Under the general head of Admiralty jurisdiction are included all captures and questions of prize, arising jure belli, as well as to pay costs and damages; for which purpose all privateers are obliged to give security for their good behaviour; and this is referred to, and expressly stipulated by many treaties.

""Though from the ship's papers, and the preparatory examinations, the property does not sufficiently appear to be neutral, the claimant is often indulged with time to send over affidavits, to supply that defect; if he will not show the property by sufficient affidavits, to be neutral, it is presumed to belong to the enemy. Where the property appears from evidence not on board the ship, the captor is justified in bringing her in, and excused paying costs, because he is not in fault; or, according to the circumstances of the case, may justly be entitled to receive his costs.

""If the sentence of the court of Admiralty is thought to be erroneous, there is in every maritime country a superior court of review, consisting of the most considerable persons, to which the parties who think themselves aggrieved may appeal; and this superior court judges by the same rule which governs the court of Admiralty-viz., the law of nations, and the treaties subsisting with that neutral power, whose subject is a party before them.

""If no appeal is offered, it is an acknowledgment of the justice of the sentence by the parties themselves, and conclusive.

"This manner of trial and adjudication is supported, alluded to, and enforced, by many treaties.

"In this method, all captures at sea were tried, during the last war, by Great Britain, France, and Spain, and submitted to by the neutral powers. In this method, by courts of Admiralty acting according to the law of nations and particular treaties, all captures at sea have immemorially been judged of, in every country of Europe. Any other method of trial would be manifestly unjust, absurd, and impracticable."

'Such are the principles which govern the proceedings of the prize

courts.

"The following are the measures which ought to be taken by the captor, and by the neutral claimant, upon a ship and cargo being brought in as a prize. The captor immediately, upon bringing his prize into port, sends up, or delivers upon oath, to the registry of the court of Admiralty, all papers found on board the captured ship. In the course of a few days, the preparatory examinations of the captain and some of the crew of the captured ship are taken, upon a set of standing interrogatories, before the commissioners of the port to which the prize is brought, and which are also forwarded to the registry of the Admiralty as soon as taken. A monition is extracted by the captor from the registry, and served upon the Royal Exchange, notifying the capture, and calling upon all persons interested to appear and show cause, why the ship and goods should not be condemned. At the expiration of twenty days, the monition is returned into the registry, with a certificate of its service, and if any claim has been given, the cause is then ready for hearing, upon the evidence arising out of the ship's papers, and preparatory examinations.

'The measures taken, on the part of the neutral master or proprietor of the cargo, are as follows: Upon being brought into port, the master usually makes a protest, which he forwards to London, as instructions (or with such further directions as he thinks proper) either to the correspondent of his owners, or to the consul of his nation, in order to claim the ship and such parts of the cargo as belong to his owners, or with which he was particularly intrusted; or the master himself, as soon as he has undergone his examination, goes to London to take the necessary steps.

'The master, correspondent, or consul, applies to a proctor, who pres

acts, torts, and inquiries strictly of civil cognisance, independent of belligerent operations and contracts, claims and services, pares a claim supported by an affidavit of the claimant, stating briefly to whom, as he believes, the ship and goods claimed belong, and that no enemy has any right or interest in them. Security must be given to the amount of sixty pounds to answer costs, if the case should appear so grossly fraudulent on the part of the claimant as to subject him to be condemned therein. If the captor has neglected in the meantime to take the usual steps (but which seldom happens, as he is strictly enjoined both by his instructions, and by the Prize Act, to proceed immediately to adjudication), a process issues against him on the application of the claimant's proctor, to bring in the ship's papers and preparatory examinations, and to proceed in the usual way.

'As soon as the claim is given, copies of the ship's papers and examinations are procured from the registry, and upon the return of the monition the cause may be heard. It, however, seldom happens (owing to the great pressure of business, especially at the commencement of a war) that causes can possibly be prepared for hearing immediately upon the expiration of the time for the return of the monition; in that case, each cause must necessarily take its regular turn. Correspondent measures must be taken by the neutral master, if carried within the jurisdiction of a Vice-Admiralty court, by giving a claim supported by his affidavit, and offering a security for costs, if the claim should be pronounced grossly fraudulent.

