Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-11-10

having exclusive jurisdiction of the prin-
cipal question:, has also Of all lis incidents
and consequences. As this opinion has
already been extended 10 Il length some,
what unusual, | shall be concise ia what
remains To be SAID.
Two cases in Carisew, p. sos, 474, are
full upon This point, and also lie Caux VS..
| Eden. and Lindoo VS.. Rodney-possie
Dang.
"Ifihe admiralty ispossessed eta cause,
IL has right TO Try every incidcnia. CUES
tons DIAL. e.
"The originai act derivcdi;s quality from
the intention of III. seizure, which was q
| prize: aud The law precludes any court
from deciding on The Incident, that had
no jurisdiction of the original question"
8 Dial. and Colleci. Jurid. Silesia Coan.
" From the very nature of things, the
| question OF damages must be determined
| by the same tribunal, that determines the
| questions oil prizes: II rs an incident, and
| whoever takes cognizance of the principal
| question, must likewise take coguizance
| OF that's Dial. 1876.
| This is from the argument oil counsel,
| but it derives the weight Of authority from
The recognition of the opposite counsel in
the one case and the court III The other.
Mr.. Justice Johnson's opinion in Rose
W. Himley, recognized those principles as
| undoubied law; and, as has been shown
in the case of The lmvincale, il is de, ided
| expressly. that the court moi having juris-
dir;ion of the question Of prize. had not OF
| the question ofdamages, in whatever man
ner they may be claimed.
! Jurisdictions, then, of the question Of
! prize. draw after il jurisdiction of all lis
| Incidents, and in the language of Mr.. jus
tice Story, g damages are Il regular Incl
| dent TO the question of prize" They are
not only regular, but an inSepHrajts Incl
! dent. There "ar be 10 damages for
takiag as prize, unless the prize be tried
and acquitted. Ii can only be tried in Il
prize court. BY the constitution and
fundamental laws Of that court. il is not
only authorised, but bound 10 give dress,
by way of damages, for capture, which,
upon the trial, groves TO have been illegal
| ~ made. They can no where else be as
! ceriained and awarded. There are ihe
! parties to make, To hear and to rcpel each
| others egaiiOn--ihere are the papers,
| documents and testimony, by which a
| lone The court can be governed in lis ex-
amnalions and decisions. This invesii-
| CATION forms part of The trial of the prize
the same facts that establish the charac-
Ter OF the capture, viz. whether il be prize
he damages or no damages. II they are
not claimed in that court, they cannot be
claimed elsewhere. The opinions of Bull
Ter and Lord Mansfield establish these
positions beyond all controversy; anil
that distinct and independent action of
trespass will not lie for a taking as prize
a Seizure as pr1-e Is no treSpasS, tho il
may be wrongful. The authority and int,n-
tion with which it is done deprive the act
of the character that would otherwise be
impressed upon it. The tort is merge i'm
the capture as prize.
1t is one of the objects of prize court
to enquire into tie authority by whic h The
capture is made. If, by Tie authority Of
the sovereign, the original taking raust be
deemed legal as 10 the party committing
the act, the ultimate validity of the prize
Will depend on subsequent investigation;
bal Inc party making The capture is lusii-
fed by the orders OF his sovereign. They
convert act otan individual into mat
Ter at state. The moment an act is aurho-
rised or directed by the supreme pow er of
nation, the contest is national, not per-
| sonal-lhe dispute is not between the in
divIduals bat between their governments.
This capture is proved TO have been
made under The authority Of The govern
| ment OF Buenos hyres the defendant,
therefore, incurred no personal response
bihiy. However the act may have been
considered in relation to The oftuded pO,e-
en-, if tie prize had b en- brought within its
Jurisdiction, il was unquestionably legal as
between the parties.
From all the decisions, therefore, Of our
| courts, taken i'll conneXion with the geu-
eral principles of international law, the
following rule individually results:
That captures made by means ofequip-
ments obtained here, if bro't within ourjn-
rIsdIction, shall not avail; but the capture,
| If authorised by the sovereign ofthc cap
Tor, isieSal as between the parties and if
| carried into his possession, or in)J0 presi-
dta his ports, cannot be recovered here.
On this conclusion | rest with perfect
confidence.
Enough has nOw been shown for The
purposes OF this case but as it has been
made tie subject OF animadvtrsions not
altogether decorous or proper, shall pro-
ceed 10 SHOW, mat upon principle and in
dispuiabie authority loo, no suit or pro-
| cetdIn8 OF any sort can be maintained in
| Tie courts OF a neutral nation, by lie sub
| leci7 Of one bclligeTcDl against the sub
| Jecis Of The other, for acts growing out Of
| the war.
iian action Of trcspass could he maiii-
| tanned Tor an act committed bryond our
IurlsdciIonaI limits, so could every OTHER
calculated 10 repair the injuries and re
dress The grievances that " ould naturally
| How from Il state Of war, and how prepos-
ferrous would BIZ The spectacle afforded by
briiIgerenls prosecuting each other i'm
neutral courts, III actions of lrcspass, false
imprisonment, and even assault aud bate.
! nv. All their battles would he fought o.
yer again on neutral gyound Bat these
| thDgs are not permitted. Ncuirals have
nothing 10 do with questions of right or