Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

decreeing distribution of the proceeds of prizes will now be considered.

(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 meritorious 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.111

113 The 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.

114This 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, 11th 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 war118 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. 1, 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, 1 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.120 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

119 Special 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.

124 Treaties 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.

tire proceeds while with public vessels the prize should be restored with one-tenth salvage. A statute of 1800,125 substantially embodied in the revised statutes of 1878, decrees salvage of one-eighth to the recaptors upon restoration of vessels to the original owner. The principle upon which restoration or condemnation is decreed in cases of recaptured vessels has been considered under obligations of abstention.128

The methods adopted for enforcing the obligations of naval forces, have been (1) punishment by court martial for violation of articles for the government of the navy, (2) assessment of damages by prize courts, (3) forfeiture of prize money. In addition to these legal methods of control the conduct of naval forces can be and is ordinarily controlled by executive action exercisable by the president as commander in chief and subordinate naval officers with delegated authority. The abolition of prize money has also been a measure tending toward the protection of neutral rights. The abolition of privateering with the stimulus which it gave toward disregard for the rights of merchantmen, by offering chances for personal gain, has called attention to the fact that prize money created a similar situation in the navy itself. There can be no doubt but that the quest of prize money acts as an incentive to the making of unjustifiable seizures,127 and when it was allowed its forfeiture in case of unwarranted seizures was used as a means of enforcing observance of neutral rights among naval vessels. By the abolition of prize money and prize bounty the incentive toward illegal captures has been removed and the movement in the direction started by the abolition of privateering continued.

In the second Hague Conference of 1907, a proposal was made to abolish prize money,128 which was still given by all nations except the United States and Japan. It was not accepted, even the United States voting against it on the ground

125 Act March 3, 1800, 2 stat. 16. The Act June 30, 1864, 13 stat. 306, 314, Rev. Stat. sec. 4652, leaves the determination of the amount of salvage to the court.

126 Supra, pp. 169 et seq.

127 See Article by C. C. Binney, The latest chapter of the American Law of Prize and Capture, Am. Law Reg., Sept. 1906, and Editorial Comment, Am. Jour. Int. Law, 1907, 1;484.

128 Deuxième Conference Internationale de la Paix, Actes et Documents, 3 vols., The Hague, 1907, 3;1148. English translation of this proposal, J. Westlake, International Law, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1910, 2;313. Discussion of the "voeu" which was proposed by the French delegation, in the Acts and Documents, 3:792, 809, 842, 845, 906, 909.

that the matter was a subject proper for local regulation and that it was not desirable to take emphasis from the broader question of abolishing the right to capture private property at sea which the United States was advocating. In the present war, Great Britain has by order in council abolished prize money, ,129 and it seems probable that in course of time it will be acted on internationally as was done in the case of privateering.

129Order in Council, Aug. 28, 1914, abolished prize money and established a prize fund to be divided among the whole navy at the end of the war. See Norman Bentwich, International Law as applied by England in the War, Am. Jour. Int. Law, Jan. 1915.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »