knowing the object, and with intent to further it as a mariner, it ought to be deemed irregular, and ought to be prosecuted and punished; and such doings may properly be interdicted and prevented. However, this is not alleged to have been committed; nor is there reason to believe it will be committed by American citizens, in favor of the British nation.

If a neutral mariner, who renders service in a neutral ship carrying on unlawful and contraband trade with a belligerent power, cannot be punished for so doing, it may be inferred with certainty that such neutral mariner, rendering the like service in an enemy-ship employed in lawful commerce with the neutral country, ought not to be punished, unless the service be rendered in a ship attached to, and making a part of, the hostile armament, with intent to aid the hostility.

The vessels in Virginia which it is said have been lately purchased by British agents, and loaded with provisions, and manned with American seamen, though they are to transport the provisions to the fleet in the West Indies, are not, in consequence thereof, to be considered as attached to, or making a part of, that fleet to which they are to go, so as to make it unlawful for American seamen to navigate them.

I need scarcely to add that this doctrine is to be applied alike to all nations, under similar circumstances; and I believe has been practised during the present war by American seamen, with respect to both France and Great Britain.

CHARLES LEE.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.

Specifications for inventions should be such as to convey to all the world the nature of the in

vention.

PHILADELPHIA, February 10, 1796. SIR: Upon examining the specification of Elisha Perkins, of his method of removing pains and inflammations from the human body by the application of metallic substances, I doubt whether it be so distinct, intelligible, and certain, as it ought to be before a patent is granted. In all cases, the object of the law is to acquire and distribute useful knowledge; which in no case will be obtainable, unless the invention be so explained that other persons besides the author may understand and use it; more especially, when the alleviation of human misery is intended, care should be taken to have a plain and thorough exposition of the art.

Mr. Perkins has not specified in express language

1st. Whether all metals will produce the like effect; and if not, he should describe what sort only will produce it; and how it is to be com posed, if it be a compound of metallic substances.

2d. What shape and size the instrument ought to have, to be most operative; and whether the point ought to be very sharp, and whether it be the better for being the more sharp.

3d. The words, "applying a pointed piece of metal to the part affected, and drawing it across and from the part to some of the muscular," &c., so vaguely describe the manner of using it, that there is danger of misunderstanding the directions; and if misused, the instruments may be very

mischievous. I think it a good general rule, that a thing capable of doing good if judiciously used, may be very pernicious if misapplied. I wish Dr. Perkins to remove these doubts by a more full and particular speci

fication.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

I am, &c.,

CHARLES LEE.

POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE.

The President cannot appoint a commissioner to make a treaty with Indians, for the purpose of extinguishing their title to lands within the United States, without the advice of the Senate.

PHILADELPHIA, May 26, 1796.

THE Attorney General is of opinion that the President alone, and without the advice of the Senate, cannot appoint a commissioner to hold or make a treaty with an Indian tribe, for the purpose of purchasing and extinguishing their title to land within the limits of the United States. The 12th section of the act to regulate trade with the Indians, passed the 19th instant, prohibits every person, who is not employed under the authority of the United States, from negotiating any such treaty or convention, directly or indirectly.

The expression under the authority of the United States cannot mean any other thing than the constitutional authority of the United States, which it is considered cannot be bestowed on any person but by the President, with the advice of the Senate.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

CHARLES LEE.

EXECUTION OF TREATIES..

Commissioners to execute a treaty must all agree to the same, subscribe thei. names, and attach their seals thereto.

ALEXANDRIA, July 23, 1796. SIR: I take the earliest opportunity of acknowledging your letter of the 19th, and of communicating my opinion upon the questions propounded by Mr. Howell.

1st. The authority of the commissioners appointed in pursuance of the 5th article of the treaty with Great Britain cannot be duly and legally executed by a majority of them; but they must all agree in their decisions, which must be signed and sealed by them all.

2d. If the two commissioners appointed on the part of Great Britain and the United States disagree in the choice of the third, each is to propose one person; and of the two names so proposed, one shail be drawn by lot. Neither of the original commissioners has a discretionary power to withhold his nominee, or to refuse to draw by lot for the third commissioner, according to the terms of the article. For either to refuse to per

form this act, would be a breach of the trust and an abuse of the power committed to them.

