can you please revise. thank you

Question

Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts have established the set of rules defining the law and practice of the United States. In particular, regarding the exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction,in which the United States government sustains jurisdiction over foreign vessels and persons on board of them in territorial water.
For example, in the Wildenhus’s case in which a Belgian native was accused of homicide against another Belgian on board a Belgian vessel anchored in the port of Jersey City (1498). Here, the Supreme Court of the United States sustained the jurisdiction of the lower courts of New Jersey based on the territory sovereign principle under customary law. Although, treaty in place, between the Belgian government and the United States, in which under Article 11 (21 Stat 776) of the treaty provided the Belgian government consuls with “exclusive charge of internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation” and that the State of New Jersey is without jurisdiction. The circuit court refused to deliver the prisoner to the consul ( Smit1498).
However, the United States under the same treaty invoked sections 751 and 753 of the Revised Statutes, in which it gives the power to the United States to issue writ of habeas corpus to determine whether the Belgian man who is in the custody of the U. S. authorities charged with the commission of a crime within the port against the laws of the state, is excused from local jurisdiction under the provisions of a treaty between the United States and Belgium which the vessel belongs (Smit1498).