Evening star., 1901-06-27
meaning Of the word prize" Justice Brad

ley said:
Obviously the word prize used three
times in the latter portion of the section
or the law which 1 have herein before
proviso that If the captured vessel or any
part OF the captured property is not in con-
dition to be sent in for adjudication, a sur
Eey shall be had refers to the same SUBJ
)ect, the ship or any other part of the
cargo After discussing the Various sec
tions OF the law on the subject of prize
money and the condemnation Of property
the court held:
Manifestly the word prize and the
Woros prize property wherever used in
the several sections mean ship and cargo
or snip or vessel or the cargo or stores
carried by her. The statute in the nine
sections does not by any word or words
indicate that other property than vessels
In cargo shall be subject to prize In the
latter part OF section six that is most plain
~ SHOWN, where, after requiring Of the
prize commissioners the return to court
of documents, papers, evidence and their
own inventory of the prize property, the
section concludes: And IL the captured
vessel or any Of its cargo or stores are
such that In their judgment may be use
1ul TO the government in war, they shall
report the same to the Secretary of the
Navy
There is no apparent legislative purpose
to enlarge the scope Of prize as fixed
by the earlier sections of the law The
fact that IT awards to the captors the
net proceeds of the prize IL of equal or
superior force to the vessel or vessels
making the capture, and one-half to them
and the other half to the United States
II OF inferior force, gives added certainty to
the claim that prize means ship or ves-
sci and cargo"
Property Captured on Land.
In conclusion, Justice Bradley said
II am of the opinion that property cap
tured on land was not intended to be made
maritime prize, and that it is excluded by
the terms of the act from which the right
Is sought to be derived, and that the libel
liant is not entitled to adjudication in prize
OF the appraised value of such property
appropriated by the United States. This
renders unnecessary the consideration of
the effect of the treaty with Spain upon the
rights of the libellant. The next question
is whether the libellant is entitled to con-
demnation in prize of the value of property
taken from vessels sunk or otherwise de-
stroyed. in behalf of the United States IL
Is objected that inasmuch as the Ibellant
mas received bounty for the destruction of
these vessels he is not entitled as prize for
property .aken from them; that bounty is
substitute for the prize ITSELF something
given in lieu Of it Bounty is given in
lieu of prize only in the case of a ship or
vessel of war belonging to an enemy which
Is sunk or otherwise destroyed, which it
may be necessary to destroy in consequence
of injuries received in action.
TT is proportioned not to the value of
the ship or Of it's armament or munitions
but to the number of persons on board
OF her at the commencement of the en-
gsgement. While it may be true that the
original idea was that the amount so ascer-
tained would be a fair substitute for the
prize itself. and such idea may not have
been far wrong in the days of wooden
vessels OF war, yet in these days Of steel
armored cruisers and battle ships with all
OF their explosive appliances. the highest
amount of bounty allowed is very incon-
siderable compared with the value of the
ship sunk or destroyed.
Not an Equivalent
ut Is not an equivalent for prize There
Is, therefore no reason arising out OF the
amount paid as bounty that would Justify
the claim that in fairness, such reward
should be exclusive. The reward is appar-
emily bestowed for the injury done to the
enemy in the loss Of fighting power 1t
matters not how valuable may be the an
pliances and outfit that 80 down with her
or that are involved in her destruction. II
the vessels were captured the cargo or out
fit or appliances would enter into the esti-
mate of the total value. I find nothing in
the statute to prohibit the condemnation
in prize Of property captured or taken from
ships SUNK or destroyed, in addition to
bounty paid for the destruction of the
ship and l am of the opinion that 1t should
be allowed.
Clearly neither cascoe nor floating der
rick was a ship vessel in the sense in
which those terms are used in the act of
1854. Such only with their cargoes or
stores are recognized lawful prize True
1t is that through the power Of the navy
they were appropriated to the use of the
United States, and that the government
has had the benefit of the appropriation,
but that does not determine the right Of
prize. That right, If it exists at all, exists
by reason Of the statute giving it."
The decision was some 5000 words In
length. 1t took Judge Bradley about an
hour in it's delivery.
The government was represented by
Charles c. Binney as special counsel, and
the libellants by Attorneys Herbert & Mi
cou and Charles & William B. King