The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-07-02
THE CASE OF THE HIAwATHA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Belts.

THE CASE OF THE HIAwATHA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Belts.
MODES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE COURTS
UNITED STATES.
July The United States and Others, c1ptorj, w. The
bark Hiawatta and cargo, her ow.cs, the British Cnst
and Others claimants in the progress of the trial of
this cause and IN relation TO other pending the
Trial docket various inquiries aud questions made
concerning the proper method OF initiating and conduct
Judge Belts stated that there a fundamental dis
tncon between the MODE OF creating Prize Courts under
public law that Of bringing their powers into action
ia the United states although the general functions OF
the courts in both instances are essentially alike.
l. Foreign Prize Courts are constituted by commits
sonpg Individual TO act Prize Judge personally
by surrogate and his judicial functions prescribed in
ms appointment The rule of decision in the court may,
moreover, be made subserveDt TO the directions and
instructions OF the appointing power.
BY the laws Of the United States exclusive jursdc
ton in matters o. prize vested In the districts courts
of the respective lets Of the United States These
permanen ts clothed with other and important
judicial powers and the prize authority OF the court al
ter the Is brought within cognzance executed
"as in civil GAUGES Of admiralty ana maritime ursdc
tDn under its general authority Admiralty Court
The action Of this tribunal cannot therefore be
cutve departments to the parties tgant, touching the
proceedings in the suit by other than by plea
district attorney who is dominus s and the official re-
preventative Of government in court
This principle disposes Of the discharges dispensa
tOns releases alleged to have been given the
tive departments Of in several cases In
prosecution In court as PRICE as well as those which may
The recognition by Congress Of prize law as sys-
TEN OF Jurisprudence Ia an implied adoption OF it's cardi
nal doctrines into the national poy and that general
law furnishes rules Of decision and practice in the prize
courts Of the United States except as varied by local
law.
81. O. Selling BY beserent Power of the property Of
change the ownership thereof and render It the
property Of the captor; but in amelioration Of
lutte authority Of the conquercr over II capture. and
RENTS peseesion Of captured property 10 prize COM
pissoners 70 be held by them subject 2 judicial action
o9gpnctce By process, issued on libel duly fled by
either party which attaches the property in the hands Of
TIE Commissioners and transfers il to the custody Of the
. Proceedings in prize causes In court are essentially
summary Placing the cages on the trial docket Is ade
quate notice Of trial by and 10 all parties Final judg
ment may be moved by either party opening read
ing the evidence upon the preparatory nterogatores
answers to the standing nterogatories technically
testimony OF the parties reading them but are received
the Of % the
strictly adhered to trial. unless sufficient cause IL
shown on oath for departing from It.
libel and process against the price, proceedings con-
Quoted con'trmaby 70 the general prize law, and the
court VIII or acting upon the possession Of property
In the hands Of Prize Commissioners, except In Of
extreme ssity.
Mr. Charles Edwards said the Court had put ques-
ton to him ipquring how much OF ths o,ndence
between The governments a. Washington aud England
was TO be introduced. Mr. Edwards would cousent that
the whole Of the correspondence as printed for the
British House OF Commons should ne read
Mr. Evarts commenced hs opening by referring TO
printed letter from Lord Lyons to Lord John RUSSELL
enclosing copies OF letters from Mr. Secretary Seward,
dated april o. 1861 and the Presidents Proclamation
for the blockade Of certain Southern ports from Virginia
to Texas
From the correspondence he argued that there was
no implication whatever upon which to ground the
opinion that other than fifteen days would be allowed by
the government for the departure of vessels with with
out cargo was 1t suggested In Lord Lyons coespon
dence that other than those fifteen days would be allowed
There therefore nohug the case of the Hawaths
claim for it a concession This was the matter MOI Of
court, but Of the government lord Of the prize
This IL Prize pr The n. points for
States with regard to prizes and Southern rights
all taken and the Court s ready 10 act
between the capors and prizes which would not be ne
cessary unless war was recognized. 1t not from
private applications, or public letters from the Executive
that his Honor opened prize court 1t seemed rather
late to raise the question whether there be
war The state Of war we'll recognized n the ju
dcia tribunals Of thu country in the executive de-
partments When a vessel was taken a. q prize two
questions were TO be considered, whether there be
blockade according to the law Of nations Therefore, In
order TO raise prohibition the nfracton Of which sub
jects vessel TO seizure there must be actual and an
effective blockade. TO be consdere. whether the
II being established that there was blockade the ques
ton was whether the vesse charged with breaking the
blockade and with the oonsequences OF nfractio has
been really guilty and been legally brought within the
Court to determine between the capors
the property seized Also rose the question, what
the Jurisdiction Of the Court in the controversy The fact
was that the ports Of Virginia actually blockaded
from the 3oth Of April-a blockade authorized and
9th inc wh.eSer suhory s ns
tton the - Executive could give such an act
II was, there, Idle to argue as TO the oauses Of tho
Brtsb ministers and oonsuls, evident from the
correspondence Of Lord Lyons that blockade was es
n, sIo nas al It's vgor It's and the
then involved the considerations Of the csptors aud the
subsequent dominion which. by the law Of nations, s
given to the bockading power against offending vessels
What then had prize court to 10 with the subject? BY
the right OF focble SEIZURE when asserted by szeran
and effected by public and military power the suzerai,
denim IT, to sell and receive the svais But thts iu
deposition that court OF prize should be opened to de-
eide, what-whether the suZeratn, with due authority
and with due circumstances, TO efent offending vessel
with the penal consequences Of violating actual block
ade that has been established ia TO be found the par
tcuar presented to the Court. Was 1t ever per
mited he would ask, by neutral under the law Of ns
TORS ss bearing on the rights asserted and
growing out OF actual status OF hostes blockade
to try the question Of constitutional law between
the President and Congress- between the Parliament
and the crownbetween any of the ferent mutual and
dependent structures of the government BE thought
not. Was II ever permitted prize court Of suze
RAIN to try the collateral question Of prize prize
TO try the constitutional question to whether the
tlites which actually existed-wbether the blockade,
which has been actually established springs from that
WHICH IL CopOTmADle 10 CONSTITUTIONAL arrange
mepts of executive suthorty, not Can you try the
question OF prize or no prze?-the question OF the i'm
parchment Of the Presidents Can you stop war by de-
carrg the law to all foreign naous that notwithsaad
ing tie actual and efectua blockade they might pene
Nate lite and give aid and comfort to the
actual contendg parties or thatunder the checks and
counter checks Of there is effective pa
which e's In the enemy at every port DESTROYS
the measures and efforts Of the government 10 selfd
fence and self pr election He thought not. II there
were any doubt or difficulty, he apprehended that the
prize court starts with the question In reference 70 our
government just as would start With the question in
reference TO the British government. Now,
the question was, has the government undertaken
to establish blockade, and has establish
ed onef Now. the prize court deals with the
actualitles of the condition Of the blockade
War did not depend upon any law. II was q
matter Of fact the contrary OF peace and do
nned by vatel TO be state in which nation prosecuted
It's right by FORCE The government of the United States
has undertaken to prosecute its right BY force,
just much war when u wrongfuly prosecuted %
when rightfully prosecuted. status Of war being
tablshed neutrak respect IT, and look at the right
Of the matter. Neutras do not make themselves the
judges the action Of the nation that asserts this for
chile and wsrlihe MEASURE rhey only look 10 If II
be forc.be and warke measure, and If 80 by the law
Of Nations the suzeran In of his right by
Soyce rnakee vb known In nuhicsts the