Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-03-07
COURTS JURISDICTION
District Tribunal Passes Upon
II
3 Sampson Claim.
THE PRIZE MONEY
OPINION THAT APPEAL SHOULD
HAVE GONE TO SUPREME COURT.
Order Of Dismissal Withheld Pending
Hearing In That Court-A
Dissenting View.
THE PRIZE MONEY

The Court of Appeals has handed down
Its opinion in the case Of the United
States OF America, appellant, against Will
liam t. Sampson. rear admiral United
States Navy, cemmander-in-chief, in his
own behalf. and also in behalf of the OFF,
GERS and enlisted men of the United States
naval force on the North Atlantic station.
who took part in the naval battle of San.
tiago de Cuba July 3, 1903, and in subse-
quent engagements. The opinion was writ
ten by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey. He states:
Upon consideration. I am Of opinion
that this appeal has been improyidently
and without legal warrant taken to this
court. and 1t must therefore, be dis
missed.
But, with view of preserving the ap-
peal taken to this count, in the event that
the Supreme Court should decide that
such appeal was rightfully taken to this
court, and not to the Supreme Court direct,
L think 1t would be proper to withhold
the order dismissing the appeal until the
question can be passed upon by the SUI
preme Court on an appeal from the Dis
trlct court. unless 1t be desired by the
appellant to take an appeal to the Supreme
Court from the order Diminishing this ap-
peal-in which case the order of dismissal
Will be entered at once"
Justice Morris Concurs.
Concurring with the chief justice, Mr..
Justice Morris says: 'In these cases l am
not satisfied that we have not jurisdiction.
But to hold that We have Jurisdiction would
be to deny the Jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court Of the United States. If such hold
Ing be the correct one, I prefer that 1t
should come from the Supreme Court and
not from us.
1T seems to me to be appropriate that
where there Is a doubt, that high tribunal
should itself determine the point. More
over, 1t would seem that by our denial of
our MISREPRESENTATION at this time the in
terests Of justice would be best subserved.
For these reasons concur with the .:hief
Justice In the ruling that the appeals in
these cases lie directly to the Supreme
Court of the United States. and not to this
court"
Dissenting View.
Mr.. Justice Shepard dissents from the
opinion. but has not yet placed his views
on record.
The appeal was taken into the Court of
Appeals from a decree of the Supreme
Court Of the District Of Columbia, sitting
as a United States district court. The
decree appealed from was one Of condemna-
ton of certain property captured and
claimed as lawful prize Of war. By the
libel it was alleged. that the Spanish
in the naval engagement fought off San
tiago, Cuba, July 3, 1898, and that certain
guns and munitions Of war were also cap
tured on and taken from other Spanish
vessels which were sunk or destroyed in
the engagement; all OF which captures, as
alleged. Were condemnable as lawful prize
of war
The United states appeared to the pro-
ceedings and filed an answer to the libel.
By the answer it was denied that the prop
erty captured was liable to condo mnation,
or, il coHdemnable, 1t was denied that the
captors are entitled to receive moiety of
it's value. Evidence was produced, and
upon ..earing a decree of condemnation was
entered. On the question of prize or no
prize the decree of condemnation was in
the nature Of a final decree, and, therefore,
subject to the right of appeal.
There being doubt, however, in the minds
Of counsel Of the parties as to what court
the appeal would lie, there were two ap-
peals entered; one to the Supreme Court
Of the United States and the other to the
Court of Appeals. The United States moved
that the appeal be dismissed upon the
ground that it did not properly lie to the
Court of Appeals.