that in the case of Henfeild, the jury which tried, absolved him.  But it appeared on the trial, that the crime was not knowingly and wilfully committed; that Henfeild was ignorant of the unlawfulness of his undertaking; that in the moment he was apprized of it, he showed real contrition; that he had rendered meritorious services during the late war, and declared he would live and die an American.  The jury, therefore, in absolving him, did no more than the constitutional authority might have done, had they found him guilty:  the constitution having provided for the pardon of offences in certain cases, and there being no case where it would have been more proper than where no offence was contemplated.  Henfeild, therefore, was still an American citizen, and Mr. Genet’s reclamation of him was as unauthorized as the first enlistment of him.

2.  Another doctrine advanced by Mr. Genet is, that our courts can take no cognizance of questions whether vessels, held by theirs, as prizes, are lawful prizes or not; that this jurisdiction belongs exclusively to their consulates here, which have been lately erected by the National Assembly into complete courts of admiralty.  Let us consider, first, what is the extent of jurisdiction which the consulates of France may rightfully exercise here.  Every nation has of natural right, entirely and exclusively, all the jurisdiction which may be rightfully exercised in the territory it occupies.  If it cedes any portion of that jurisdiction to judges appointed by another nation, the limits of their power must depend on the instrument of cession.  The United States and France have, by their consular convention, given mutually to their Consuls jurisdiction in certain cases especially enumerated.  But that convention gives to neither the power of establishing complete courts of admiralty within the territory of the other, nor even of deciding the particular question of prize, or not prize.  The consulates of France, then, cannot take judicial cognizance of those questions here.  Of this opinion Mr. Genet was, when he wrote his letter of May the 27th, wherein he promises to correct the error of the Consul at Charleston, of whom, in my letter of the 15th instant, I had complained, as arrogating to himself that jurisdiction; though in his subsequent letters he has thought proper to embark in the errors of his Consuls.

But the United States, at the same time, do not pretend any right to try the validity of captures made on the high seas, by France, or any other nation, over its enemies.  These questions belong of common usage to the sovereignty of the captor, and whenever it is necessary to determine them, resort must be had to his courts.  This is the case provided for in the seventeenth article of the treaty, which says, that such prizes shall not be arrested, nor cognizance taken of the validity thereof; a stipulation much insisted on by Mr. Genet and the Consuls, and which we never thought of infringing or questioning.  As the validity of captures then, made on the high seas by France over its enemies, cannot be tried within the United States by their Consuls, so neither can it by our own courts.  Nor is this the question between us, though we have been misled into it.