Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1818-10-06

name or The brig from the Fourth-oi-July 10
the Patricia proceeded on his cruize
made the Captures ofSpani.h property COM
planned of, and returned TO Baltimore in
July, 1917, with the privateer, without
having been at Buenos Ayres at all. That
after the return-of the vessel, aquantfty OF
specie which they had captured was divi-
ded among the owners in Baltimore. IL
was shown that the sale which had been
made al sea was mere sham sale: that the
real owners were American citizens during
the whole time, and that the government
of Buenos Ayres had no interest whatever
in the vessel. Il was also established that
the defendant had not been prosecuted by
the Spanish consulin Baltimore, and a GER
tilted copy of an oath made by Taylor IN
the custom house of Baltimore, dated April
10, 1916, was produced. in which Taylor
swears, that he is citizen Of the United
States, of Wilmington, Delaware, and the
Sole owner of the schooner Romp, for which
vessel he was then taking out register
A deposition of Venture lsquierdo was also
produced, stating that he had been enga-
ged by Taylor, in Baltimore, to 60 in the
vessel TO write the log-book, and to do all
the other writing of the vessel: that, while
in Baltimore, Taylor employed him in
forging commission for the brig,-another
commission which Taylor had, belonging
to another vessel, having been destroyed
in attempting to alter il with vitriol, so that
it might serve for the brig Fourth-of-July ::
that the witness wrote the commission, ano-
Their person signed it with the name Of the
Supreme Director of Buenos Ayres, and
Taylor sealed it with a copper seal, which
he had procured to be made in Baltimore /;
aud that during the cruise herein mention
ed, the privateer had no other commission
than this one which the witness had fabri-
Gated.
The point upon which the libellant
chiefly relied was that this vessel had been
fitted out in the United States--that it was
violation Of the neutrality ofthis country;
thatall captures made by such vessels were
illegal and void, and the parties concerned
in il were all trespassers, and as such were
liable TO he proceeded against in the courts
of the United States. That although it IS
a general principle that where a capture
is made as prize, no court but the court Of
the captor can enquire into its legality, yet
that this case is an exception to that rule,
the capturing vessel having been equipped
and fitted out in this country, and having
thereby violated our neutral rights and rem.
dered our government liable TO make COM
pensation to the belligerent whose proper
ty was captured by this force.-That at
ell events the defendant ought to be held
to bail TO give the libellant an opportuni-
ty of appealing to the judgment OF the
highest tribunals for their ultimate decision,
whereas discharging him without bal! was
the same as taxing away the right Of APP
peal.
On the part of the defendant it was in
sisted, that the captured property moi be-
ing brought within the jurisdiction OF the
court, it could not proceed against the per-
son only-that the question Of damages was
a mere incident to the question OF prize or
no prise, and that the court not having the
principal matter before it. could not deter
mine upon that which only grew out of it.
The court decided
First-That il had no jurisdiction over
prize cases as between Spain and her colo
nies--or the colonies and any other power
at war, where the vessel making the cap
ture was not fitted out of the United States.
Secondly-Tha, where the vessel ma
king the capture, was alleged to have been
fitted out Of the United States, but was
cruizing on the high seas, under the COM
mission and authority of one Of the belli-
gerents, The court would not interfere, I'M
less the captured property was brought
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Thirdly-That the court deemed the
question of damages to rest entirely upon
the question Of prize or no prise-that not
having jurisdiction of the latter, it could
no, have any of matter necessarily grow
ing out OF, and depending upon it-and,
therefore, that it could not hold Com. Tay-
lor to bail in the suit instituted against him
for damages-the property not having been
bro't within the jurisdiction of the court.