Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1863-09-11


was an act Of parliament requiring prvateer.
to bring their prizes into port OF the king.
dom, and to make a declaration thereof to q
p oper officer, before undertaking to dispose
OF them (RunningtOn's Statutes, Vol. |, d.
49l) But the modern rule interpo>cs an ad-
ditional check upon lawless violence by re-
quiring the condemnation of a competent
court This rule, which is among the most
authoritative Of the British admiralty, will be
found in the famous letter of Sir William Scott
and SirJohn Nichol, addressed to John Jay,
a. follows: "BetOre the ship or goods can be
disposed of by the captors, there must be a
! regular Judicial proceeding, wherein both par
! ties may be heard and condemnation there.
| from as prize in a court of Admiralty, Judging
| by the law of nations and treaties" This is
explicit But this rule is French as well as
English. Indeed it is part of International
| law. A seizurei is regarded merely as apremin-
airy act, which does not divest the property
though it paralyzes the right of the prUprie-
tor. A subsequent act of condemnation by a
competent tribunal, is neces,a.A 10 determine
if the seizure is valid. IN, question is
compendiously called pr u az no prize.
Where the property Of neutr.lS is involved
this requirement becomes at absolute inpor-
lance. In cunceding heiligerency, all the
customary belligerant rights with regard to
sion puts in jeopardy neutral commerce. But
without dwelling on this point, L content my
self with the authority OF two recent French
writers. M. Hauteteuie, in his elaborate
work, says "the cruiser is not recognized as
the proprietor of the Objects seized, but he is
held TO bring them before the tribunal and o.
tain q sentence declaring them to be prize"
(Haute(euiLe, DeS DroitS ct des Deroirs des
Nations neut1eS, Vol III, p. 299, 1923, 352.)
And later writer, NJ. Eugene Cauchy
whose work has appeared since our war be-
gan, says, "a usage, which evidently has its
source in natural equtty, requires that, be-
fore proceeding to divide the booty, there
should be an inquiry as to the regularity of
the prize; and to this end every prize taken
from an enemy should be carried before the
judge established by the sovereign of the cap
tor" (Cauchy, Droit Maritime Information
al, Vol l., p. 50, sc. But if the power, call
ing itself belgerent, cannot comply with this
condlon; if it has no port into which it can
bring the c ptuTed ship, and no court, accord
ing to the requirement of the British ADMIRAL
ty, with ga regular judicial proceeding where.
in both parties may be heard, il is clearly not
in situation to dispose of ship or goods as
prize. Whatever may be its force in other re-
spects, it lacks a vital element of ocean bel
ligerency. In that semi sovereignty, which
IOiiSbllutSS pSliiSSACllNy OiIduus tneEe must ne
provision for the administration of justice,
without which there is nothing but mob In
that same senii-sovcreignty on the ocean
there should be Il similar provision. 1t will
not be enough that there should be ships duly
commissioned to take prizes, there must also
be courts to try them; and the latter are not
less important than the former.
Lord Russell himself, who WAS so swift TO
make this concession, has been led to confess
the necessity OF prize courts on the part of
ocean belligerents, and thus to expose the ir-
rational character of his own work. In let
ter to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce,
dated LIST January, 1862, occasioned by the de-
strnrtinu al british cargQeS, the minister says
"Ihe owners OF any British property, not he
ing contraband Of war, on board federal YES
sci captured and destroyed by a confederate
vessel of war, may claim in a confederate
prize court compensation for destruction OF
such property" (Wheaton's Elements, Law
rence's edit. p. lO2f.) But if there be 40
prize court then justice must fail; and with
this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretch
ed prclensiun of ocean belligerency-e except
in the galvaniSm Of Il queens proclamation, or
IL cabinet concession.
Ii cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it
is only because of some exceptional eXigency
in particular case, and not according
to any general rule. The general rule de-
clares that there can be no right to take prize
if there be no port into which it can be car
ried. The right of trial and the right of cap
ture are the compliments of each other
through which harsh perogative is supposed
to be rountedinto the proper form of civilized
warfare. Therefore, every ship and cargo,
burned by the capto rs for the reason that they
had no port, testifies that they are without
that vital sovereignty on the ocean, which is
npn1A1 in tho nvprpicp nf hnlliuaraut iuri dir
ton, and that they are not ocean belligerents
in fact. Nay, more all these bonfires of the
cry out against that power, which by a
precipitate concession of false belligercncy
furnished the torch. As well invest the
bellious raj abs of India, who have never tast-
ed salt water, with this ocean prerogative, so
that they too may rob and burn; as well CON
stitute and-lucked Poland, now in arms for
independence, an ocean belligerent; or enroll
mountBln Switzerland in The same class; or
join with Shakespeare in making inland Bohe-
mia country with tospitable ports ON the
ocean.
To aggravate this concession of a false bel
ligerency, the ships are all built, rugged, arm
ed, and manned in Great Britain. 1t is out Of
British oak and British ir IN that they are con-
structed; rugged with British ropes made for
midable with British arms supplied with Brit
ish gunners and navigated 10y British crews,
so as tn constitute in all respects British ma
val, expedition. British ports supply the place
of rebel slaye-monger ports. British ports
are open to them when their own are closed.
British ports constitute their naval base of OPP
eratiOns and supplies, furnishing every thing
needful-except an officep-the ship papers
and court for the trial of the prizes each of
which is essential to the legality of the expe-
dition.. And yet these same ships, thus equip
ped in British ports and never touching port
of the pretended government in whose name
they rob and burn-being simply rib taken
out of the side of England and contributed to
slave-monger rebelion-receive the further
passport of belligerency from the British gov
eminent when in fact the belligerency does
not exist. The whole proceeding, from the
laying of the keel in British dockyard to the
bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of
international law and an insult to a friendly
power.
: The case is sometimes said TO be new but
| it is only new inasmuch as no such 'parricide"
is provided against in express terms. 1t was
not anticipated But the principles which
govern it are as old as justice and humanity,
in the interests OF which beligerent rights are
said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed,
and it is now apparent that, whatever may
have been the motives Of the British govern
ment, belligerent rights have been conceded
inthe interests of injustice and 9nhumantty.
Burning ships and scattered wrecks are the