« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
tially a jurisdiction in rem, extending over seizures jure belli from neutrals or enemies upon the high seas or in territorial waters within the admiralty jurisdiction.100 Actual possession of the vessel in question, however, is not necessary. The jurisdiction may be exercised over a vessel sequestrated in a neutral port, 101 sold 102 ransomed,103 or sunk,104 and according to law a decision must be given in all of these cases before the seizure and disposition of the prize can be regarded as legitimate. The ordinary case is where the vessel has been brought into port and has been put according to a provision of statute into the custody of an officer of the court.
Seizures of foreign vessels made in pursuance of local regulations such as the embargo and non-intercourse acts are legitimate only when made in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but subject to this limitation are treated in the same manner as prizes jure belli.105 The same is true of vessels violating the neutrality of the United States. They also may only be seized in territorial waters.106 The seizure of pirate vessels,107 vessels of unrecognized insurgents committing depredations on commerce108 and vessels engaged in acts internationally condemned, as the slave trade,109 is permitted on the high seas porarily taken into its ports. Supra, p. 186, note 74. For exceptions to the exclusive jurisdiction of the captor power's courts over prizes see Moore's Digest, 7;592. Supra, p. 134 et seq.
100 Schooner Adeline, 9 Cranch 244, Speed, Att. Gen., 11 op. 445, (1866); Note on prize law, 1 Wheat. App. II; 2 Wheat. App. I; 5 Wheat. App. p. 52.
101 Jecker vs. Montgomery, 13 How. 498; The Advocate, Blatch. 142; The Arrabella and the Madiera, 2 Gall. 368.
102Williams vs. Amroyd, 7 Cranch 423, (1819).
103 Maissonaire vs. Keating, 2 Gall. 324, 337, (1815); Miller vs. The Resolution, 2 Dall. 1, 15, (1781). See Moore's Digest, 7;533.
104 The Edward Barnard, Blatch, 122; The Schooner Zavalla, Blatch, 173. See also Moore's Digest, 7;590. 105 Rose vs. Himeley, 4 Cranch, 241, (1808); Gelston vs. Hoyt, 3 Wheat.
106 The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298, (1819); The Alerta, 9 Cranch 359, (1815).
107The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. Rep. 408, (1885).
108The Three Friends, 166 U. S. I, (1897); The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. Rep. 408. (1885).
109General act for the Repression of the African Slave Trade, 1890, Malloy, p. 1964. In the Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 122, (1825) Chief Justice Marshall denied the legitimacy of seizures for slave trading beyond territorial jurisdiction in the absence of treaty.
by countries at peace and in such cases the United States courts exercise a prize jurisdiction. It should be noted that statutes may confer a jurisdiction over seizures on the high seas not recognized or permitted by international law, and the prize courts are bound to exercise it.110
In order to confer a prize jurisdiction the seizure must be on the high seas or in territorial waters within the admiralty jurisdiction. Seizures on land confer no prize jurisdiction in the United States.111
Although prize jurisdiction is essentially a jurisdiction in rem, the duty of the court being to settle the title to the vessel itself and its cargo, yet it is not entirely so. Incidental to the disposition of the prize, claims for damages may arise, and it may be necessary to determine the rights of claimants for freight, liens, insurance, etc. All of these matters come within the jurisdiction of prize courts of the United States. 112
(5) The functions of prize courts are (a) to determine upon the legality of seizures, (b) to determine the title to prizes and (c) to dispose of the proceeds in case of condemnation.
By their authority to decide whether the seizure was justifiable, and in case it was without probable cause to decree damages against the naval officers making it, prize courts may aid in the prevention of injury to neutral persons by such officers.
In determining the title to the prize, the court adjudicates the respective claims of the belligerent government to condemnation and the neutral owner to restitution. It thus enforces the duty of the government to abstain from illegal confiscation of neutral property. In disposing of the proceeds of condemned prizes the court may further prevent infractions of neutral rights by naval forces.
The law applied by prize courts of the United States in decreeing distribution of the proceeds of prizes will now be considered.
