Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1861-11-21

LII Riogs called the attention OF the District Attor-
Ju'7vr George V. Strong, to the elaborate opinion OF
gS,o Nagrath Of South Carolina as to the Jnrlsdlc
g|,o If the District Court OF south Carolina over YES
ton vj on the high seas by Confederate prlVateer
SCI It,r,ht into port in the State OF North Carroll
a0u low living there The following argument was
Do, in the case by Mr. Strong. 1t will doubtless
many OF your readers, and trust you will pub
y, in your paper 1t was pronounce by the abest
a rs of she bar to be conclusive and unanswerabe
Very Respectfully, d. q.
.i Dixie Il private armed vessel, acting under Let
~, NarQne and RepriSal from the Confederate
"a America, captures on the high seas barque,
u tfr Glen, the property OF Alien Enemles, and
can lar into the port of Beaufort in the District of
5'-' G,oira. While lying in said port, libel is
o".,.f her in the name Of the owners aud crew o
5." "-.@.,.r Dixie, in the District Court for the Dis
sa" ,o,h dina. Is The Case properly constitu-
"., L., Cont! Judge Magra,h, the presiding off
."' ' .I-,id Court, has published elaborate opn-
err ' .sin-41 the affirmative. | am constrained to
. .rr bin m toto cGlo.
OH. I'LL, ,t o.. Congress, No. loo, approved 9th May,
..,T lrs second session, page %, section y de.
fia the case OF all captured vessels, &C., which
lr.a br, ucht within the jurisdiction OF the CGnfed-
. stats tie District Court of the Confederate
.. III have exclusive original Jurisdiction thereof
,,.g,a clus~ If Aimlr0hy and Maritime jurisdlc-
f..rH b.. observed that distinction is here taken
r.r,.. lrzs caus and civil causes of Admiralty
.-r.oa The question then presents itself, what is
. II. ,nion Of said Court in ciUH causes of Admir-
. .a:~ clou, thus understood? The answer is found
n. sc, O.. the Confederate Congress, No. SO, ap-
..d 9Th March, 1861, facts Of lst session, page
u2 -., &g) which declares, that 1.-The said District
Inr shah have original CogniZance OF all civil causes
Admiralty aud Maritime jurisdiction including all
.sg,s under the revenue laws or laws Of navigation
.Iud. Of The Confederate States when the seizure,
..a.e Of complaint arises on waters which are nav-
..r IrYm the sea by vessels Of one hundred or more
n. t.uI.n, within the respective districts as well as
... tie high seas" 1t has been decided that the
urH u the District, in which any seizure is made
.T taa 1crcuUe law, or laws Of navigation and trade
s '.e exclusive cO2nZlnce thereof, 50 that case
.s.tug said seizure can he properly constituted
. any other Court, under any circumstances. In
al Gr matters, 1t is admitted that all the District
Court, have concurrent jurisdiction But Judge Ma
a. a5 to distinguish between a Courts having gen.
.I jurisdiction OF the subject matter, and its having
..r.I l0gn l@a"Ce OF the particular Case 1t is very
..r u- He sys, that each District Court has iursdc.