If the claimant be dissatisfied with the sentence, his proctor enters an appeal in the registry of the court where the sentence was given, or before a notary public (which regularly should be entered within fourteen days after the sentence), and he afterwards applies at the registry of the Lords of Appeal in prize causes, which is held at the same place as the registry of the High Court of Admiralty, for an instrument called an inhibition, and which should be taken out within three months, if the sentence be in the High Court of Admiralty, and within nine months if within a Vice-Admiralty court; but may be taken out at later periods, if a reasonable cause can be alleged for the delay that has intervened. This instrument directs the judge whose sentence is appealed from to proceed no further in the cause; it directs the registrar to transmit a copy of all the proceedings of the inferior courts; and it directs the party who has obtained the sentence to appear before the superior tribunal to answer to the appeal. On applying for this inhibition, security is given on the part of the appellant to the amount of two hundred pounds to answer costs, in case it should appear to the Court of Appeal that the appeal is merely vexatious. The inhibition is to be served upon the judge, the register, and the adverse party and his proctor, by showing the instrument under seal, and delivering a note or copy of the contents. If the party cannot be found, and the proctor will not accept the service, the instrument is to be served viis et modice-that is, by affixing it to the door of the last place of residence, or by hanging it on the pillars of the Royal Exchange.

'That part of the process above described, which is to be executed abroad, may be performed by any person to whom it is committed, and the formal part at home is executed by the officer of the court. A certificate of the service is endorsed upon the back of the instrument, sworn before a surrogate of the superior court, or before a notary public, if the service is abroad.

'If the cause be adjudged in the Vice-Admiralty Court, it is usual, upon entering an appeal there, to procure a copy of the proceedings, which the appellant sends over to his correspondent in England, who carries it to a proctor; and the same steps are taken to procure and serve the inhibition as where the cause has been adjudged in the High Comet of

purely maritime, and rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. Prize jurisdiction, therefore, as a branch of Admiralty, belongs to the Federal courts. It is obvious upon the slightest consideration,' says Story, 'that cognisance of all questions of prize, made under the authority of the United States, ought to belong exclusively to the national courts. How, otherwise, can the legality of the captures be satisfactorily ascertained, or deliberately vindicated? It seems not only a natural, but a necessary appendage to the power of war, and negotiation with foreign nations. It would otherwise follow, that the peace of the whole nation might be

Admiralty. But if a copy of the proceedings cannot be procured in due time, an inhibition may be obtained by sending over a copy of the instru ment of appeal, or by writing to the correspondent an account only of the time and substance of the sentence.

Upon an appeal, fresh evidence may be introduced, if upon hearing the cause the Lords of Appeal shall be of opinion that the case is of such doubt as that further proof ought to have been ordered by the court below. Further proof usually consists of affidavits made by the asserted proprietors of the goods, in which they are sometimes joined by their clerks and others acquainted with the transaction, and with the real property of the goods claimed.. In corroboration of these, affidavits may be annexed, original correspondence, duplicates of bills of lading, invoices, extracts from books, &c. These papers must be proved by the affidavits of persons who can speak of their authenticity; and if copies or extracts, they should be collated and certified by public notaries. The affidavits are sworn before the magistrates, or others competent to administer oaths in the country where they are made, and authenticated by a certificate from the British Consul.

'The degree of proof to be required depends upon the degree of suspicion and doubt that belongs to the case. In cases of heavy suspicion and great importance, the court may order what is called "plea and proof "—that is, instead of admitting affidavits and documents, introduced by the claimant only, each party is at liberty to allege in regular pleadings such circumstances as may tend to acquit or to condemn the capture, and to examine witnesses in support of the allegation, to whom the adverse party may administer interrogatories. The depositions of the witnesses are taken in writing. If the witnesses are to be examined abroad, a commission issues for that purpose; but in no case is it necessary for them to come to England. These solemn proceedings are not often resorted to.

'Standing commissions may be sent to America, for the general purpose of receiving examinations of witnesses in all cases where the court may find it necessary, for the purposes of justice, to decree an inquiry to be conducted in that manner.

