96 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



waters thereof, theretofore within the jurisdiction of the State of 

 New Jersey, are comprehended in the district of Bridgetown; the 

 whole of the State of Delaware, reaching to Cape Henlopen, is made 

 one district. Nay, unless these positions can be maintained, the Bay 

 of Chesapeake, which, in the same law, is so fully assumed to be 

 within the United States, and which, for the length of the Virginia 

 territory, is subject to the process of several counties to any extent, 

 will become a rendezvous to all the world, without any possible con- 

 trol from the United States. Nor will the evil stop here. It will re- 

 quire but another short link in the process of reasoning, to disappro- 

 priate the mouths of some of our most important rivers. If. as Vattel 

 inclines to think in the 294th section of his first book, the Romans 

 were free to appropriate the Mediterranean, merely because they 

 secured, by one single stroke, the immense range of their coast, how 

 much stronger must the vindication of the United States be, should 

 they adopt maxims for prohibiting foreigners from gaining, without 

 permission, access into the heart of their country. 



This inquiry might be enlarged by a minute discussion of the 

 practice of foreign nations, in such circumstances. But I pass it by; 

 because the United States, in the commencement of their career, 

 ought not to be precipitate in declaring their -approbation of any 

 usages, (the precise facts concerning which we may not thoroughly 

 understand) until those usages shall have grown into principles, and 

 are incorporated into the Law of Nations; and because no usage has 

 ever been accepted, which shakes the foregoing principles. 



The conclusion then is, that the Grange has been seized on neutral 

 ground. If this be admitted, the duty arising from the illegal act is 

 restitution. 



EDMUND RANDOLPH. 



May 14, 1793. 



No. 5. 1793, November 8: Letter from Mr. Jefferson (United States 

 Secretary of State) to M. Genet (Minister of France}. 



GERMAN-TOWN. November 5, 1793. 



SIR : I have now to acknowledge and answer your letter of Septem- 

 ber 13, 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, heretofore, they have been much divided in 

 opinion as to the distance from their sea coasts, 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 

 distances haA-e also been insisted on, and that of three sea -leagues has 

 some authority in its favour. The character of our coast, remark- 

 able in considerable parts of it for admitting no vessels of size to pass 

 near the shores, would entitle us. in reason, to as broad a margin 

 of protected navigation, as any nation whatever. Not proposing, 



