But，asIhadbeforecommunicatedtoyousomeloosethoughtsonthatsubject，andhavesinceconsidereditwithsomewhatmoreattention，I
havethoughtitmightnotbeunusefulthatyoushouldpossessmyideasinamorematuredformthanthatinwhichtheywerebeforegiven。Unforeseencircumstancesmayperhapsobligeyoutohazardanopinion，onsomeoccasionorother，onthissubject，anditisbetterthatitshouldnotbeatvariancewithours。Iwritethis，too，myself，thatitmaynotbeconsideredasofficial，butmerelymyindividualopinion，unadvisedbythoseofficialcounsellorswhoseopinionsIdeemmysafestguide，&shouldunquestionablytakeinform，werecircumstancestocallforasolemndecisionofthequestion。
WhenEuropeassumedthegeneralforminwhichitisoccupiedbythenationsnowcomposingit，andturneditsattentiontomaritimecommerce，wefoundamongitsearliestpractices，thatoftakingthegoodsofanenemyfromtheshipofafriend；andthatintothispracticeeverymaritimeStatewentsoonerorlater，asitappearedonthetheatreoftheocean。If，therefore，wearetoconsiderthepracticeofnationsasthesole&sufficientevidenceofthelawofnatureamongnations，weshouldunquestionablyplacethisprincipleamongthoseofnaturallaws。Butit’sinconveniences，astheyaffectedneutralnationspeaceablypursuingtheircommerce，andit’stendencytoembroilthemwiththepowershappeningtobeatwar，andthustoextendtheflamesofwar，inducednationstointroducebyspecialcompacts，fromtimetotime，amoreconvenientrule；that”freeshipsshouldmakefreegoods；”andthislatterprinciplehasbyeverymaritimenationofEuropebeenestablished，toagreaterorlessdegree，init’streatieswithothernations；insomuch，thatallofthemhave，moreorlessfrequently，assentedtoit，asaruleofactioninparticularcases。Indeed，itisnowurged，andIthinkwithgreatappearanceofreason，thatthisisgenuineprincipledictatedbynationalmorality；&thatthefirstpracticearosefromaccident，andtheparticularconvenienceoftheStateswhichfirstfiguredonthewater，ratherthanfromwell-digestedreflectionsontherelationsoffriendandenemy，ontherightsofterritorialjurisdiction，&onthedictatesofmorallawappliedtothese。Thusithadneverbeensupposedlawful，intheterritoryofafriendtoseizethegoodsofanenemy。Onanelementwhichnaturehasnotsubjectedtothejurisdictionofanyparticularnation，buthasmadecommontoallforthepurposestowhichitisfitted，itwouldseemthattheparticularportionofitwhichhappenstobeoccupiedbythevesselofanynation，inthecourseofit’svoyage，isforthemoment，theexclusivepropertyofthat，andnation，withthevessel，isexemptfromintrusionbyanyother，&fromit’sjurisdiction，asmuchasifitwerelyingintheharborofit’ssovereign。Innocountry，webelieve，istheruleotherwise，astothesubjectsofpropertycommontoall。Thustheplaceoccupiedbyanindividualinahighway，achurch，atheatre，orotherpublicassembly，cannotbeintrudedon，whileit’soccupantholdsitforthepurposesofit’sinstitution。Thepersonsonboardavesseltraversingtheocean，carrywiththemthelawsoftheirnation，haveamongthemselvesajurisdiction，apolice，notestablishedbytheirindividualwill，butbytheauthorityoftheirnation，ofwhoseterritorytheirvesselstillseemstocomposeapart，solongasitdoesnotentertheexclusiveterritoryofanother。Nonationeverpretendedarighttogovernbytheirlawstheshipofanothernationnavigatingtheocean。
Bywhatlawthencanitenterthatshipwhileinpeaceable&orderlyuseofthecommonelement?Werecognizenonaturalpreceptforsubmissiontosucharight；&perceivenodistinctionbetweenthemovable&immovablejurisdictionofafriend，whichwouldauthorizetheenteringtheone¬theother，toseizethepropertyofanenemy。
Itmaybeobjectedthatthisprovestoomuch，asitprovesyoucannotentertheshipofafriendtosearchforcontrabandofwar。