'With respect to captures and condemnations at Martinico, which are the subjects of another inquiry contained in your note, we can only answer in general, that we are not informed of the particulars of such captures and condemnations; but as we know of no legal court of Admiralty established at Martinico, we are clearly of opinion that the legality of any prizes taken there must be tried in the High Court of Admiralty of England upon claims given in the manner above described, by such persons as may think themselves aggrieved by the said captures.'

put at hazard at any time, by the misconduct of one of its members.' The District courts of the United States, as courts of Admiralty, are prize-courts as well as instance courts. Their prize jurisdiction, however, was originally much questioned, on the ground that it was not an ordinary inherent branch of Admiralty jurisdiction, but an extraordinary power, requiring, as in England, a special commission on the breaking out of war, to call it into action. This question, in 1794, came up directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it was decided by the unanimous opinion of the judges, that every District court of the United States possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty, whether considered as an instance or a prize-court.' This decision was re-affirmed in other cases, and the jurisdiction claimed was expressly sanctioned by the Prize Act of June 26th, 1812. The District courts of the United States are therefore prize-courts of Admiralty, possessing all the powers incident to their character as such under the law of nations.1

§ 9. It has also been decided by the Supreme Court, that neither the President of the United States, nor any officer

1 Conkling, Treatise, etc., p. 135; Glass et al. v. the sloop 'Betsey' et al., 3 Dall. R., 6.

District courts in the United States have the same jurisdiction in prize causes, as is exercised by the Admiralty courts of England.-' Act of Congress,' Sept. 24, 1789, s. 9.

In prize cases, the court of that district of the United States, into which the property is carried and proceeded against, has jurisdiction. The mere carrying of a vessel, or of her cargo, seized on the high seas as prize of war, into any particular district, without institution there of any proceedings in prize, cannot affect or take away the jurisdiction over the property of the district of another district, in which the proceedings against the property may be instituted after the property has been carried into such other district.-The 'Peterhoff,' Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 463.

Cotton captured as prize, and in the custody of the marshal, under a warrant from the prize-court, is not liable to be proceeded against for the internal revenue tax, while in his custody.-The 'Victory,' 2 Sprague,

226.

A vessel was chased at sea while attempting to break blockade, and was driven on shore in the enemy's territory, and then captured with her cargo, and was wrecked after capture. Held, that a part of her cargo, which was brought into a district of the United States, might be condemned as prize of war by the District court.-The 'Pevensy,' Blatchf. Pr. Cas., 628.

The officers and crew of a prize, in case of condemnation, are not entitled to wages from the prize property. Where a prize is condemned, the officers and crew who are sent in as witnesses in pursuance of the law of nations, are not entitled to witness fees or compensation for their necessary detention, from out of the prize property.-The 'Lilla,' 2 Sprague, 177; the Britannia,' Ibid., 225.

acting under his authority, can give prize jurisdiction to courts not deriving their authority from the constitution or laws of the United States. The alcalde of Monterey, a port of Mexico, in the possession and military occupation of the United States, as conquered territory, was appointed by the governor of California as a judge of Admiralty with prize jurisdiction, and the appointment was ratified by the President, on the ground that prize crews could not be spared from the squadron to bring captured vessels into a port of the United States. The Supreme Court held that such a court could not decide upon the rights of the United States, or of individuals, in prize cases, nor administer the laws of nations; that its sentence of condemnation was a mere nullity, and could have no effect upon the rights of any party.1

§ 10. Having shown that the prize-court of the captor's country has exclusive jurisdiction of the question of prize or no prize, and that no mere municipal court can exercise such jurisdiction, unless it is especially conferred by the constitution or local laws of the State to which it.belongs, we now come to the inquiry, where such court may sit or exercise its authority. We have already seen that the prize-court of an ally cannot condemn ; but may not the prize-court of the captor sit in the territory of an ally? The objections made to the jurisdiction of an ally's court do not apply to a court belonging to the country of the captor sitting in an ally's territory. Hence, Chancellor Kent says, that such court, so sitting, may lawfully condemn. It has also been held by the English courts, that a prize carried into a State in alliance with the captors, and at war with the country to which the captured vessel belongs, or into the country of the captors, may be legally condemned there by a consul belonging to the nation of the captors. It was at one time supposed, that the authority of the 'Flad Oyen' was against the legality of such a condemnation, but Sir William Scott subsequently pointed out and explained the distinction.2

2

§ 11. But a prize-court of the captors cannot sit in a neu

1 Jecker et al. v. Montgomery, 13 Howard R., 498.

Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. vi. p. 103; the Flad Oyen,' 1 Rob., 135; the Christopher,' 2 Rob., 209; the Harmony,' the 'Adelaide,' and theBetsey Kruger,' 2 Rob., 210, note; Oddy v. Bovill, 2 East., 473; Wheelwright v. Depeyster, 1 Johns. R., 471; Pistoye et Duverdy, Des Prises, tit. 8.