The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-07-23
COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
~ thursday, May 30.
FOX g. OTHERS.
JUDGEMENT.

THURSDAY. May so.
FOX s. OTHERS.
JUDGEMENT,
DIX W'Man Scott-This was the caseso
an American vessel which was taken -
the, 18th November. 1910. nm 800. -
from Boston to Cherbourg. Ii is con. en,,..st
on the part OF the Captors, that under tn
otoer IN Council OF Goth April 1869 this
sup 81 and cargo, being destined to a pnrt oe
france are liable to contisCation. On the
part. OF the Claimants it has be,n 70
lliea that the ship and cargo are no, CON.
hScaois under the Orde rs in Cosncil: 6rst
oeoause these Orders have in fact became
eA'ilot' being proiessedly founded anon
measures Which the enemy had retracted-
.iat II the orders ia council
are to be considered as existing ,hsrs o..
circumstances OF equity in The preseot case
ana IN the others That follow, which oughe
" i"unce the Court to held them exoneraped
from the penal effect of these orders
All inc course OF the discussion a QUESTION
mas oeen started, What would be tbr du-
y OF the Court under Orders in Coupc;E
that we're rePugnant TO the law of nationss
!, mas oeen commended on one side. thst fhe
uI' "oIid at all events be bound to en-
.b., ,, .a1 oroers In Council, on the other.
'hat tue court would be bound to anniy
tne rule o. the law of nations apoIv;ne ~
.he particular case, in disregard OF the Or
urrs III Council. have not observed. how.
ever, tuat these Orders in Council. in the;-
ietaHatory character, have been fescribs9
AZ 'Ne arSument as at all repugnant TO the
law OF nations, however liable TO be 90 d..
cfioed II merely original and abs,ract ara
.hsieiore 1t is rather to correct possible mic.
app. hsnslon on the subject than from the
d;sc',ss =, any oDhsstion which The present
.,' imposes upon me, that / observe.
that TINS Court is bound to admioister -
law OF nations to the subjects of otbe.
countries in the different reIat, ons in wh,ch
'hey nay be placed towards this coun,rv
f"d ITS government. This is whar co..
countries nave right to demand for their
SUBJECTS, and t. complain if hey receive II
not ans is its unwr.tten law evidenced IN.
.he Course OF It's decisions, and coliecteo
from the common usage OF ciyiliz I'd states
NJ 'he same time 1t is strictly true, that by-
VIC constitution OF this country, the King
', Nouhcii possesses legislative rights over
e'is court and mas power to issue orders
anI I ''su9c.'ons which 1t is bound to obey
anu enforce and these constitute the
written law OF this court. These twonrn-
positions, that the Court is bound TO admins
'er tue law OF nations, and that i . bound
10 enforce the Kings Orders in Council
are not at all inconss eht with each other
because these Orders ana Instructions arr.
presumed to contorm themselves. undec
lhe gwen circumstances, to the PRINCIPLES
OF Its unwrItten law. They are either di-
rectory applications of those principles To
.ne cases Indicated in them---cases which
WIN al the facts and circumstances be-
longing To them, and which constitute theiI.
legal Character, could be but imperfectl,r
known to the court itself /; OF they are po-
sitive regulations, Consistent with those
principles, applying to matters which re-
CURE more exact and definite rules lie
those general principles are capable Of fur
nishing.
Inc constitution of this court, reIat;veI,r
TO the legislative power of the King in Conn,
Gil, 10 analogous to that of the cour,s ~
common Law relatively to that of the par
lament Of This kingdom. Those Conr,s
nave their unwritten law, the Approved
principles OF natural reason and Justice.
they have likewise the written or statue
law IN Acts Of Parliament, which are direc.
tory applications OF the same principles tn
particular subjects, or positive regulat,ons
consistent with them, upon matters which
"ouio remain too much at large ifthey WEE,
lett tothe imperfect information which ~.
Courts could extract from mere general s,,e1
citations. What would be the duty of tbe
individuals who preside in those courts If re.
CURED to enforce an act Of Parliament which
consradicted those principles, is a question
winch presume they would not entertain
prjorI, because they will not entertain a
PRIOR the supposition that any such viii a.
rise. In like manner this Court will Mt
let itself loose into speculations as TO what
would be ITS duty under such an emergency
because 1t cannot, without extreme indg
cency, presume that any such emergency
wiz happen and IL is the less disposed /.
entertain them, because IS owl .tEsfrs,