[8 May 1797. Case of three deserters protected by vice Admiral Vandeput Mr Lee's opinion thereon requested.] War Here 5^th May 1797. Sir, You will see by the inclosed [strikethrough: letters] from Cap^t Blaeburn of the 17^th & 26 of [undecipherable] an D[r] John Hamiltons [strikethrough: his] British Consul at Norfolk that vice Admiral Vandeput has received three soldiers who [strikethrough: deserted from the troops] of the U.S. on board the [undecipherable] resolution and refused to deliver them up to their officers on the ground, that being British subjects he is obliged to afford them the protection which they had claimed — I [strikethrough: [undecipherable]] annex also my answer to Cap. Blaeburn, written to prevent him from attempting reprovals and to have an opportunity to take a more deliberate view of the case. Will you be so obliging as to give me your opinion whether the procedure of vice Adm. Vandeput is so scrupulously justifiable as to preclude the necessity of a formal representation to the British minister. Is the sovereignty of a nation the same as it respects the case in question over its rivers bays & harbours as over its [strikethrough: land] territory? Can a nation do acts which affect the sovereignty of another nation within the [undecipherable] of that nation without its consent evidenced by treaty or otherwise? Is there any thing in our treaty with G.B. to authorize a British ship of war when in our harbours to give protection to British subjects [strikethrough: who had become] [strikethrough: residents] [undecipherable] by [undecipherable] deserting from their engagements [strikethrough: to] having [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [strikethrough: previously] become [undecipherable] subjects of the country. The treaty with G.B. permits the use of our harbours and waters to British ships of war for certain specific purposes; Can they be used for other purposes to the injury of the U.S.? [strikethrough: If] [strikethrough: it is acknowledged that it is] agreeable to custom for one nation to give protection to deserters from another or neighbouring nations in times of peace; but [strikethrough: is it also] [undecipherable] for [undecipherable] — does the same custom render it proper for the nation, losing its [strikethrough: own] subjects to send a force into the nation [strikethrough: who gives] round [strikethrough: protection] them to protect them [strikethrough: from its laws] should they when they may choose to violate their new engagements? Can a ship of war belonging [undecipherable] to a [undecipherable] act within [undecipherable] harbours [undecipherable] a foreign nation [undecipherable] harbours [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] and [undecipherable] a violation of [undecipherable] rights of [undecipherable] [undecipherable] dissent from [undecipherable] engagements with the U.S.? I beg you will return the originals [strikethrough: and] [undecipherable] papers with your opinion. Charles Lee Esq^r. Yours James McHenry