The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1863-09-19

Smfr0 prUsidS0. Al early - 14l4, under
Henry v Of England, there VA an act Of
Parliament, Requiring priyatees to briaG
their prizes into sSS6s ~ ~ kingdom,
nd to make dsaEstiSa t1rsof 70
| pg6fse -. hllbisg ~ srA hing to dis
pcse Of hen. Ranni1 toni Statutes,
Vol. /, !. al. s. Bet IL - I'm rule In
SepdS ~ eddiHonsl she Upon lawlSss
violence By requiring tho condemnatioa4
Of competent court. This rule, wbeh'
10 among the msst authoritative of ~
British Ad6zafalsy, Wsll 1U=50unt 1hs.
famous lettG q Sir William Goee asd fir'
John -Nichol, added ID to Johas Jsys -
follows BSI6SS s46 mp u FOODS I'm.
b disposed y thS osftsn1 tAsaslm1st
be ! regular judicial proceeding, wherein
both parties may b hard and eondemss-
tor thsrefrom ispgise To- Court Of Al.
mirhlty, Judging by the Law Of Nations
and Treaties" This is explicit. But
thii rule II French - well - Rsxiish -
Indssa, itis d PIT Of 3ntssnatioaal lax.
A seizure is regarded merely - pralim-.
mary act, which does not divest the prop
ertJ, though Il psralyzes the right Of tie
proprietor. ,atiH9 dssseL taass7e III
4. subsssusst sct Of condemnation. hy
compstent tribunal j. necessary to de-.
|ternine if:the seizure'is valid. The ques-
tion is compendiously called prize Of no
priiea Where the property Of nsutnlsi il
involved this Requirements becomes # d.
solute importance. In conceding bellig,
erence, all the customary, belligereht
rights with regard to nsutrals are coueel
ded also, 80 that the concession pnts in
jeopardy neutral oommerce. But without
dwelling on this point. content myself
with the authority Of two recent French
writer's. N. Hautefeuille, in his elabor-
ate work, says 'stha cruiser 10 not reccg.
mixed - the proprietor of she objects
seized. but he 10 held to bring them be-
fore the tribunal and obtain sentence
declaring them to be prize (Haute-
feuilie, Des Droits Of des Devoirs des
Nations neutres, Vol. ill.,, PIP. 209, 323,
1922 And later writer, n. Eugene
Cauehy, whose work has appeared since
our war began. says: IA usage, which
evidently has its source in nstional equity,
requires that, before proceeding to divide
the booty, there shouh be an inquiry -
to the regularity of the prize; and to
this end. every prize taken from An enemy
should BE- carried before the Judge e.tab.
Iished by the sovereign Of the captor.
| (Cauchy, Droit Maritime International,
Vol. i, PIP. IS, 63.) But if the power,
calling itself belligerent, cannot comply
with this condition if it has no port into
which it can bring the captured ship, and
no court. according to the requirement Of
the British Admiralty, with "a regular
judicial proceeding wherein both parties
may be heard" it is clearly not in a situ-
altos to dispose Of ship or goods ~ prize.
Whatever may be its force in; other re-
spects, 1t lacks vital element of ocean
befiigereucy. In that semi-sovereignty
which constitutes belligerency on land,
there must be provision for the admin.
istration Of justice, without which there
is nothing but mob. In that same semi.
sovereignty on the ocean there must b Z
similar provision. 1t will not be esoush
that there should be ships duly commits.
stoned to take prizes, there must also be
courts to try then and the latter are not
less important than the former.
Lord Russell himself, who vas 20 swift
to make this concession, has been led 10
confess the necessity of prize courts on
the part of ocean belligerents, aud thu.
to expose the irrational character OF his
own work. In letter to THE Liverpool
Chamber Of Commerce, dated lst of jan
rary. 1862, occasioned by the destruction
of British cargoes, the Minister says i
"Ihe owners Of any British property, not
being contraband of war, on board ! Ped
eral vessel captured and DESTROYED By q
Coafsderate vessel of war, may claim in
Confederate prize court compensation
for destruction of such property
(Wheaton's Elements, Lawrence's edit.
p. lO24.) But If there be no prize court.
then justice must fail; and With this
failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched
pretension of ocean belligerency-except
in the galvanism Of Queens proclams.
ton, or Cabinet concession.
Ns cruiser may At any time burn pri.
zes. it is only because Of some exception
al exigency in a particular case, and not
according to any general rule. The gen
eral rule declares that there can be no
right to take aprixs, if there be no port
into which It may b. carried. The right
of capture and the right Of trial are the
compliments of each otheI-throuph
which harsh prerogative is supposed TO
be rounded into the proper form Of civil
lied warfare. Therefore every ship and
cargo burned By the captors, for the reas-
on that they had no port, testi6es that
they are without that vital sovereignty on
the ocean, which is needed in the exer.
else Of bellieerent Jurisdiction, and that
they are mot ocean bslligerents in fact
Nay more all these bonEres Of the sea
cry ont against that power, which by :
precipitate concession Of false belliecr.
ency furnished the torch. As veil invest
the febellisss sajahs Of India, Who have
never tasted salt water, with this OCEAN
Prerogstive, so that they too may rob and
burn; as well constitute land locked Po-
land, now in earms for Independence, "a
ocean beAigerent;r or enroll a,oun ri.