The national Republican., 1867-02-06
The COurtn.
The Courts.
SUPREME CoURT OF THE USITEI

The Courts.
SUPREME CoURT OF THE UNITED STAIRS
TUESDAY, February 0, 1857.
No. 9s. Tho United States, appellants, vs.. The
Steamship Sir VIM. Peel and cargo, and
No. $50. Tho Steamship Sir VIM. Peel and cargo
vs.. The United States.
The argument Of this cause was continued by Mr..
Marvin and Mr.. Evarts, Of counsel for the claim
ants.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II O'Clock.
Prize-The Blockade Of the Rio Grdnde-Cdp-
tMrs IN neutral Vdtos- Who TO make The objection
Probable cduse-Ths United States, h5eiiants and
appellants, a. the steamship Su Wm Peel and
cargo; aud stedmship SIR Wm. Peel aud cargo vs.
the Unaed States.-Thsse are cross appeals, In
prize, the Government appealing from so much Of
the decree below louisiana dstrict restored the
prize to the claimants, and the claimants appealing
| nom "a much Of the decree as made restoration
witt lowing damages and costs.
u Htmship Sir VIM. Peel Of ], 535 tons bur-
den, feot long and 800 horse power, with clear
ance from Liverpool to Matamoras, came to anchor
In the open roadstead, near the mouth Of the Rio
Grande, on tho oath Of June, 1853, and remained
in those waters until the 1lth Of September follow
| ing, when she was captured by the United States
steamship Seminole, one Of the vessels then main.
tanning, at that point, the blockade. The VIM. Pesl
was sent to New Orleans where the vessel and cargo
| having been libelled prize, the vessel was
claimed BY the master, as the property Of Messrs.
Coney 4 Laycock, of Manchester, England, and the
cargo was claimed by the master In behalf of
| Messrs. A. a 8. Henry, Of the same place.
After the usual examinations, further proof was
introduced on both sides, and decree was entered
dsmssing the libel, restoring vessel and cargo TO
the claimants, and certifying reasonable cause Of
seizure. In the supplemental decree as to costs
| and expenses, the court states In substance that
the decree Of restoration passed upon the ground
that the capture was probably made in neutral
(Mexican) waters, and but for this fact decree Of
| condemnation would have been entered.
| The Government contends as 10 the facts that
the venture In which the Peel and her cargo were
engaged, and In the course Of which they cap.
tared, was an exchange Of cargo Of goods well
fitted for the use Of the rebel forces, and In part
unquestionably contraband, for cotton bought or
/ by some arrangement procured In Texas, from the
rebel authorities who held IT, both the outward and
| the return cargo passing through tho bloekaded
| port Of Brownsville by way Of Matamoras without
change of ownership in the transit, and the dis.
charge of the outward cargo and the lAding Of the
inward cargo taking place In the waters Of block
AIDED coast. The position Of the Peel at the time
Of her capture was on the American side Of the
dividing line between the United States and Mex.
ico This Is proven by the most conclusive testi.
mony-that Of two officers who, in tho regular dis.
charge Of their duty, by careful observation with
compass and chart before them Rscertained the
exact position Of the captured vessel.
But, in respect Of the law, II this fact were
otherwise still violation Of neutral territory Is
ayerred suggested in the case by the Government
Of Mexico or in its behalf and such alleged viola
| tlOn cannot DO euectuhlly SHOWN or set up In
prize court by any other party or claimant The
locality Of the capture, therefore, aleged.by the
claimants in support Of their claim to vessel and
cargo, is wholly immaterial. All the authorities
| agree that capture within neutral territory can
only be ayerred in support of q claim for restora-
tion by the accredited agent Of tho Government
whose neutral immunity has been thus infringed.
Neither the enemy claimant. who has no standing
In the prize courts, nor the citizen claimant who
has made his property liable to condemnation in
| mi. foru MI Tad L..
neutral claimant, who at the timo Of capture Is
. found In the predicament Of having laid aside
his neutral character, and having by unneutral
conduct made himself pro hoe Viee enemy,
can set up for defence against a decree Of
condemnation SO incurred the fact of capture
within neutral limits. No case has or can be pro.
duced giving warrant for tho allowance Of such a
claim for restoration All the adj judged cases state
with equal erplictnoss and emphasis-hrst, that
| tho claim Of neutral immunity, when properly
pleaded by tho aggrievsd neutral government, Is
conclusive and etectual in all cases as defence
| against decree Of condemnation; and secondly,
that such claim on such ground can be made only
by and in behalf Of such government whose terrific.
rial rights have been infringed.
The captured cargo Of cotton was mostly, II not
wholly, sold and delivered by the rebel authorities
to the agent Of Henry Co., the claimants, within
the rightful jurisdiction Of the United States, at
Brownsville, In Texas. IN the summer of 1868 and
such sale and delivery constitutes the sole ground
Of title to the cotton which they allege. Such sale
and delivery conveyed to the claimants no valid
, title as against the United States.
! At the time of this capture, and before and
afterwards, the blockade Of the port Of Brownsville
by the naval force Of the United States was both
efectual and valid and tho Sir Wm Peel, at the
/ time Of her capture, having already broken the
blockade maintained at the mouth Of the Rio
Grande, was captured IN delietO, and upon this
ground alone If not otherwise, both vessel and
! cargo should be condemned.
The claimants maintain that, being neutral sub.
ects Of Great Britain, they have q standing In the
prize courts to allege PROFOUND and prove,
according to the regular procedure therein,
D whatever is pertinent and significant on the
question Of "lawful prize Of war; under the law
Of nations as bearing upon tho sentence Of resttu-
ton or condemnation to be passed In the cause.
Whenever, therefore, in tho contest between these
competent belligerents, any fact appears to the
J court exhibiting the capture to bo unlawful and
void that fact Is to have Its consequence Of restu
ton 1t is impossible for the court to ignore the
fact, for it is alleged and proved by litigant, to
whom 1t Is open, to allego and prove whatever
bears upon the question Of prize or no prize If
the fact thus before tho court under the rules Of
the law of nations requires the restitution of the
prize sentence of condemnation cannot pass without
| a violation Of the law Of nations.
II 1t appears from the proofs land claimants in
sist that 1t does that the Sir VIM. Peel was cap.
tured when at anchor within the neutral territory
of Mexico she captured in violation Of tho ab.
SOlts immunity from belligerent visitation search
or capture enjoyed Dy neutral properly Wlthlh neu'
tral territory and the capture is by the law of
tions illegal and void, carrying no rights to the
cAptOrs, involving the neutral property or its neu.
ral owners In amenability to the prize jurisdio-
tion on the merits and exposing the captOrs to ex.
; emplary damages from the juotice Of the prize
courts and the personal punishment from their
belligerent government which their conduct has
compromised with the neutral nation Of the injured
neutral owners, not less than with the neutral ma.
: i tion whose territory has been violated.
As between belligerents, the rights Of war are
substantially measured by their p0psy, but as bo.
tween neutrals, the mere power Of the belligorents
carries no rights whatever. The whole scope and
measure of the rights of bsligerent towards neu.
trails determined by the settled rules and limits
fixed by the law Of nations By the law Of nations,
: within the region invaded by this begerent cap.
ture the belligerent had no right whatever as
toward or against neutral nations the property
Of their subjects, Every exercise Of bslligersnt