.0u . maine tOrs, wherever committed aud OF marine
contract" wherever made, but certainly no one Of them
@ take coguzuce Of any particular case, unless, either
aerrs come within reach Of the Courts process, so
' thy can be arrested, or their estate, so that itmay
a.sd, IN lieu Of arFcstiDg their persons, or, the
D. Proceeded against, when the proceeding is IN rem,
.l1a' may b. taken into the custody of the Court,
Ua. case can be taken hold of by one of these
n.us, any Judgment or decree pronounced therein is
..a.s .a,o uuily An analogous case is furnished by
g.. |uuls Of Common Law. a personal contract is
u.t Iu EJglard. The Superior Court of Law OF
N.ge has jurisdiction Of the subject, but can have no
O.-.Eace 81 any cause growing out OF It, until the
U Or Oh il estate at least that of the defendant, are
Iaa.J ay the process Of the Court This and nothing
uu. than this is meant when it is said as in the case
u Sandwich Pet. Rep, 237 in note (cited by Judge
Soc. . Ina lDriC Ict Of no RI
ge.d. u.y by the nature Of the case, over which ii
As To- proceedings rem in civil causes, the authori
IT'S all agree that SpeCiqle forum fr6uu locus quo res
.r,tlt In Louklipg8 U. S. Admiralty, it is said al
pgc 3d. Oh the authority Of Judge Story, to be very
Clearly settled that i'll proceedings rem, or the rea
.etos a tie Civil Law, tie proper forum is the LOCtn
,-l ar. zee also 10 the sane elect page 81, of the
same volume
Judge Magratb seems to have entirely overlooked thu
limiting or qualifying words in the statute Just cited
cueuDg jurisdiction, to wit, las in civil cases contra
distinguished from prize cases, &c." and he himself set
tbs ucqaDs ion when he says in the exercise of it
ordinary jurisdiction, the warrant or order Of the Court
...oahu 10y Tue olIccr brings into Court the specific
.rg against which relief is sought" Now the Office
execute no warrant or order beyond the limits OF hi
district, Act OF Confederate Congress, No. SO, Sec
Iaws LIST session, page ll3) Ii this be so, and if il
evil cases. "a branch OF the ordinary jurisdiction) til
Court Can have no cognzance or jurisdiction where tn
officer caubOt seize the specific thing, and If the jurE
dr,iraID prize cases is governed ~ the rules
III v cases, 1t follows lnevAGbly lLat the Marshal
ST. District Court OF one State, being unable TO Selz
and take INTO custody vessel lying in the port
a#u.,r State, the said Court can have no cOgnz4nC
thereof
hwu be observed, that 10 the Act above referred Il
uaTiuE jurIsd ctlOn in prize cases. the quaIlyin
words ag.ady cited, are confined to cases where ii
tT1itb tbn TO
aud I'D the act Of the u. S. comforting the ursd
u.n there is no such limitation the prize urisdictO
being considered part of the civil jurisdiction. n
-guu therefore, against my view OF the subject, ca
naC-.Ntd from any case decided IN the Courts OF I'll
l. T.. uhCr the priz3 was condemned while lying
aio.l-u port, or domestic port not within the DIX
ut exercising jurisdiction TOT which latter kind, hcV
ever it is believed that 10 case can be found Nor,
attempted by his Honor, from that portion OF our Az
which allows the prize to be carried into neutral por
a.d, Wle there, 10 be condemned by our Courts. Blu
lgaU- 'lo limiting words OF the statute cut Of Ule1
can be derived against my position from II
geuIu practice OF condemnlng prlZcs, While IN 0relg
neutral ports. This is a violation OF principle, and
cu tolerated for the sake of convenience, 1t is said
heuss Commentaries, vol lst, marginal pages lob an
I0 ihe principle" that Actual possession OF the thin
within tie local limits OF the District, is necessary
give coguz1nce in proceedings an rem I" was admIttt
10 be correct by Sir w IIlam Scott, IN the Hannah
Aariah and he acted upon it in prior case. But
considered that the English Admiralty bad gone t.
4c IN supporting condemnations in England OF priz
abroad in a neutral port to permit him to recall Il
nous practice Of the Court, to the acknowledged pri
upIc The Supreme Court Of The United States h
t.lowcd the English rule This was deemed the mo
9nucaient practice for neutras well for the pa
ties war aud though the prize acos an fact with
the neutral jurisdiction it still to be deemed ind
the control Of the captor" Ow when the prize is wit
in the actual jurisdiction Of Court Of the country
the capors II can not be allowable to establish the
aouS practice and violate the acknowledged Pr1ncl
alluded to above and in order to Sustain such cOur
resort to the Impractical idea, that the prize, while
aIort Of one district being in possession OF the capt.
as much within the control Of the Court, as II 10
possession Of its officer an idea that merely hunt
upot first to sustain a jurisdiction that was deem