Opinion ID: 85024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R. INGERSOLL, contra.

Text: 13 It is acknowledged that a tribunal, professing to be a Court of Admiralty, has condemned the property in question, and that the Appellees possess it by virtue of a capture on the high seas. This is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the title, and throws the onus probandi upon the Appellants. 14 A Court of Admiralty is a Court whose jurisdiction is co-ordinate with that of every other throughout the world. The Admiralty law is ' of all times and of all nations ,' and its decrees, so far as they uffect the thing itself, and so long as they remain unreversed, can never be questioned. The end being gained, it is an immaterial question, what were the means , as they are sanctified by the end. Whether the proceedings are erroneous, or not, according to our notions of right and wrong, whether they are predicated upon a mistake of the law , or of the fact , or are founded upon regulations consistent with, or repugnant to, the law of nations, are questions wholly immaterial. The sentence has sealed the proceedings, and those questions can never judiciary come before this Court. 15 In confirmation of these positions, it might be sufficient to refer to the decisions of this Court, where the principles are settled. 16 In the case of Rose v. Himely , 4 Cr. 292, this Court refused to confirm the property of the alleged purchaser, because the Court, passing sentence, had neither the actual nor constructive jurisdiction, nor power, over the subject the controversy. The point upon which it was decided was, that the vessel and cargo were seized, out of the territorial jurisdiction claimed by the French government of St. Domingo, for a breach of municipal regulations, and were never carried within that jurisdiction, but were sold by the captor at a foreign port. 17 Two Judges, (the Chief Justice and Judge Washington) thought that, in order to give jurisdiction, the property should have been taken as prize of war, and brought infra praesidia . Three (Judges Cushing, Chase and Livingston) were of opinion, that it would be conclusive even under a municipal regulation, provided it were carried to the country of the captors. Judge Johnson considered it conclusive at all events. But even in that case, the Chief Justice says, in p. 276, 'If the 'Court of St. Domingo had jurisdiction, the sentence 'is conclusive.' In the case of Hudson and others v. Guestier , and La Font v. Bigelow , 4 Cr. 293, it is decided that, in case of prize of war, a condemnation, while lying in a neutral port , will bind the property; an that the same principle applies to a seizure made within the territory of a state, for a violation of its municipal laws , p. 296. Judges Chase and Livingston dissented, because the vessel was not carried into a French port for trial. Judge Johnson adhered to his former opinion, that it was immaterial whether the capture was made in the exercise of municipal or belligerent rights, or whether within the jurisdictional limits of France, where she is supreme, or upon the high seas, where her authority is concurrent with that of other nations. P. 298. 18 In the case of Croudson and others, v. Leonard , 4 Cr. 434, it was decided, that a sentence of condemnation for breach of blockade, was conclusive evidence of a violation of the warranty of neutrality in a policy of insurance. 19 In the case of Rose & Himely, above mentioned, the incidental questions were decided in favor of our positions; for here it was prize of war , seized and condemned within the jurisdiction of the Court; yet it may be said the issue of that case was adverse. If so, it was expressly over-ruled in Hudson & Smith, v. Guestier , 6 Cr. 281. The Court there unanimously decided, that the judge of the French Court must have had a right to dispese of every question made in behalf of the owner of the property, whether it related to the jurisdiction of the Court, or arose out of the law of nations, or out of the French decrees, or in any other way: and even if the reasons of his judgment should not be satisfactory, it would be no ground for a foreign Court to rescind his proceedings, and to refuse to consider his sentence as conclusive on the property; and that, as the title was changed by the condemnation at Guadalope, the original owner had no right to pursue it in the hands of a vendee. 20 But this is no new principle of law originating with the present state of the world, which would seem rather to forbid it; since the rapacity of Courts of admiralty on the one side, and their acknowledged subserviency to the governing power on the other, diminish the respect which would otherwise be due to their sentences. 21 The conclusive effect of a foreign sentence in changing the property seems to have been first judicially decided in the case of Hughes v. Cornelius , 2 Shower , 242. Sir T. Raymond , 473. Skin. 59. Lord Raym. 893. 935. Vern. 21. The authority of this case has never been questioned. The only question has been as to the collateral effect between underwriters and the assured in cases of warranty in a policy of insurance. And even there, whenever the condemnation has been upon the ground of its being the property of an enemy, the sentence has always been holden to be conclusive, without regard to the circumstances by which the Court came to that result. The sentence is conclusive as to whatever it purports to decide. Park. 355. 360, 361-2, Rob. 173, The Christopher . 4 Rob. 35, The Henrick and Maria . 5 Rob. 255, The Comet . 4 Rob. 3, The Helena . 3 Bos. & Pul. 505, Lothian v. Henderson , 7 T. R. 526, Calvert v. Boville , 7 T. R. 681, Geyer v. Aguilar. East , 473, Oddy v. Boville . 3 Bos. & Pul. 201, Baring v. Clagett . 5 East , 99, Baring v. Royal Exch. Ins. Co. 5 East , 155, Bolton v. Gladstone . Such also has been the course of decisions in the different American States. 1 Binney , 295, Calhoun v. Penn. In. Co. 3 Binney , 220, Cheviot v. Faussat . 2 Johnson's N. Y. cases , 451, Vanderheuvel v. The United In. Co. S. C. 127. 22 Such being the acknowledged effect of a foreign condemnation, the only remedy for the injured party is a resort to the Court of the captors for redress. If that government will not afford it, he must apply to his own, which will make it a national concern to be settled either by negotiation or war, if it be deemed a matter of sufficient importance. Doug. 614, Le Caux v. Eden . 23 The fact that the Milan decree was a violation of the law of nations, and of our neutral rights, can make no difference. For if an unjust condemnation, professing to be founded upon a just law, be conclusive, there is no reason why a condemnation, founded upon an unjust law, should not be equally conclusive. 24 The question is not, whether this Court will lend its aid to carry into effect the Milan decree, but whether it will reverse the sentence of a foreign Court, and destroy vested rights acquired under such a sentence by a bona fide purchaser. 25 But it is said the purchase was made before the sentence of condemnation was passed, and was therefore void. This, however, can make no difference. The effect of the condemnation is not to vest the property, but to sanctify a title which was vested by the capture; to confirm all intermediate acts, and to give a judicial sanction to that which was already sufficiently firm in point of fact. 1 Wils. 211. 2 Azuni , 262. 12 Mod. 134, Rex v. Broome. Carth. 398. S. C. The condemnation does not give property, it only establishes the fact that the captor had a lawful title by the capture. These maritime sales in market overt give an indefeasible title. 4 Johnson , 38, 39, Grant v. M'Lachlan . In cases of foreign attachment, if the attached goods are perishable, or from their situation are exposed to peculiar danger, the constant practice is to order a sale, and such sales are valid, although the attaching creditor may fail to support his claim. 26 It is an established principle, says the Court of errors, (2 Johnson's cases , 458,) that any person purchasing will be secure. 27 LAW, in reply , cited the cases of Geyer v. Aguilar, Pollard v. Bell, Price v. Bell, Bird v. Appleton, Mayne v. Walter . 1 Rob. 144, and Havelock v. Rockwood , 8 T. R. 268, to show that there must be a good cause for condemnation by the law of nations. He cited also, 4 Cr. 221. Doug. 574, and 1 Rob. 139, to the same point, and to show the limitation of the general principle of conclusiveness of a foreign sentence. As to the extent of the power of France over neutral commerce, he cited Marten's Law of Nations , 332; and to show that the Berlin and Milan decrees were in violation of our neutral rights, and were so declared by our government, he referred to the President's message to Congress of the 15 th of December , 1810, and cited 4 Cr. 292, Rose v. Himely . 3 Rob. 99, 333, 2 Rob. 239. 28 To show that the Court must have jurisdiction, before its decree can be conclusive, he cited 4 Cr. 471. 3 Rob. 96. To support the position that a sale before condemnation is not valid, he cited Marten's 332. 4 Cr. 250. 1 Browne's civil law , 254. 1 Rob. 139. 29 DANA, on the same side . 30 This is an appeal by a citizen of the United States to his government for redress for a violation of his neutral rights by a foreign sovereign. This Court exercises that branch of the government, which, in some countries of Europe, is exercised by the sovereign himself. The only question is, whether this Court has power to declare void a condemnation founded upon a decree which the legislature and the executive of the United States have declared to be a violation of our neutral rights, and contrary to the law of nations. This is a question never before agitated in the Courts of the United States. 31 This vessel has not violated the law of nations, nor the municipal law of any state or nation. 32 The sovereign power of a nation cannot be exercised on the high seas, unless over its own subjects or pirates, or jure belli . It can affect hostile property only. A municipal regulation can not rightfully affect neutral property, beyond the territorial jurisdiction. On the high seas all nations are equal. This property, having never been within the French jurisdiction, can never have offended against French municipal law. The Court had no jurisdiction under the municipal law of France in such a case. Suppose, in case of capture and recapture, the first captors proceed to libel and condemn the property in a French Court, while it is safe in a port of the United States, having never been within the jurisdiction of France. It can never be pretended that such a condemnation would be valid. 33