been supposed lawful, in the territory of a friend to seize the goods of an enemy.  On an element which nature has not subjected to the jurisdiction of any particular nation, but has made common to all for the purposes to which it is fitted, it would seem that the particular portion of it which happens to be occupied by the vessel of any nation, in the course of its voyage, is, for the moment, the exclusive property of that nation, and, with the vessel, is exempt from intrusion by any other, and from its jurisdiction, as much as if it were lying in the harbor of its sovereign.  In no country, we believe, is the rule otherwise, as to the subjects of property common to all.  Thus the place occupied by an individual in a highway, a church, a theatre, or other public assembly, cannot be intruded on, while its occupant holds it for the purposes of its institution.  The persons on board a vessel traversing the ocean, carrying with them the laws of their nation, have among themselves a jurisdiction, a police, not established by their individual will, but by the authority of their nation, of whose territory their vessel still seems to compose a part, so long as it does not enter the exclusive territory of another.  No nation ever pretended a right to govern by their laws the ships of another nation navigating the ocean.  By what law then can it enter that ship while in peaceable and orderly use of the common element?  We recognise no natural precept for submission to such a right; and perceive no distinction between the movable and immovable jurisdiction of a friend, which would authorize the entering the one and not the other, to seize the property of an enemy.

It may be objected that this proves too much, as it proves you cannot enter the ship of a friend to search for contraband of war.  But this is not proving too much.  We believe the practice of seizing what is called contraband of war, is an abusive practice, not founded in natural right.  War between two nations cannot diminish the rights of the rest of the world remaining at peace.  The doctrine that the rights of nations remaining quietly in the exercise of moral and social duties, are to give way to the convenience of those who prefer plundering and murdering one another, is a monstrous doctrine; and ought to yield to the more rational law, that ’the wrong which two nations endeavor to inflict on each other, must not infringe on the rights or conveniences of those remaining at peace.’  And what is contraband, by the law of nature?  Either every thing which may aid or comfort an enemy, or nothing.  Either all commerce which would accommodate him is unlawful, or none is.  The difference between articles of one or another description, is a difference in degree only.  No line between them can be drawn.  Either all intercourse must cease between neutrals and belligerents, or all be permitted.  Can the world hesitate to say which shall be the rule?  Shall two nations turning tigers, break up in one instant the peaceable relations of the whole world?  Reason and nature clearly pronounce that the neutral is to go on in the enjoyment of all its rights, that its commerce remains free, not subject to the jurisdiction of another, nor consequently its vessels to search, or to inquiries whether their contents are the property of an enemy, or are of those which have been called contraband of war.