The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-12

~ ."S avs VI rIduCe, lot str3uing win tn
brieands of Htfpaniola--the claims and anfwer
further fate, that the faid Henry RoCc, full,
; fenlibie OF the forfeiture incurred, and to DR..
vent fhe delay incidental to condemnation
which only could be efet,ed by tending to thu
triornai OF st. Domingo, agreed 10 purchafc tn,
veifel and part of the cargo from the com
mander OF the privateer, on terms fettled be-
tween them eoitboat waiting for formal con.
demnatiou.-The claimants further fate, tina,
they ba,e beard and believe, that regular con
domination had been made Of vefIel and cargo
at one OF the ports of ST. Domingo, which wa:
detained for forty days by fomc accidental cauc
es, and afterwards forwarded to the Captain oil
the prlvatecr.-The claimants further fate, that
a ipecial agent had been fent to procure copy
OF the condemnation and contend, that admit
Ting The capture as eated in The libel, vet as the
iaie was with the aient of the actor in the firlt
iaitance, and fince Gnctioned by the dec rec of
condemnation, rs they have heard and believe
therefore rheir right and title is good in law, &
the libel ought TO be diimi6td. Repiications
have been flied TO thefe claims & snfwers which
admit the purchaie of the fchooner Sarah, by
the iaid Henry Rofe, and the claims and aniiwer
m relation thereto, but protect asaiuit every O.
Their part of the fame.
From this view and fatement ofthe plcadincs,
ieveral quefions have been made and argued up
on, by the different council
ist. AS to the identity of the articles.
7nd. As to the legality of the capture.
Srd. AS to any change of property By cap
ture.
4th. Whether the Ibelant's title to the pro-
perty, is iuch as vii! enttle him to maintain fuit
for the fame.
In conlidering thefs quetfions, I will begin
with the Taft, viz.-Whether under exiting cir
cumitances of the trade TO Port-au-p Prince, the
3Cfnrc rpnIH
prrchafed there.
The council for the claimants, have with
great ingenuity, commended this point, and i'd
dHeea variety of reafoning to pro1.e that the
cargo or the fchooner Sarah, having been pur-
chated IN Brigand port, the title is bad in the
firit inttance, and that they derive no property
from the purchafe, whercon to found claim
Admitting the force of this argument rs far as
it may apply in court of the nation claiming
the jurifdiGtion, ard where this is ftated to be
an otfence-the queltion occurs, is this court
competent to decide The proclamation faid
TO have been ilued, forbidding fiIch trade, is
not ENTHUSIASTICALLY evidence of its being if-
fued is brought forward, but in fuch a looie
and vague way as TO afford no precife know
ledge of its tenor,3& even if it did exiff. it being
only municipal law of that country, this court
can have no cognZance of a breach OF it.
The cafe of the Nottingham Packet, quoted
from end Robnton, ~, does not appiy.-The
queftion there was, whether Birth court of
admiralty, was not bound to take notice of a
aagrant breach of the municipal laws of that
country, as refpetfed the traniaSlions OF their
oz0n G1yedJ coming Immediately before them
even fbrrr the principle not recognized in
the court below, but an appeal TO the hyperion
court, it was eaablifbed and affirmed, that a
Britiih claimant could not intisie himfelf in that
court TO rehitution of property, which by his
own fbewing, had been employed in an illicit
trade-Is there any familiarity between that and
the preient cafe? -
By The 9th fettion of the Judiciary act, this
couIt has jurifdi6tion of all civil cauics of ad-
miralty and maritime iurifdiaon, ineIy4iup all
feizures uDaer laws of import, navigation or
trade, where the fixtures are made within their
'reipeetive diflriGts, either on land or water as
well as upon the high feas--and alJ5 of all fuits
for penalties or forfeiture incurred under "fbe
IaFrt Of the United StateJ," but will this give
jurisdiction as to any offences againt the NUM-
cipal laws of other countries? Surely not.
The cafe was aamilated to that of blockade /;
one is recognized by the law of nations, or trea-
ty, which is tanta,nohnt, 6efzveen the pa9orJ OF
the treaty.-'The other is merely municipal
but will fuppoie a neutral vefel lad cfraped
from blockaded port, and is captured for hay-
ing entered it contrary to the law of nations,
and this veffel is afterwards e-captured, will it
be contended, that the original owner, in a
court OF his own nation, cannot claim his pro-
perty on payment of falyage, becauie ne had
committed breach of the laws Of nations
The entering the blockaded port, Was only H.
legal, as to the nation at wharf.-the party does it
at his peril, he runs the rifque, and is amenabIe
to the offended nation, if caught.--Do policies
OF infurance become void, becaufe of this illegal
lily in the trade? The premium Of infIrance
rifles according to the ri1s, but the contract is
not vitiated by breach of the municipal laws
Of other ftates.-On this point, therefore, ! am
decidedly of opinion, that this court b05 no ja.
rjfii7ion.
will now conhder whether any change of
property has taken place and here it might be
/ltfcient to fay, that no evidence on that point,
has been produced, except the feizure and car
rying the Sarah into Barracoa, and the confe-
quent pofiellion for 81 hours and upwards,
which was commended on the authority of Vattel
to be efficient. To this I anfwer, that it feens
to be the fettled law of nations at this day tina,
before flip or goods can be difpofed of by
captor, there NUT be regular judicial proceed
ing, wherein both parties may be heard, and
condemnation thereupon as prize in a court of
admiralty, judging by The law OF nations and
treaties this is laid down in the famous anfyer
TO the Ruliian memorial and reported in Goblet
a . h. l.. a..