110 The Amy Warwick, 2 Sprague 123; Murray vs. The Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch 64; Talbot vs. Seaman, 1 Cranch 1; Moore's Digest, 2;914. In the absence of statute the jurisdiction of prize courts is determined by international law. The Schooner Adeline, 9 Cranch 244, Moore's Digest, 7:599. In reference to British claims to prize jurisdiction over extraterritorial seizures of foreign vessels in suppressing the slave trade see supra p. 35.
111 Brown. vs. U. S., 8 Cranch 110, (1814). In England prize courts were given jurisdiction over booty seized by land forces by statute in 1840, 3-4 Vict. c. 55, sec. 22; Banda and Kirwee Booty, L. R. 1 Adm. and Ecc., 109, (1866).
112 Moore's Digest, 7;593-603, Infra p. 193, note 13.
(6) Claimants to proceeds of prizes may be of two kinds, (1) persons with equitable claims upon the vessel by contract or ordinary principles of the law of admiralty, such as claims for freight, liens, insurance, etc. The prize courts of the United States have in general recognized the validity of such claims upon neutral prizes and their jurisdiction over them; consequently in case of condemnation of the vessel, such claims have been commonly allowed before any part of the proceeds is decreed to the government.113 (2) Persons with claims for meri. torious service in capturing the vessel. These claims may be of two kinds, (a) where the vessel is condemned to the capturing state, and (b) where a recaptured vessel is restored to its original neutral or citizen owner. In the first case the claim is for prize bounty or prize money, in the second for military salvage.
(a) It is a principle firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence, if not universal, that prizes legally condemned enure primarily to the government.114
113The Societe, 9 Cranch 209, 212, (1815); The Antonia Johanna, I Wheat. 159, (1816); Schwartz vs. Insurance Co. of No. Am. 3 Wash. C. C. 117. In the case of enemy prizes the opposite rule appears to prevail, that capture destroys all previous claims. See The Hampton, 5 Wall 372; The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 655; The Frances, 8 Cranch 418, (1814); See Moore's Digest, 7;600-603.
114 This principle which is signified by the phrase, “Bello parta cedunt republicae," appears to have been recognized by the Greeks and Romans. "Whatever is captured from the enemy, the law directs to be public property, so that not only private persons are not the owners of it, but even the general is not. The questor takes it, sells it and carries the money to the public account.” Cited from Dionysius of Halicarnassus by Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, (1625), Whewell, ed., 3 vols. Cambridge, 3;124. See also, A. S. Hershey, The History of International Relations during Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Am. Jour. Int. Law, 5;915, (1911); Coleman Philipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, 2 vols., London, 1911, 2;237, 381. For opinion of Grotius on this subject, see op. cit., 3;105. For recognition of this principle in England in 1342 A. D., see Rymer, Foedera, 20 vol., London, 1704-1735, 1;408; Robert Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, 3rd ed., 4 vols., London, 1885, 3;601; T. E. Holland, Principles of Jurisprudence, ith ed., N. Y., 1910, p. 212; Alexander vs. Duke of Wellington, 2 Russ. and Mylne 54, (1831); The Elsebe, 5 Rob. 173, (1804); Banda and Kirwee Booty, L. R. 1 Adm. and Ecc, 109, (1866). Recognition of this principle In the Revolutionary war, by resolution of congress, 115 prizes were given to the captors entirely if privateers, and onethird to one-half if public vessels. By an act of 1800116 the whole of the proceeds of prizes captured by public vessels was decreed to the captor when of inferior force to the prize, and one-half the proceeds when of superior force. The act also provided for distribution among the vessels within sight as joint captors, and among the officers and men of the vessels. The whole of prize proceeds was given to privateers and by an act of 1812117 distribution was decreed to be according to contract between owners and crew or in the absence of contract one-half to each. The provisions of the act of 1800 were practically repeated in acts passed during the Civil war 18 which applied in the United States, U. S. vs. The Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103; The Siren, 13 Wall. 389; Porter vs. U. S. 106 U. S. 607; Commodore Stewart's case 1, Ct. Cl. 113, Scott, 910; The Nuestra Senora de Regla, 108 U. S. 92, 101, (1882); The Manila Prize Cases, 188 U. S. 254. In the Palmyra, 12 Wheat. I, the court held that all proceedings for condemnation upon captures should be in the name of the United States. Before the abolition of prize money the courts frequently referred to the vesting of prize in "captors” in an ambiguous manner which made it appear that title was transferred immediately from the original owner to the naval force which made the capture. (The Mary and Susan, 1 Wheat. 46). The difficulty comes through the equivocal use of the word “captors” to mean either the capturing state or the individuals of the capturing naval force. When the question has come up directly the court has invariably held that condemnation is always to the government and the actual captors only have rights by reason of explicit grant by the government. Thus an article in the French treaty of 1800 (art. 4, Malloy, p. 497), providing for the restoration of prizes not definitely condemned, but legally captured, was held to violate no vested rights of the captors, (U. S. vs. the Schooner Peggy, i Cranch 103, Lincoln Att. Gen. I op. 111), and during the Spanish war of 1898 the president released several captured vessels before adjudication without compensation to the captors for their loss of prize money, (Moore's Digest, 7;505; The Manila Prize Cases, 188 U. S. 254).
