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

q! iD's country 10 pduiSh. ~ DAMAGES tie
subject OF another govern mcni, for exc
cutting the laws or mandates Of his own So
vereign, without or beyond It's iuris,lic-
ton. In the case OF Jansen VS.. Talbot,
allowances were made for inieres. and de
mnrrage, but not in the shape OF damages,
and upon very different principle. ap-
prehend, from that which would Ouerafc
~ naked case Of illegal equipment.
There, the whole transaction vnS efrcri-
can; the cap 'urlng ysssPi huilt IN this
country, and owned by American ciiiz
The commander q. his crew Amerirauciii-
zens. He pretended an expaira;lhn, bnt
MS homo, ms tonicil and that of sis "a
muy, was sill IN this country he set 10
Il sale too of fhc vessel, bal the Whale
transaction WAS fraud throughout TIE
capture, therefore, si!le 3ii;i ais excrp-
iion. NOT void only, but he hal no rgi,t
10 makc il. These features 81. iineu,si,
this case from that cgihc Den On zeicYcn.
There, restitution Of prize was ord. rcd
in the district court. on The ground ih;t
the force OF The cRriuruC vessel lad brcn
6agmcRtcd in this country BAL without
damage, as the privaicrr '8s adn,uied 80
be French aRI regularly commissioned
The decree, however, WIS Reversed in tie
court ABOVE, or "rw cyl leR"r, which suf-
iicien'ly repealed the charge otaugmeu;a-
ton OF force. shall hav,. o,r a.,cn pre-
SeutI5 10 recur, fora moment, TO tdis Wv
ogthe subject.
Both these cases recognize The pfirci-
PIE thar prizes made by armed ,c>aels,
either equipped originality, or whose force
hasheen augmented hove, are 70 he rcstor-
ed, If brought ,rithia our jurisdiction
In Rose VS.. Himlcy, 4 Or. App. 6js,
Mir. Justice John on laws down the prn-
Hon I'll
our ports would be in nowise subjected by
that circumstance 10 Our jurisdiction, ex-
cept. perhaps, in the single case of lis iie-
ing necessary 10 assume The jurisdiction
Ia protect our neutrality or sOvereig pty,
as IN the case OF captures within our iuiis-
diclloual limits, or by vessels Fitted out
III out ports"
Thccxpression of this opinion was pro-
duced by The discussion OF an incidcnfai
point in thai cause. TIE main question
was net analogous 10 that under lie coR-
sIderaii0n oi ihls court.
in the case Of the Alesta CT. S5e,
Washington, Justice, delivered tie opir-
ion OF The court, and states, " II the cap
tnre be made within the territorial iiiuiis
OF neutral country, into achSch tie Prise Is
brought, OF by a pr'vaieCr which he'd boon
Illegally equipped Im such neutral couu-
try mol only possess the power bHi II Is
their duty, 10 restore the property so H.
legally captured, 10 the owner" Again,
All captures made by nleaHs az SUCH
equipments are Illegal In rciGtiqilfo StcI na
tion. and IL is competent TO hey courts To
punish the offenders, and in case the phi
yes taken are brought intrH presid5a, TO ar-
der them 10 be restorch.'
These are al! the cases which Il seems
necessary 10 examine. They afford per
feet view Of The law, a laid down b, tie
supreme court, and ii is plain that tie ,.f-
most extent OF the doctrine they MAIN
tain, is, that captures made by vessels
equipped i'll neural ration are illegal,
only al ysiGti0n 10 such nation, and II thew
are brought i4frG preside her ports, resti-
tuition will be ordcred-no other r,uiu-
uefalion is held iorth--nO other resource
is opened to the captured complainant. -
1T will not he denied, that an exception
10 a general rule Is 10 be taken stgictly
that ii goes no farther tlanils terms clear
Is imply. Indeed, il would be impussvle
upon any known principles OF admraiv
or prize law, 10 take Jurisdiction aud a.
ward restitution under any other cir cun-
stances. No court can exercise prize
lurisdlctior, unless Tho res ipSa, tie corpus,
be actually or cons'rUctivelv M It's pes
session. II authorities be, necessary 10
support q position so universally known
and Understood by every civilian, | refer
to Br. Civ & ad. Law. 100 24Voi. rs,
4 Or. 277- 207 -5i3 IA 254.
might now call upon Tie counsel for
the plaintiff To- prove. Automatically. hat
their case is within III" exceptions 6stab-
lished by these decisions OF the suurcne
court They have furnished neither AZ a
L.. Il -
but have relied entirely Oh HE irregular
and umsOund Inference, ibat BECAUSE we
capture was illegal as''o this country,
il vas illegal rs TO Spain; and thY' Ie-
cause the property would have been res
stored, il brought i1Jra pycSiGia, therefore,
they will be permilicd 10 pursue per.
SOnaI remedy. But Is IL not laIacious =.
grossly ialaciouS. so infer, that an act H.
legal as TO The o6cnded powrr y neutral.
must be- so as 10 the opposing belligcrcn
and HAT because the property captured
would be restored If brought within cur
jurisdiction therefore. il il be brought
within it, we will give rcmuncratioR i'm
damages, through the medium Of an ac-
ton Of ircspass! This reasoning is US.
worthy Of formal Tefuiaiion. II is dcS-
tllute of all legal precision, and il permit
ted 70 prevail, would cenf0nnd an lhe es-
iabIished distinctions between bclligerent
rights and neutral duties.
AS no positive authority OF any SOFT has
been produced to authorize this exiraor
binary proceeding, | should be justified
bv 'hc usages Of all courts TO stop here.
aud order tie defendant TO be discharg-
sd-but shall proceed 30 show, mega
lively, by authority, and by reasoning
conclusive Gal least 10 my o,,n min y ttat
THIS a'iioucanuoj be maintained, ami tlat
tic plaintiff is not entitled 10 hold the