The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

gasor when Captured Not Entitled 10 Rec
ceive she Amount OF His Mortgage Out Of
the Proceeds Of the Prizo-Tho Acts 81 Jaly,
1861. and March, 1853 ia- rs eee e4t
TAe Schooner Hampton and Cargo and Briak'ey claim
ant and appellant o. The United Stotes-Appeal from
the Circuit Court Of the District Of Columbia Mr. JUS
tice Miller delivered the opinion Of the The
schooner Hampton and cargo were captured BY the
United States steamer Cunituck in Dividing creek, Viz
ginia, on the 18th day Of January, 1854 They were
lbeled In the Supreme Court for the District Of Column
ba, and condemned prize Of war The master Of the
vessel her owner but nterposcd claim, nor did
any one claim the cargo. Joseph Brnkley, the appel
LIANT in the case, appeared and claimed the vessel as
mortgage, and after hearing his claim was dismissed
The decree Of condemnation Of vessel and cargo stands
unaffected, and the only question presented for our
decision 10 whether appellant is entitled 70 have the
amount OF his mortgage paid 10 him ou. OF the proceeds
OF the sale Of the vessel I. The FIRST ground on
which appellant reies Is that the mortgage being Jus
in re-, held BY an innocen. party, something more
than Hen and IS protected by the law OF nations
The MORTGAGE not possession In the case and
the owner, who in possession, admits that his
ser WAS "a ATTY
TO import into the prize courts tho strict common
law doctrine wuch sometimes applied 70 the relation
tany much more in sccordsnce With The liberal princi
pies which govern admiralty courts to treat mortgages
the debt for which they are given ana therefore, no
more than ii n on the property conveyed But II is
unnecessary TO examine this question mnusey because
bid prize court from recognizing the doc
trlnc here commended for H IL were once
prize COMBINATIONS As soon war was threstened
the vessels and cargoes which might be stu
aed TO be subject TO capture would only have to raise
q sufficient Of money on them by bona tide mort
cages indemnify them la case Of capture II the vessel
cargo seized the need not appear because
he would DO Indifferent having the value OF his property
IN Already. The mOrtQaQe0 having honest
mortgage. which he could establish IN prize court,
would either save the property restored 10 him or get
the amount Of his mortgage out Of the proceeds OF the
SALE The only risk by enemy vessels or
the high or by noutrals engaged in effort 70
break the blockade would be the costa and expenses or
capture and condemnation-a risk unmportant be
of any value beigerent in reducing his opponent 70
terms principle which thus abolisbes the entire value
of prize capture the high and deprves bockades
or all dangers parties disposed TO break them
be recognized as rule Of prize courts 2 The
based upon tue fact that the vessel was liable
to coniscation under the act OF July 13, 1861,
and that the act OF March 1883 protects his rights in
the premises This latter statute provides that 10 all
or hereafter pending wherein any shps YES
sci other property ehall be condemned III any pro-
an, other law on the subject the Court rendering shs
judgment shaL lrst provide for bsssa tide claims Of
loyal citzcnsn Although there 10 nothing in this act
were NAV ;. Conceded that the &C. Of July Is 1851
was one them But the vessel IN the before us
condemned in any proceeding by virtue OF that
under the International laws Of by which she
came lawful prize, it 10 fncult TO perceive how the
Certainly mot covered BY il terms and we think still
less by Its provisions Congress bad BY several statutes
OF which the act OF July ID was one defined certain acts
or conditions growing out Of the rebellion which would
render properly liable to c0nnscaIon TO the United
States II became evident that In many Of these
property which jnstice required 70 BE- protected Hence
the passage Of the act Of March, lyoa and The eighth
section Of the act Of Jaly Is 1861 the latter Of which
renting foreitares and penalties by Acs
We quite saishsd thai in neither Of these provisions
psiss ju Ss further I'D thai because the vessel
IL this case sbe condemnation under the q
July, 1861, although actually condemned under priAc
statute q though she haA been condemnsd IN pro-
cesding under IL wedo mot the force Of the argu
meat SSsn ws arc ~ sOsos cn es 20 =: sOs
her under that law which prescribed the harder penalty
lie right 70 DO 50 seems % % undsnaos The aT.unsnt
murder committed BY burning down the house OF his
victim to plead that be should only BE- sentenced 70 the
q arson in addition % murder. The case q the sally
Crouch 1897 direct decision Of this court that
displacs the Of prize We ds deny the f CON.
troll Of Congress over the sw OF prize q may be ad
minsered In the courts OF the United States whenever
they choose TO exercise But in the statutes relied
BY appellant In this so NO evidence Of any in
tonon to modify that law in any respect There seems
fairness OF his debt and regret inability pro-
vide his clam. But until international treaties
OF Congress shall mark another stage In the meora
potato principle which would tend materially 10 des-
troy the right Of prize capture IN time Of war.
. Tho decree OF the District Court 10 Affirmed
in Texas-How the Rebel State
Started Business-An Injunction Asked 70
Rcssrain Payment Of Government Bonds
took them or their Assignees-Status Of
TexUa In the Union.
TIE State Of Terds o. George W. WAit, John CAles
al-Ths bill In this sets forth that the state Of
Texas received from the United States under and by
virtue Of certain acts Of Congress- Ave millions Of stock
In the United States ave per cent coupon bonds and
during the month Of January, 1854 deposited thsm
the State Treasury that certain Of the bonds BY their
respective nunbsrs remained In the possession Of the
state OF Texas until some day in the year 1851, or
shortly thereafter, whom they seized and taken BY
combustion Of individuals In armed hostility 10 the
government Of the United States tshs ssossssonht);
hat these persons seized upoa shs archives treasury
and property Of hs ssss Of rsxss and clAnins
else political authority the sssoy within the limits
Of the ssasss established certain Organization d.
nominstsd "ntHtary heard, y for the purpose Of
s's! anss, he scssssou q S. Un's.d States =
withdrawing her from the FEDERAL Union and for the puf-
6nIsd State. That this ssiisry board, 10 ssssnptsd
execution Of that pupcss onths 12h Of January, 1885,
sold ana denvereo 70 tno ooendanta white ana Cnos,
one hundred and thirty i've q those bonds with
pons attached, and which hsi been thus unlawfuisy
seized that such sale and dsnvery were made under
contract in writing, which 10 ATTACHED 70 the bill
exhibit BY which IL appears thai the oonsidssoa 70 be
paid for the bonds were certain Articles conrshand Of
war; 10 be furnished BY White and Chlss 70 the In
surgsnts by whom The bonds had been seized and
aKen White and Cbcs sold and delivered portions Of
the bonds parties unknown 10 the complainant other
portions they delivered 10 psrsoes or parties
named in the bill and made defendants,
and other portions they sin rsLain in their pos
session Il 70 alleged that the holtsn OF the bonds
did obtain them In good faith; that I'll OF the bonds
aud coupons overdue their face the time they
respectively obtained BY the defesssnts and thai
they took them with no;ico Of the title AZ the State Of
Texas thsrcto and with notice that whhs and ChiIss
had valid title TO them. The bill pray that The de-
PENDANTS and their agents may suoIned ssd restrained
iron demanding receiving from the United stasss or
any ocer thereof the amount due the bona well
the amount due the coupons attached suA that thsy
may Be delivered up 70 the state Of Texas a. exist
ing. motion made for injunctou and va made
now returnablc, bat return 10 mads A. thers ID fall
are 70 answer tho bill The counsel for plantGs Insist has
their right 70 injunction cannot b. made more appa-
rent and tbs rclief 70 demanded.