The national Republican., 1862-06-17

ruonisssu ioPots uPVu sno hothoitst VI sht
owners Of the ship John Il. Jarvis, which devel
opes principles Of great practical importance
The conclusions Of this report s,riks ne "a
sound, and as likely to be accepted by the
country. r..,-. a. | ...
The immediate case Ia that Of the slip John
a. Jarvis, owned at the North, seized BY the
rebels 10 the Mississippi river, claimed and
condemned - . prize Of war 10 rabel court
Of admiralty, and now recaptured BY our naval
forces at New Orleans. The question upon this
case is, whether the ship is prize Of war to
our naval forces, or whether the title remains
In her original owpes. '..'. ans Q ..dHf
We can only give the following brief ynor
81. of the points taken In Nj. Morrilrs report ;
I. admits thst, by the law Of nations, a for
merly administered in prize courts, property
taken by the public enemy and recsptured va.
held to be prize, but observes that this prac
tics has been changed or greatly modified by
the Legislation Of most modern nations and
the right Of resti u!ioa to the original owner Of
property 40 recaptured generally adopted"
Thur, the English statute as Geo. III, caput
1907, instead Of making recaptured property
prize Of war, gives to the recaptors salvage
Of one eighth Of the value.
The U. s. act Of March 8, 1900, does the same
thing, except In cases where the property has
been condemned o. prize by competent all
thority before recapture thereof" in which ex
cepted cases, by implication, the recsptured
property is prize Of war according to the old
doctrine of the law of nations.
In the matter in hand, Mr.. Morrilrs report
maintains, and as It seems to US with un
auswerable logic, and with an imposing array
Of authorities, the following positions: .
First That the right Of capture and condem.
nation in prize courts. only sppertains to re-
cognized Dationalities.
hecond. That 1t Ia the exclusive province OF
the political departments Of Government, aud
not for the judicial department to determine
in what cases and when to recognize the indie
pendent existence Of new nstionalities, emerg
log as such, by revolution against our own
authority, or by revolution against the author
ity Of others.
Third. That both the executive and legisla-
tive authorities of the United States having
steadily resisted the pretensions Of the leo
called) Confederate States" to separate
national status, and now continuing 10 tres.
them ss rebels only, il 10 not competent for the
courts TO treat them in any other manner.
Upon the point, that the political authorities
must decide when 70 acknowledge new ma
tionality, Mr.. Morrill's report says:
"The general principle commended for has
always been recognized in the British admiral
" courts and by the court Of appeals. II WAS
fully considered In the case Of the Manila, In
1907, tEdwards's Adj. Rep. l.) The question
arose upon the ational character OF st. Do
mingo, then under the dominion Of France
The peculiar circumstances Of the island we're
these: Several parts Of II had been wrested
surgent negroes; had been in their actual pos
session; and which had been detached from
the parent nation and its authority, and they
had maintained within these parts an indepen.
dent government Of their own. It was con-
tended, therefore, that St. DumiBgo could not
be considered AZ colony OF France.
The court of appeals held that inasmuch M
tho British Government had done nothing To-
recognize the independence Of the island, IL
must still be held to be the colony Of France.
law, says: Revolution or possession by insur
gents cannot be regarded by \ prize court ~
changing the national character Of the tsrrito
~ 90 occupied or possessed until the fact has
been recognized by the political authority Of
the government 10 which the court belongs F.
IT always belongs TO the government n tho
country TO determine In what atrelstioh any other
country stands towards Il; that is \ point upon
which the courts Of Justice cannot decide
(Peliicsn l. Ed. Appd. d. rr..
The same principle was recognized by tho
Supreme Court OF the United States in the case
of Webster us Hoyt, q Wheat. $3.50 Itarose
on the statute Of l7o4. the provisions Of whoh
out and armed with the intent to be employ cd
'in the service Of any foreign prince or state
To oruise or commit hostilities upon the sub
! jects, citizens, or property of another foreign
prince or state with whom the United States
are at peace
The proof offered was to show that the shin
was attempted to be fitted out and armed and
was fitted out and armed, with intent that she
should be employed in the service Of that part
Of the island Of 81. Domingo which was then
under the government Of Peron, " cruise and
commit hostitiss upon the subjects, citizens,
and property Of that part of the island Of St..
Domingo which was then under the Govern
ment Of Chris,ophe. No evidence WAS offered
| to prove thst either ofthese governments was
rec >2nzed by the government Of the United
States, or of France, the mother county, ss 4
| foreign power or state. No doctrine is better
Il I
| exclusively to governments to recognize new
| states IN the revOlutiors that may occur In the
world: and that until such recognition, either
by our own Government or the government TO
which the now state belonged, courts Of ICE
L are bound to, cOnsider the ancient state of
things AZ remaining upaltered.'
The question WAS again before the court, in
Kennett ct al. Us. Chambers, In 1852, upon facts
involving the then recent relations Of Texas
and Mexico. The former had declared itself
independent OF the latter, had achieved its indie.
pendsnos IN fact, and was maintaining sepa.
rate government but the established govern.
msnt Of which II was An integral part had not
acknowledged iis Independence, nor had the
Government of the United States acknow vile dged
Texas as an II dependent State.
Tho court used this language: 1T belongs
exclusively tn tho political department OF the
Government to recognize or TO refuse TO REQ, z
nize a new government in u foreign country
claiming to have displaced the old and estab
lished \ new one; until the political department II
Of the Government acknowledged the indspend
eDce OF Texas, the Judiciary were bound to
consider the old order Of things AZ having nor
tinued.'"
In reference 10 the position aciua ly taken by
our Government, az regards the Confederate
States, Mr.. Morriil's report saya; -.'
In his proclamation of the 10th April, 1851, ,
the President Of the United States denOmi mated
the disturbance then existing in these Staiss