Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

75. An illegal act committed in the former part of a circui. Prize. tous voyage is good of condemnation.—id. ib.

76. A capture as prize of war may lawfully be made within the territorial lim.ts of the United States at any place below low water-mark.-id. ib

77. Timber floated into a salt water creek, where the tide ebbs and flows, leaving the ends of the timber resting on the mud at low water, and prevented by booms from floating away at high water, and so found at the commencement of the war, is to be considered as landed, and not subject to condemnation as prize of war.-Brown v. U. S-3 Cranch, 110 Sup Court U. S. 1815.

id.

id.

Confiscation.

78. If a vessel be captured by a superior force, and a prize- Prize. master and small force be put on board, it is not the duty of the master and crew of the captured vessel to attempt to res- Rescue. cue her; for they may thereby expose the vessel to condeinnation, although otherwise innocent: The Short Staple-9 Cranch 55. Sup. Court U. S 1815.

79. If a merchant vessel of the United States be seized by Territorial jurisdiction. the naval force of the United States within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign friendly power, for a violation of the laws of the United States. it is an offence against that power, which must be adjusted between the two governments. This court can take no cognizance of it; nor does the law connect that trespass with the subsequent seizure by the civil authority under the process of the district-courts, so as to annul the proceedings of that court against the vessel.-The ship Richmond-9 Cranch, 102. Sup. Court U S. 1815.

80. If, upon the breaking out of a war with this country, Prize. our citizens have a right to withdraw their property from the Withdrawing enemy's country, it must be done within a reasonable time. Eleven months after the declaration of war is too late -The

St. Lawrence-9. Cranch, 120. Sup. Court U. S. 1815.

funds.

81. Where an American consignee of two cargoes has an Prize. option to take or reject both, within 24 hours after their arrival, and he accept one, and says he will consider as to the other, the shipper may either cast the whole upon the American consignee, or resume the property and make the latter accountable for what came to his hands. The right of property in Proprietary the cargo not accepted does not, in transitu, vest in the Ameri- interest. can house, but remains in the shipper and is liable to condemnation, he being an enemy.-The Frances (Dunham and Randolphs' claim)-9 Cranch, 183. Sup. Court United States, 1815. 82. The produce of an enemy's colony is to be considered Prize

Domicil.

Domicil.

Courts.

Prize
Salvage.

Prize.
Domicil.

Reciprocity.
Prize.
Neutral rights.

Prize.

Courts.

Prize.

Treaty.

Free ships free goods.

Treaty with Spun.

Prize.

Reciprocity.

Neutral rights.

Alien

as hostile property so long as it belongs to the owner of the soil, whatever may be his national character in other respects, or whatever may be his place of residence.—30 hogsheads of sugar v Boyle--9 ranch, 191 Supreme Court US, 1815,

3. An island, in the temporary occupation of the enemy is to be considered as an enemy's colony-id ib.

84. In deciding a question of the law of nations, the court will respect the decisions of foreign courts.id ib.

85. Salvage is an incident to the question of prize, and may be given upon a libel praying condemnation as prize of war,— The schooner Adeline and cargo-9 Cranch, Sup. C. U S 1815.

86. The property of persons domiciled in France (whether they be Americans, Frenchmen, or foreigners) is good prize if recaptured af er being 24 hours in the possession of the enemy, that being the rule adopted in the French tribunals.-il ib.

87. Property unclaimed will be decreed as good prize, id ib. 88 The district courts of the United States. (being neutral,) have jurisdiction to restore to the original Spanish owner. (in amity with the United States) his property captured by a French vessel whose force has been increased in the United States, if the prize be brought infra prasulia-Thebrig lerta and cargo v. Blas Moran-9 Cranch, 359. Superior Court United States, 1815.

89. In order to constitute a capture, some acts should be done indicative of an intent to seize and to retain, as prize: It is sufficient if such intent is fairly to be inferred from the conduct of the captor.-id. ib.

90. The stipulation in a treaty that "free ships shall make free goods," does not imply the converse proposition that enemy" ships shall make enemy goods."-The Nereide-9 Cranch, 389. Supreme Court United States, 1815.

91. Our treaty with Spain does not contain, either expressly, or by implication, a stipulation that enemy ships shall make enemy goods. id. ib.

92. The principle of retaliation, or reciprocity, is no rule of decision in the judicial tribunals of the United States.-id ib. 93 A neutral may lawfully employ an aimed belligerent vessel to transport his goods; and such goods do not lose their neutral character by the armament, nor by the resistance made by such vessel. provided the neutral do not aid in such armament or resistance, although he charter the whole vessel and be on board at the time of the resistance.-id. ib.

94. Although the original plaintiff become an alien enemy after the judgment below, yet the judgment in his faver may be affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error Owens v. Hannay-9 Cranch, 180. Sup. Court U. S. 1815

strucuous.

in council.

95. The President's instructions (to privateers) of the 28th President's inof August, 1812. protected an American vessel sailing from England, in August 1812, in consequence of the repeal of the British orders in Council, and compelled by dangers of the British orders seas to put into Ireland, where she was necessarily detained, und April, 1815, when she sailed again for the United States. under the protection of a British cense. The continuity of Continuity of the voyage was not broken. The Mary—9 Crunch, 1×6, 815. SC The holder of a bottomry bond, has not such an inter- Prize. Bottomry. est as will support a claim to the vessel in a court of prize. iu. ib.

voyage.

97. An intrest acquired in war, by possession, is divested Prize. by the loss of possession.--The Astrea, 1 Wheaton, 125, Sup. Court U. S 1816.

98. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Treaty. United States, extends to a final judgment or decree, in any suit in the highest Court of law, or equity of a State, where Courts. is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, and the judg Dent of decree is against the validity of the right claimed under the treaty; and such judgment may be re-examined by writ of error. in the same manner as if rendered in a Circuit Court-Martin v. Hunter's lessee-1 Wheaton, 304. Sup. Court U S. 1816.

Provisions.

99. Provisions, neutral property, but the growth of the ene- Prize. my's country, and destined for the supply of the enemy's military or naval forces, are contraband; but if they be the growth Contraband of a neutral country, and destined for the general supply of human life in the enemy's country, they are not contraband.-The Commercen-1 Wheat n, 582, Sup. Court U. S 1816. 100. Freight is never due to the neutral carrier of Contra- Contraband band.-id, ib. Freight.

101. A neutral ship laden with provisions, enemy's property, and the growth of an enemy's country, specially permitted to be exported for the supply of his forces, is not entitled to freight. It makes no difference, in such case, that the enemy is carrying on a distinct war, in conjunction with his allies, who are friends of the captor's country, and the provisions are intended for the supply of his troops, engaged in that war: and that the ship in which they are transported, belongs to subjects of one of those allies-id ib.

Prize.

id.

102 Goods, the property of persons actually domiciled in Prize. the enemy's country, at the breaking out of the war, are sub- Domicil. ject to capture and condemnation as prize. The Mary and Susan-(Richardson Claimant,) 1 Wheat, 46, Sup. Court,

Alien.
Prize.

Prize.

Freight.

Prize.

Domicil.

Prize.

U. S. 1816. See also, 2 Dallas. 42-Mr Vantelengen's claim, in the continental Court of Appeals, and 2 Cranch, 65, Murray v. Charming Betsey.

103. The fact, that the commander of a privateer was an alien enemy, at the time of the capture made by him, does not invalidate such capture.-id. ib.

104. If part of the cargo of a neutral vessel, brought in for adjudication, be condemned and part restored, the freight is chargeable upon the whole cargo, as well upon that part restored as upon that condemned. Query. Whether more than a pro rata freight be due to the master.-The Antonia Johanna, 1 heat, 159. Sup Court U. S. 1826.

105. It seems that the property of a house of trade in the enemy's country, is confiscable as a prize of war, notwithstanding the neutral domicil of one or more of its partners — id. ib.

106. The courts of this country, have no jurisdiction to redress any supposed torts committed on the high seas, upon the Neutral rights. property of its citizens by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign and friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of our neutrality.—L'Invincible— 1, Wheaton, 238. Sup Court U. S. 1816.

Prize.

Courts.

Prize.

107. The exclusive cognizance of prize questions belongs to the capturing power. This is a consequence of the equali ty and absolute independence of sovereign states, on the one hand, and of the duty to observe uniform, impartial, neutrali ty, on the other. Under the former, every sovereign becomes the acknowledged arbiter of his own justice, and cannot, consistently with his dignity, stoop to appear at the bar of other nations to defend the acts of his commissioned agents, much less the justice and legality of those rules of conduct which he prescribes to them. Under the latter, neutrals are bound to withhold their interference between the captor and captured; to consider the fact of possession as conclusive evidence of the right. Under this, it is also, that it becomes unlawful to divest a captor of possession, even of the ship of a citizen, when seized under a charge of having trespassed upon belligerent rights.-id. p. 254, 255.

108. That the mere fact of seizure as prize does not, of itself, oust the neutral admiralty court of its jurisdiction, is evident from this fact, that there are acknowledged cases in Nentral rights. which the courts of a neutral may interfere to divest possessions; to wit: those in which her own right to stand neutral is invaded: and there is no case in which the court of a neutral

may not claim the right of determining whether the capturing vessel be, in fact, the commissioned cruiser of a belligerent power. Without the exercise of jurisdiction thus far, in all cases, the power of the admiralty would be inadequate to afford protection from piratical capture.-id. p. 258.

License.

109. Navigating under a license from the enemy is cause of Prize. confiscation, and is closely connected in principle with the of fence of trading with the enemy; in both cases the knowledge of the agent will affect the principal, although he may, in reality, be ignorant of the fact.-The Hiram-1, Wheaton, 440, 447. 1816.

110. The following is an account of the dates and substance Neutral rights. of the British orders in council, and the French decrees, af

fecting our neutral rights, and which preceded the war of 1812 British orders. between Great Britain and the United States.

On the 16th of May, 1806, the British Government issued an order in council, declaring the coast included between the Elbe and Brest in a state of blockade.

On the 21st of November, 1806, the French emperor issued his Berlin decree, declaring Great Britain and her dependencies in a state of blockade.

On the 7th of January, 1807, the British government issued an order in council, prohibiting neutral ships from carrying on trade from one enemy's port to another, including France and her allies.

On the 11th of November, 1807, the British orders in council were issued, which declared the continental ports from which British ships were excluded in a state of blockade, (except in case of ships cleared out from Great Britain whose cargoes had paid a transit duty,) and rendered liable to condemnation all neutral ships, with their cargoes, trading to or from the ports of France, or her allies, and their dependencies, or having on board certificates of origin.

On the 7th of December, 1807, the French emperor issued his Milan decree, declaring that any neutral ships which should have touched at a British port, or paid a transit duty to the British government, or submitted to be searched by British Cruizers, should be liable to condemnation.

On the 22d of December, 1807, the American embargo took place.

On the 1st of March, 1809, the embargo was removed, and a non-intercourse substituted with both France and England. On the 19th of April, 1809, a negociation was concluded by Mr Erskine, in consequence of which the trade with Great Britain

was renewed on the 10th of June.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »