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

tnat condemnation OF prize IN court
OF admiralty. Is binding and conclusive
against all the world. Tie following "a
bnndanily shows il II. RAYMOND, 473 :
Collect. lurid. 1853. vol. Dal rs ;
Ross. rs. Himiey, 269- 7l-8l-3: Or.
69-7l-S2-3; Dial Sc, in tenL rs. Do
ane, Patterson, Justice, SuSs--" The SEN
teHce OF a court of admiralty, or al appeal
in questions of prize, binds all the world.
as to every thing contained III it, because
all the world are parties 10 it. The sen
fence, so tar as II goes, Is conclusive 10 all
persons"
But if the condemnation has not been
sufficiently proved, vel tie prize was car
RED iiyrG prcSioiiG the ports OF Ire captor.
That Is undWubtcd
To prove that ,ns excludes all remunc-
ration IL damages IN lhe courts OF the T..
States, | shall first cite the case of the
Y. States rs. Peters, 5 Dial. l2I, as direct
~ In point. Most OF the facts in that case
were the same as m this the capturing
vessel was aIledged 10 have been fitted
Out In the United Sta,es-the comman-
der alleaged 10 be ain American citizen,
and neither allegation denied but there
were other facts, which made the case
stronger than this, aud pressed with great
force upon the Justice OF the court. The
IL tins case, had not been brought into
the ports of the q. ). and damages were
sued for by the AmeIfcaa owner. The
capturing vessel and her commander were
both within NE jurisdiction of the court,
and both had been arrested by process
issued out of tie district cour, of Penn
syivaa.a, and u motion VAS now made 10
the supreme coul, of the u. S. for writ
OF prohibition, directed TO the district
court. Upon the argument, The very
question now under consideration here
was raised and stated III terms-thal is,
IN the words of the reporter:
HE controversy iuined principally
upon tins point: whctherilr district court
could sustain y libel for damage, in the
case OF a capture, as prize, made By d bel
ligereni power Ell the high seas, when tae
vessel captured was not brought wilhiH
the jurisdiction Of The l.. States, but car
ried for consideration i4sia prcsidia of the
capiors."
IL will not he disputed that this is tie
very point am called on TO dccide-and
II must be remembered HAT the captain,
Ill that case, WAS under arrest, as we'll as
his vessel.
The supreme court, after solemn argu-
menf, directed Il writ TO issue, prohibiting
the district court from holding iurherpiea
OF the premises, and directing forthwith,
both the commander and his vessel 10 be
released.
With this case on record, il is a matter
ofsurprise, and worthy of animadversion,
that this proceeding should have been al
tempted, and still more singular, that a
refusal TO sustain il should be deemed ex-
traordlnary, and pregnant with alarming
consequences.
l 81, al a,i, ia
Is not d decision of the supreme court, bat
of very enlighienea judge, WHO cluci-
dates every subIec he examines with great
ability and research, and whose jadg-
mems are entitled To the confidence and
respect OF every tribunal acting under
the laws Of the u II is the opinion Of
the circuit court Of the u. S. for tie first
circuit, in The case of the lnvincible, =
Gall. %. | was referred 30 il, "a showing
that The court, IN that case recognized the
doctrine laid down by the supreme court
In Talbot Us. Jansen. and The Aieria and
so il was bound TO recognize If, as is ev-
cry subordinate tribunal-SO does this
court, III The very terms in which il is Civ
en-. Judge Story's construction and APP
p'caliOn ofthe law is precisely thai which
is adopted here. Abiding 10 the cases |
have just cited, he says
But allowing these cases TO have the
fullest effect, the most liberal conS,ruc-
ton can impmie TO them, they only de-
eide that The jurisdiction of our courts
in matters of prizes made by foreign crui-
Zers, attaches whenever The prize proper
~ Is within our ports. In tie case before
us, the cruizer itself only Is within The
country, and not the captured ship IN The
character OF prize. II is therefore clearly
distlnguishabie."
The crulzer was in the country, and so
was her commander, but moi word es-
capped the counsel or the court, that would
authorize pretence TO hold him liable.
II prize jurisdiction does not attach when
the cruizer and the commander are both
within the jurisdiction Of the court, is
moi the conclusion irresistible and com
plete, thalIi does not when tie latter alone
IS here?
Bat more is said i'll this opinion appiica-
bic 10 this case.
After stating that, in general, cases Of
marine IOris, the admiralty will sustain ju-
risdiction, where either The person or his
property is within The territory, and arrest
either, he adds
"Bnt iafIords sucIrcnedies only, where
The tort is mere marine trespass, anil net
where Il invOioes directly tie question ofpyise."
Further
:" In the next place, the principal ques-
ton involved in trial under such circum
stances, necessarily is the question of
prize. And again
Whether damages shall, in any case OF
capture, he given, must depend upon the
law of prize, as understood and admins
tered by the foreign sovereign, or, in a
case of probable cause, upon the subSe-
quent conduct of the captors. The ia
images, therefore, are mol an independent
and principal inquiry, bui a regular Incl