New-York tribune., 1891-05-21
OUR RIGHT TO TAKE THE ITATA
THE PRINCIPLE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME
COURT.
DECISIONS SETTING FORTH THE RIGHT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO PURSUE AND CAPTURE
UPON THE HIGH SEAS VESSELS THAT
HAVE OFFENDED ITS LAws-wHAT
HALL HAS SAID.

rBr TKLEGRAPH TO THE THIBusE.l
Washington, May 2O.-"The New-York Evening
Post Of May 10, which reached Washington tooay'
contains an editorial article entitled Suspicious Quo
tationsp the reading Of which suggests Popes famous
saving IN regard to the dangers OF II" little learning
The article says:
Ever since 1854 we have inclined IN suspect all
Republican quotations which in way helped the cause
That is to say We have always been inclined to believe
that they forgeres, or that they came
from than the one to which they were
ascrbed. that they had been modified In some such
way alter the We could produce Conspicuous
illustrations of all those offences. Accordingly "hen We
found this in Tribune Of yesterday, coming from sec
etarv Tracy we took the precaution to go 10 the original
report.
The writer then quotes Washington dispatch to
The New-York Tribune, printed May 1s, which
represents Secretary Tracy referring 70 three de
csions Of the United states supreme Court in support
Of the right Of the Government to seize the 1tata on
the high seas. Tie three are those OF Rose
against Hmely and Hudson against Guester ana Oh
the Mariana Flora The views Of the Supreme court
in the case of Rose against lmely were especially r
ferred to as jusfying the seizure OF ship upon bhe
high seas after she has committed act OF forfeiture
The writer in "The Post" then continues
What found in the case Rose vs. hineE u
Henley, was that the court through Chief justice MAI
hou decided exactly the other way and that the oletu
here quoted from the dissenting opinion vi
Johnson. Moreover the was not IN point luz INV
purpose Of the present discussion. The question "S'
whether "a French Admiralty Court which had con-
dsmned m American ship had competent jurisdiction
"a beha- the suprerue Court coud examine the luris
dlction Of foreign tribunal Both the otner cases c'eu
are cases Of merchant vessels. The Mariana flori
was Portuguese mercantile ship, captured anu oiouEh
IN BY United States cruiser for firing on her u'usi
mistaken notion Of her character 10 was apropos OF hef
that Tustice Story made the statement quoteo
which nobody has questioned, out MS
qualifying sentence has been left out This nowsVe,
never been supposed draw after It the rishs
visitation or search party such rases seles ab
his peril II he establishes forfeiture, he Is justified
II he fails full compensation IN damages
This everybody has always known The Charleston msn
at her peril seize a mail the high seas eut
whether she could legally seize the man-d'waf Z"
beliRerent Is another matter.
For the enlightenment OF this writer few facts may
be stated Of which he seems altogether ignorant After
digestng them, he will be willing, perhaps to admit
that the case is in point He may possibly ADMIT
too that asserting what the questions at issue
In that case ne omitted altogether to mention several
OF IT. most essential features. The case is to be found
in Cranch. 241. The judges sitting 2n the supreme
Court at the time were Chief Justice Marshall and Asso
cate Justices Chase Washington, Johnson, Livingston
and Cushing Briefly told, the was this
The American schooner Sarah had been trailing with
.he insurgents Of Domingo contrary TO the laws OF
France and had thence sailed with cargo purchased
there for tie United Ten leagues out upon the
INTO spa O. port in Cuba, neutral port Her
cargo was there sold by the captors before condemns
ton under Authority Of person who styled himself
the agent OF the Government of San Domingo. The
greater part Of the cargo purchased by Colt,
master OF an American vessel called The Example,
taken on board and carried into Charleston S. C.,
where the supercagO OF the Sarah Hbeed her in the
District Court IN the of the foreign owners, upon
the ground that they had been unlawfuy seized upon
cha f~h nd cd for
this Hbelng and notice Of II 10 the French captor,
proceedings for condemnation Of the Sarah were be
gun In tribunal Of the first instance at san Domingo
and condemnation had. These questions were
presented In the case:
First could the American court examine and decide
FOR or against the jurisdiction Of the French court
second II So did the French court have jurisdiction in
view Of the facts o. that the prize in a neutral
port and % that il captured upon the high seas
Ii was decided that the American court could examine
and decide whether the French court had jurisdiction
Of the subject matter.
Justice Livingston. with whom concurred Justices
Cushing and Chase held that the rest being in
Spanish port and hence not within the French jurs
dicton the condemnation was invalid and the plaintiff
in the District of South Carolina entitled to
cover.
Mr.. Justice Livingston delivered brief opinion as
follows:
without expressing an opinion the invalditY
a a
the property Immediately carried into the port "
the country TO which the capturing vessel belonged and
there regularly proceeded against, concur in the uds-
ment just delivered, because the Sarah and her cargo
were condemned by French tribunal sitting at San5o
Domingo without having been carried into that any
other French port and while lying the port Of Charles
ton, S c., whittier they had been carried by and with
the n the captor
Justices Cushing and Chase concurred with him.
Mr.. Justice johnson delivered opinion. Justice
La aA E11I
the right 10 seize vessel of foreign nation on the
high seas Chief Justice Marshall Of the opinion
that the seizure being on the high was wron gfI
and gave no jurisdiction
In Hudson against Guestier Is Cranch, 231 the
same question was brought in review again, and II
was directly and distinctly adjudged in accordance with
Mr. Justice JOhnsOn's views in Rose against Hlnley
that cruiser Of nation has right to seize yes
se Of foreign nation for violation Of munlcpal E"s
upon the high seas Chief Justice Marshall said
He had supposed that the former opinion delivered IN
these cases upon this point had been cohcurred IN by io
Judges but this be was mistaken The opinion ""s
concurred in by Judge He was still Of opinion M''
the construction then given correct. However te
ncple Of that case (lose vs. Hmely) oyerruled
In the case OF tho Mariana Flora, which was seized
upon the high IN II Wheaton the same doctrine
Is asserted by Mr.. Justice story. speaking for TIE
court, he says:
country that an American ship offending against our laws
and foreign ship Ike manner offending in our Jur-
d,etion NAV afterward BE- pursued and Lied upon The
ocean and rghtfuly brought into our port FOR adude
ton.
This much regarding the decisions Of the supreme
Court and the discovery the part Of the learned
pnndn7 OF The POST that Mr. Justice Johnsohs
opnion was dissenting opinion" and IS not 70 be
rarded today a. representing the principle adopted
and laid down by the hlgtct tribunal
Of the land And while eloquent, seour'-
ing upon the subject Of "suspicious qu.tations,
sheer forreries' and garbled' extracts centrally
why is IL that The POST In its hysterlc efforts to
make ont case against secretary Blaine and Secretary
Tray fails to quote Halls international Law when
ever that Interesting authority sustalns the course
pursued by the Administration In the case Of the
Itataf on MAY IA THE POST printed long quote
ton from Hail. TO little purpose. but II prudenty
omitted 20 copy the ~ owing:
@Finally when persons on board ship lying IN or
passing through foreign commit aets forbdden
By the territorial laws. the local authorities NAV
pursue the ofenung vessel into the open sea in order