I am, &c., &c.,

CHARLES LEE,

Attorney General United States.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

REPARATION-REPRISALS.

It is reasonable, as applicable to all nations, to permit a portion of a prize cargo to be sold under the superintendence of the public officers for reparation of the ship: as to France it is within the 19th article of the treaty of 1778.

As to the sailing, the prize-ship should be permitted to sail whenever the captors wish: deception of collector and naval officer affords no ground for detaining it.

PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1796.

SIR: The four questions propounded to you by the minister of the republic of France, in his letter of the 12th October, are severally answered in your letter of the 24th of the same month, agreeably to the opinions I have formed on those subjects.

I will barely observe, relative to one of the questions, which at first sight seems doubtful, that to permit a part of a prize cargo to be sold for the necessary reparation of the prize ship, under the actual superintendence of our public officers, is reasonable in itself, as applicable to all nations; and as to France, seems to be within the provision of the 19th article of our treaty of 1778 with that nation; the benefits of which cannot be, and never were intended to be, impaired by anything in our treaty of 1794 with Great Britain. Therefore, the 24th article of the last mentioned treaty may be considered as inoperative upon this question. But if it were to be considered as operative upon it, I think the article should receive rather a liberal than a literal interpretation; and cases of necessity and distress ought to be deemed out of the meaning and intent of it.

The prize ship should be permitted to sail whenever the captors wish, though their conduct has been illegal, and though the French consul at Charleston has highly misbehaved in holding a court within the United States for condemning the capture as prize, and in causing a sale to be made under his authority. If a deception has been practised with success, on the collector and naval officer, as to the goods, yet this affords no ground for detaining the ship. These officers appear to have acted honestly and honorably in this affair; and if they have been mistaken in believing it their duty to detain the prize-ship, under the particular circumstances which had occurred, until they should receive explicit instructions from the higher authorities, they are not liable to any censure; nor ought the United States to be responsible to the captors for the loss which happened to a part of the goods by the conflagration in Charleston. If the captors had acted legally and fairly, no difference would have taken place between them and the public officers at that city; and they have been fortunate in obtaining an exportation of any of the goods in neutral bottoms, when the captured ship is actually repaired and fitted for sea; which alone would have been authorized to export these goods, if the collector of the customs had been duly and truly informed of the condition of the prize-ship. I am, &c., &c.,

CHARLES LEE.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

TERRITORIAL RIGHTS-FLORIDA.

It is an offence against the laws of nations for any persons, whether citizens or foreigners, to go into the territory of Spain with intent to recover their property by their own strength, or in any manner other than 's laws permit.

For the recovery of their property in Florida, and for redress of injuries done there, our citizens must apply to the tribunals of that province.

If a Spanish subject who has violated the territoria' law of Florida shall be within the United States at the time of demand for him as a subject and fugitive from justice, he ought to be given up for trial and punishment; yet there is no law directing the mode of proceeding. If the commandant of the island of Amelia were arrested in Georgia at the suit of an individual, the United States have no power to interfere; if, however, the suit be a public prosecution in the name of the State of Georgia, or of the United States, it is proper for the Executive to in

terfere.

The treaty with Spain does not extend the jurisdiction of our courts to offences committed in Spain, nor vice versa; and according to the common law, the commandant of the island of Amelia is not liable to any public prosecution before any of our courts for his transactions in Florida.

PHILADELPHIA, January 26, 1797.

SIR: The letter of the minister of Spain, of the 11th of this month, representing a violation of the territorial rights of his Catholic Majesty, by William Jones, and others his associates; and also complaining of the arrest and prosecution of Don Onofre Gutierrez y Rosa, commandant of the island of Amelia, has been, agreeably to your request, duly considered.

It is an offence against the laws of nations for any persons, whether citizens or foreigners, inhabiting within the limits of the United States, to go into the territory of Spain with intent to recover their property by their own strength, or in any other manner than its laws authorize and permit. If William Jones, a Spanish subject, had been apprehended in Florida, as he might lawfully have been, he might have been treated and punished for the transgression as a subject of Spain, according to the laws of that province. So, too, the Americans who joined, aided, and abetted him in the misdemeanor, were amenable to the laws of the province where they committed the offence, and might have been apprehended, tried, and punished there, according to those laws. William Jones, and the Americans who accompanied him, are less excusable when it is recollected that, by the 20th article of the treaty between Spain and the United States, free access to the courts of justice in each nation is stipulated and reciprocally granted to the inhabitants of the other; consequently, to the tribunals in Florida our citizens are bound to apply for recovery of their property that province, as well as for the redress of injuries done them there; and more especially William Jones, a Spanish subject, ought to have applied to them respecting his runaway slaves.

in

The constitution gives to Congress, in express words, the power of pass. ing a law for punishing a violation of territorial rights, it being an offence against the law of nations, and of a nature very serious in its consequences. That the peace of mankind may be preserved, it is the interest as well as the duty of every government to punish with becoming severity all the individuals of the State who commit this offence. Congress has passed no act yet upon the subject, and Jones and his associates are only liable to be prosecuted in our courts at common law for the misdemeanor; and if convicted, to be fined and imprisoned. The common law has adopted the law of nations in its fullest extent, and made it a part of the law of the land.

If a demand were formally made that William Jones, a subject and fugi

tive from justice, or any of our own citizens, heinous offenders within the dominion of Spain, should be delivered to their government for trial and punishment, the United States are in duty bound to comply; yet, having omitted to make a law directing the mode of proceeding, I know not how, according to the present system, a delivery of such offender could be ef fected. To refuse or neglect to comply with such a demand, may, under certain circumstances, afford to the foreign nation just cause for war; who may not be satisfied with the excuse, that we are not able to take and deliver up the offenders to them. This defect appears to me to require a particular law.

It is not distinctly stated by the minister, whether the commandant of the island of Amelia was arrested in Georgia at the suit of an individual prosecuting for himself, or at the suit of the State of Georgia, or of the United States. If the suit be of the first description, the United States have no power to interfere, but the laws are to have their course. Though the commandant went from Florida into Georgia, by the orders of the governor, he remained, according to the laws of nations, liable to be arrested at the suit of an individual; the immunities or privileges such as an ambassador is permitted to enjoy not being attached to him, by reason of that particular function which he was sent to perform. However uncivil the treatment he has received may appear, neither the law of nations, nor any law of the United States, forbids such a functionary from being sued by an individual, even though the suit be without sufficient cause, or otherwise not maintainable. Supposing, in the present case, the action to have been brought by the individual for a tort committed out of the jurisdiction of the United States, in a foreign country, by a foreign officer, under the orders of the sovereign authority: in my opinion, it cannot be sustained. Yet, I do not admit that any right exists in the government of the United States to interpose; and the bail cannot be discharged, but in the ordinary forms, according to the laws of Georgia. But, if the suit be a public prosecution, in the name of the State of Georgia, or of the United States, it is proper for the Executive to interfere;-in the former case, by writing to the governor of that State, requesting him to cause the necessary steps to be taken for dismissing it; or, in the latter, by directing the district attorney of the United States to the same purport.

The 20th article of the treaty is not construed to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to offences committed in Spain, or vice versa; and it is well established, that, according to the doctrine of the common law, the commandant is not liable to any public prosecution before any of our courts for his transactions in Florida.

Though some inconveniences may occasionally occur to foreign officers, such as the commandant of a fort or district, who come into the United States upon public business, unless they are exempt from arrests at the suit of individuals, by some special law to be made for that purpose; yet I am not satisfied that the subject is of so much concern that legal pro. vision of that import ought to be made.

Probably the instances will rarely happen when any inconvenience shall be experienced from the law as it now stands. It might, however, serve to satisfy the minister and his nation, with whom the most sincere friend. ship is desired, if such a law were to be passed, in consequence of the remonstrance he has thought proper to make on this occasion; and in other respects it might be found conducive to an harmonious intercours be