115 Resolution of Congress, Nov. 25, 1775, Journal of Cong. 1;242, Ford. ed. 3;373.
See Moore's Digest, 7;264. Henderson vs. Clarkson, Supreme court of Pa., 2 Dall. 174. (1792); Keane vs. the Brig Gloucester, 2 Dall. 36, (1782), Fed. Court of Appeals.
116 Act. Apr. 23, 1800, 2 stat. 52, sec. 5-7, see Upton, op. cit. p. 484.
117 Act. June 26, 1812, 2 stat. 760, sec. 4; June 27, 1813, 2 stat. 793, See Upton, op. cit., p. 485.
118 Act March 25, 1862, 12 stat. 375; July 17, 1862, 12 stat. 600; June 30, 1864, 13 stat. 306, 314, Rev. Stat., sec. 4630, 4632, 4635, 4642, 4652, Upton, op. cit., p. 489.
to both vessels of the navy and “not of the navy". Provision was also made for the payment of prize bounty of $100 for each man on board an enemy warship sunk or destroyed in battle if of inferior force to the attacking United States vessel and $200 if of superior force. Ransom money, salvage, and prize bounty were all to be distributed in the same proportions as prize money. There have been numerous special acts by congress giving prize money in particular cases where the prize was sunk or recaptured, and consequently no claim could be prosecuted under the general law.119
The courts have held that as the statutes make no provision for prize money in case of capture by land forces or jointly by land and naval forces, in such cases the entire proceeds enure to the government.12 While non-commissioned captors are legally entitled to no prize money, "it has been the practice to compensate gratuitous enterprise, courage and patriotism, by assigning the captors a part and sometimes the whole of prize" according to Attorney General Wirt.121 By an act of March 3,
, 1899122 all provisions granting prize money and prize bounty were repealed; thus the entire proceeds of prize now enure to the government, and are according to the act of 1862123 to be used as a permanent naval pension fund.
(b) In early treaties with the Netherlands, Sweden and Prussia124 it was reciprocally agreed that where either of the contracting parties recaptured a vessel of the other before twenty-four hours enemy possession, the vessel should be restored with one-third salvage to privateers and one-thirtieth to public vessels. If the enemy had had possession more than twenty-four hours, privateers were permitted to retain the en
119Special acts granting prize money, Victory on Lake Erie, 3 stat. 130; Case of Algerine vessels, 3 stat. 315; Crew of Brig Transfer, 3 stat. 480; Crew of the Black Snake, 4 stat. 23; Crew of the Bon Homme Richard and the Alliance, 5 stat. 158; Crew of the Wasp, 3 stat. 295.
120 The Siren, 13 Wall. 389; The Nuestra Senora de Regla, 108 U. S. 92, 101, (1882).
121 Wirt, Att. Gen., I op. 463, (1821). See The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 77. Decisions involving prize money distribution in the Spanish War, Dewey vs. U. S., 178 U, S. 510; The Manila Prize Cases, 188 U. S. 254; The Mangrove Prize Money, 188 U. S. 720.
122 Act March 3, 1899, 30 stat. 1004, 1007. 123 Act July 17, 1862, 12 stat. 600, sec. II.
124Treaties with Netherlands, 1782-1795, Malloy, p. 1243; Sweden, 1783-1798, revived 1816, 1827, art. 17, 18, p. 1730; Prussia, 1785-1786, art. 17, 21; 1799-1810, art. 17, 21, pp. 1482, 1492.