The compact with Virginia, under which Kentucky became a State, stipulates, that the navigation of, and jurisdiction over, the river, shall be concurrent between the new States, and the States which may possess the opposite shores of the said river. This term seems to be a repetition of the idea under which the cession was made. The shores of a river bor der on the water's edge. Judgment affirmed, with costs. 1820. La Amistad de Rues. (PRIZE.) LA AMISTAD DE RUES.-Almiral, Libellant. Quare, Whether, where a prize has been taken by a privateer fitted out in violation of our neutrality, the vessels of the United States have a right to recapture the prize and bring it into our ports for adjudication? In cases of marine torts, the probable profits of a voyage are not a fit rule for the ascertainment of damages. In cases of violation of our neutrality by any of the belligerents, if the prize comes voluntarily within our territory, it is restored to the original owners by our Courts. But their jurisdiction for this purpose, under the law of nations, extends only to restitution of the specific property, with costs and expenses, during the pendency of the suit, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages as in ordinary cases of marine torts. Where the original owner seeks for restitution in our Courts upon the ground of a violation of our neutrality by the captors, the onus probandi rests upon him, and if there be reasonable doubt respecting the facts, the Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction] APPEAL from the District Court of Louisiana. VOL. V. 49 1820. de Rues. This was the case of a Spanish ship captured by La Amistad the Venezuelan privateer La Guerriere, on the high seas, in November, 1817, and afterwards forcibly taken possession of near the mouth of the Mississippi, by a detachment from the United States ketch Surprise, and brought into the port of New-Orleans. A libel was there filed in the District Court, in behalf of the original Spanish owners, claiming restitution of the property, upon the ground, (among other things,) that the privateer had augmented her crew in the United States, during the cruise, and before the capture. A claim was given in by the original captors, denying the allegations in the libel, and praying restitution of the property as lawfully captured. At the hearing in the District Court, the cause turned almost entirely upon the question of the augmentation of the crew, and the Court decrced restitution of the property to the original Spanish owners with damages, which were ordered to be ascertained by assessors. The assessors reported damages as follows: to the owners of the ship for loss by plunder, and to the owners of the cargo for loss of $625 00 4000 00 575 00 $5,200 00 The report was confirmed by the Court, and damages decreed accordingly. From this decree, the captors appealed to this Court. La Amistad de Rues. Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, for the appellants, argued 1820. upon the facts, to show that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the privateer had augmented her force in the ports of the United States. He in- March 8th. sisted, that the burthen of proof to establish this fact rested with the original Spanish owners, who claimed restitution upon it; and that they had not shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the captors had increased their armament in violation of our neutrality. He also argued, that supposing the misconduct on the part of the captors ever so clearly established by the evidence, the jurisdiction of our Courts does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages for their offence, but is limited by the law of nations to restitution of the specific property illegally captured. To carry it further, would be to assume the entire prize jurisdiction with all its incidents, which is exclusively vested in the Courts of the captor's country. At all events, it is well established, that the probable profits of a voyage is not a fit rule for the assessment of damages in cases of marine torts, and even upon that ground alone the decree must be reversed. The Attorney-General, contra, insisted, that the evidence of an illegal augmentation of the force of the privateer in our ports, was sufficiently established by the evidence. He argued, that where the neutrality of our ports is violated in this manner, and the property captured is brought within our territory, the Courts of this country, proceeding in rem, are bound not merely to restore the specific property 1820. de Rues. to the original owners, but to restore it with costs La Amistad and damages, as in an ordinary case of illegal seizure. Being possessed of the principal question of prize or no prize, that necessarily draws after it all incidental questions; and the one is no more an invasion of the exclusive jurisdiction of the belligerent Prize Courts than the other. The neutral tribunal having taken jurisdiction for the purpose of vindicating the neutrality of its own country, by placing things in the same state they would have been in, had not that neutrality been violated,—can only do complete justice between the parties, by inflicting upon the captors such damages as will afford the original owners an indemnity for the loss they have sustained. March 14th. Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after stating the facts, proceeded as follows. We pass over the question, whether, supposing there was an illegal augmentation of the crew of the privateer in our ports, the American captors had any right forcibly to bring in the prize for adjudication. It is an important question, and when it shall be necessary to decide it, it will deserve serious consideration. The present cause may well be disposed of without any discussion concerning it. Two questions have been made at the bar. 1. Whether, in point of fact, the illegal augmentation of the crew is so established as to entitle the Spanish libellants to restitution. 2. If so, whether the damages were rightfully awarded. not The last question will be first considered. And as to the item of damages for loss of market, we are all of opinion that it is clearly inadmissible. In cases of marine torts, this Court have deliberately settled, that the probable profits of a voyage are a fit mode for the ascertainment of damages." It is considered that the rule is too uncertain in its own nature, and too limited in its applicability, to entitle it to judicial sanction. The same principle must govern in the present case. 1820. La Amistad de Rues. The probable profits of a voy age not a pro per rule for the ascertain ment of dama ges in cases of marine torts. Extent of the neutral Courts jurisdiction of in cases of a But a more general objection is to the allowance of any damages in cases of this sort, as between the belligerents. The doctrine heretofore asserted in neutrality. this Court is, that whenever a capture is made by any belligerent in violation of our neutrality, if the prize come voluntarily within our jurisdiction, it shall be restored to the original owners. This is done upon the footing of the general law of nations; and the doctrine is fully recognised by the act of Congress of 1794. But this Court have never yet been understood to carry their jurisdiction, in cases of violation of neutrality, beyond the authority to decree restitution of the specific property, with the costs and expenses during the pending of the judicial proceedings. We are now called upon to give general damages for plunderage, and if the particular circumstances of any case shall hereafter require it, we may be called upon to inflict exemplary damages to the same extent as in the ordinary cases of marine torts. We entirely disclaim any right to inflict such a The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546. |