200 



of nations territorial jurisdiotioii can extend only to the distance of 

 cannon sliot fiom tlie sliore. Vattel, B. 7, c. 33, s. 280, 289. A vessel 

 lias a ri^i;ht to hover on the coast. It is no canse of condciiinatioii. It 

 can, at most, justify a seizure for the purpose of obtaining- security that 

 she will not violate the laws of the country. The law which is pro- 

 duced forbids the vessel to enter a port, but does not authorize a seiz- 

 ure upon the open sea. Great Britain, the greatest commercial nation 

 in the world, has extended her revenue laws the whole length of the 

 law of nations, to prevent smuggling. But she authorizes seizures of 

 vessels only within the limits of her ports, or within two leagues of 

 the coast; and then only for tlie purpose of obtaining security". 4 Bac. 

 Abr., 543. Counsel for the insurance company, referring to the rule 

 cited from Vattel, and observing that it had reference only to the 

 rights of a neutral territory in time of war, said: "It is a very indefi- 

 nite rule indeed, even for the purjiose to which it extends, for it makes 

 the extent of a nation's territory depend upon the weight of metal or 

 projectile force of lier cannon. It is a right which must resolve itself 

 into power, and comes to this, that territory extends as far as it can be 

 made to be respected. But this principle does not apply to the right 

 of a nation to cause her revenue and colonial laws to be respected. 

 Here all nations do assume at least a greater extent than cannon shot; 

 and other passages from Vattel show the distinctions which are 

 acknowledged on this i^oiut." 



I have given these extracts from the arguments of counsel to show 

 that the question was distinctly presented whether the seizure of the 

 vessel by the Portuguese autliorities, outside of its territorial waters 

 five leagues from land, was, for that reason merely, illegal under 

 the law of nations. Uiion this question the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, said: 



"That the law of nations prohibits the exercise of any act of authority 

 over a vessel in the situatiou of the Aurora, and that this seizure is, 

 on that account, a mere marine trespass, not within the exception, can- 

 not be admitted. To reason from the extent of protection a nation will 

 afford to foreigners to the extent of the means it may use for its own 

 security does not seem to be perfectly correct. It is opposed by princi- 

 ples which are universally acknowledged. Tlie authority of a nation 

 within its owu territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a 

 vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion 

 of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is its duty to rex>el. But 



