea-line, will authorize the detention and examination of the supposed criminal. An English statute "prohibits foreign goods to be transhipped within four leagues of the coast without payment of duties; and the act of congress of March 20, 1799, contained the same prohibition; and the exercise of jurisdiction to that distance, for the safety and protection of the revenue laws, was declared by the supreme court in Church v. Hubbard (2 Cranch, 187), to be conformable to the laws and usages of nations." (Kent, I. 31, Lect. II.) Search on suspicion of piracy. $195. That kind of right of search, which we have just considered, is an accident of sovereignty in a state of peace, but is confined in its exercise to a small range of the sea. The right of search on suspicion of piracy, however, is a war-right, and may be exercised by public vessels anywhere except in the waters of another state, because pirates are enemies of the human race, at war with all mankind. The supreme court of the United States has decided that ships of war acting under the authority of government to arrest pirates and other public offenders, may "approach any vessels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real character."* And thus even public vessels, suspected of piracy, may be called to account upon the ocean. Whether the detention of a vessel unjustly suspected of piracy may not be a ground for a claim of damages may be made a question. *Case of the Marianna Flora, 11 Wheaton, 43. $196. of being slavers As the slave-trade is not as yet piracy by the law of nations. but only by the municipal and conventional law Search of foreign of certain nations (§ 138), no state can authorize vessels suspected its cruisers to detain and visit vessels of other states unauthorized, on suspicion of their being concerned in this traffic, because the right of detention and visit is a war-right. Every state may, to carry out its laws and the laws of humanity, detain and search its own vessels in peace also, but if, in so doing, mistakes are committed, the commander of the searching vessel is responsible, and damages may be demanded. $197. Such right, however, of reciprocal detention and visitation upon suspicion of being engaged in the slavetrade has been conceded by a considerable number but conceded by of treaties between the principal powers of Europe. ons of Europe, Previous to the downfall of Bonaparte there had treaties between been a falling off of the traffic in slaves; for Great Britain, who had prohibited her own citizens from the traffic, prevented also her enemies from engaging in it by her command of the seas; it had, moreover, long been forbidden under heavy penalties by the United States; and there were then on this side of the water few motives for engaging in so dangerous an employment. At the peace, although the sentiment of Europe was expressed against the slave-trade, the nations most interested in resuming it, France, Spain and Portugal, refused to give it up at once, alleging that their colonies needed to be replenished with slave-laborers, while those of England were fully stocked. The first concession of the right of search is to be found in the treaty between Portugal and Eng- as England and land made July 28, 1817,-which, however, re- Portugal in 1817. lated only to the trade north of the equator; for the slave-trade of Portugal within the regions of western Africa, to the south of the equator, continued long after this to be carried on with great vigor. By this treaty, ships of war of each of the nations Treaty of Madrid, 1817. Other treaties in 1818, 1824. might visit merchant vessels of both, if suspected of having slaves on board, acquired by illicit traffic. By the treaty of Madrid, of the same year, Great Britain obtained from Spain, for the sum of four hundred thousand pounds, the immediate abolition of the trade, north of the equator, its entire abolition after 1820, and the concession of the same mutual right of search, which the treaty with Portugal had just established. The precedent was followed by a treaty of Great Britain with the Netherlands, in 1818, which also contemplated the establishment of a mixed commission to decide upon the cases of vessels seized on suspicion of slave-trading. Stipulations somewhat similar were made between Sweden and Great Britain in 1824. In 1831 and 1833, conventions between France and Great Britain included one more power in arrangements 1831, 1833, between for mutual search. But the right of search was only admissible on the western coast of Africa from Cape Verd (15° North Lat.) to the tenth degree of south latitude, and to the thirteenth degree of west longitude from the meridian of Paris, and also around Madagascar, Cuba, and Porto Rico, as well as on the coast of Brazil to the distance into the sea of twenty leagues. It was agreed, however, that suspected vessels, escaping beyond this range of twenty leagues, might be detained and visited if kept in sight. As to steps subsequent to capture no mixed commission was allowed, but the captured vessel was to be tried in the country to whose jurisdiction it belonged, and by its courts. Conventions in France and G. Britain. Quintuple treaty of 1841. By the quintuple treaty of December 20, 1841, to which Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France, were parties, all these powers, excepting the latter, conceded to one another the mutual right of search within very wide zones of ocean between Africa and America, and on the eastern side of Africa across the Indian ocean. France, however, owing to popular clamor, and the dislike entertained by almost the entire chamber of deputies toward the right of search, withheld her ratification and adhered to her arrangements of 1831 and 1833, above spoken of, until the do,-but France, in 1845, withdraws her consent to a righ year 1845. In that year she withdrew her consent to the inutual right of search altogether, as the terms of the conventions allowed her to do, but stipulated to cooperate with Great Britain in suppress- of search. ing the slave-trade by sending a squadron to the coast of Africa. Each power engaged to keep twenty-six vessels on the coast for this service, at first, but the number on the part of France was afterward to be reduced to one half. This is believed to be the existing arrangement. $198. The treaty of Ghent, which terminated the war between the United States and Great Britain on the 24th Obligations of the gard to the slave of December, 1814, contains the following article: "Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable trade. with the principles of humanity and justice; and whereas both His Britannic Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object." The act passed by Congress in 1818, which increased the penalties hanging over this traffic and extended their application; that of 1819, which authorized the sending of armed vessels to the coast of Africa, and the confiscation of slave-trading ships belonging to citizens or foreign residents, together with the effects on board; and the act of 1820, by which the slave-trade, wherever carried on, was declared to be piracy both for all persons on American craft so employed, and for American citizens serving on board vessels of any nationality, these severa' acts show that the United States were sincerely endeavoring to accomplish so desirable an object " as the entire abolition of this infamous traffic. But the trade continued notwithstanding such legislation, and it would appear that vessels and crews from the United States were concerned in it, acting in the interest of Cubans, but especially of Portuguese in Brazil. The British govern ment, therefore, from time to time, urged on that of the United |