PRIZE.

which the courts of a neutral nation have ever exer- Findlay et al. cised jurisdiction in such cases.

3. That, by the voluntary law of nations, every war is considered by parties, as well as neutrals, just as between such parties, and all acquisitions lawful. If these acquisitions are disputed, it must be in the courts of the nation to which the captor belongs, and cannot be the subject of enquiry in those of a neutral nation, even at the instance of the neutral sovereign, much less at the suit of private subjects of one of the belligerent powers, against those of the other.

4. That the right of entry and sale of prizes, in neutral ports, is lawful; and it is sufficient for the neutral that the prize is found in complete possession of one of the powers at war, or their subjects. No judiciary enquiry. should be made on the occasion. But if, in the capture, an invasion of the territorial rights of the neuter has been made, it must be canvassed by the diplomatic body, and finally settled by the sovereigns of the neutral and of the belligerent nation whose subjects have done the wrong. It is an offence against the neutral nation, and not an injury to the captured.

To shew that the court have jurisdiction in this case, the advocates for the libellant contended....

1. That every sovereign and independent nation has a right to vindicate a wrong done to its dignity, and to repel, and obtain satisfaction for, invasions of its territory.

2. That the attacking and capturing the vessels of a friend, coming into the ports, or acting in a hostile manner, by one belligerent power against another, within the limits of a nation at peace with both,

the ship William.

Points made by libellants to support the

jurisdiction of

the court.

PRIZE.

vs.

Findlay et al. is a wrong done to the nation so at peace, an insult on its sovereignty, and an invasion of its territorial rights.

the ship William.

3. That we are bound, by the laws of nations, to seek reparation for the wrong thus committed, as well on our own account, as to enable us to give satisfaction to a friendly nation, the property of whose subjects has been taken within our limits.

4. That all captures made within the territories of a neutral, either on land, in their ports or harbours, or on their coasts to a certain distance from the land, are unlawful, and ought by the laws of nations to be restored.

5. That the word prizes in the treaty means lawful prizes, and illegal captures are as none, so far as relates to the subject matter of the treaty, and, therefore, were not the objects of the contracting parties, at the time of making it: and it could not have been the meaning of the treaty to let captures in a neutral country pass without enquiry.

6. That this is not judging of the war between the neutral powers; it is an enquiry into an allegation of an invasion of territorial rights. Every nation is obliged to take care of its own preservation; it has a right to prevent any other injuring its security, and may make use of force to retaliate injustice, to prevent injury to its territory, and to punish the invaders of its privileges.

7. That we are bound by treaty to be at peace with the sovereign whose subjects and their pro. perty have been captured, and, unless restoration is made, and the property of these subjects protected, our engagements may be considered as violated. We are also bound to protect and defend the ships

PRIZE.

and merchandise of Prussia, Holland and Sweden, if attacked on our coasts, &c. and if captures take place, to use our endeavours to cause restitution to be made.

8. That the best mode of causing restitution is through the courts of admiralty, by process in rem, when the capture is within their power. These courts proceed according to the laws of nations, and, in a government like ours, are the only tribunals that can properly be applied to. In despotic sovereignties, force may immediately be applied; but here ours is a government of laws, and our executive is not vested with the authority exercised by sovereigns in such cases. All he can do is to represent and negociate, and his representations may be slighted, and our government treated with indignity. If there is no power in this court to effectuate the purpose required, it does not exist any where. The reason why cases of admiralty adjudications and interferences cannot be produced, is that captures have seldom been carried into the ports of the injured neutral. And those who commit these outrages will take care not to put the property into the power of the injured, unless it shall appear they can do it with impunity. If they can dispose of their prizes here, they will not go to their own courts to have them condemned.

9. That though it is true that a remedy may be applied by negotiation and diplomatic discussion, and ultimately by force, yet the remedy through the courts of admiralty jurisdiction is a concurrent one. It is also the less liable to objection, as these are courts regulated by the laws and customs of all nations, and not liable to political bias, or entangled in

D

PRIZE.

Findlay et al. political considerations. They are also courts, to whose decisions, for reciprocal benefit, all nations pay a particular respect.

the ship William.

I have given this subject every consideration I am capable of, and have deliberated on the arguments and authorities brought forward by the advocates on both sides the question, with the attention they justly merit. But it seems to me that much has been said not immediately applicable to the only point I have now to determine, to wit,..... Whether this court is vested with the power to enquire into the legality of the prize, and to investigate the fact on which all the reasonings are founded? If this fact is established, and the extent of our territorial limits ascertained, so as to make it clear that a capture has been made within the territories of the United States, there is not a doubt but that a flagrant violation of the rights of neutrality has been committed. And this is followed by many of the consequences mentioned by the advocates for the libellants, so far as they respect our national dignity and duty towards a friendly power, in endeavouring to cause' restitution or recompence to be made. Nor does this seem to be denied by the other side of the question. But the embarrassment still exists. Who is to enquire into the matter, and either give or attempt the redress?

It is difficult for a neutral nation, with the best dispositions, so to conduct itself as not to displease one or the other of belligerent parties, heated with the rage of war, and jealous of even common acts of justice or friendship on its part. Neither is it easy

a Vatell, 1. 3, § 132, Lee. c. 9, p. 151.

PRIZE.

08.

the ship William.

for the nations at war to restrain their subjects from Findlay et al. acts of violence, even in the territories of their friends. The least under control are those whose object is not honourable conflict, or patriotic exertion. These are actuated by a spirit of lucre, which, not only incites to plunder the base and lawless freebooter, but tarnishes even heroism, by seducing into unjustifiable actions the bravest men. It would be for the interest of nations, and the happiness of mankind, if, by universal consent, the quarrels of nations were prevented from being turned to the purposes of private advantage. But the swords of those who fight for gain will not, in our day, be beaten into ploughshares. We must take nations and men as we find them, and consider as lawful what those at war authorize, so far as it respects the parties engaged. After all, it depends much on the interest, the convenience, or the good temper of governments, whether a neutral shall or shall not be engaged in war. A prudent and just conduct, on the part of the neutral particularly, is the surest preventive. But how to evidence this, is a matter of consideration with those to whom the government is delegated. The simplest mode of evincing our impartial disposition, is to confine ourselves to the customs of other nations in our predicament; an over anxious zeal to avoid contests may otherwise lead us into errors; and, while we are endeavouring to avoid one rock, we may split on another. Mutual toleration must be exercised; for those who are at war, and those who are not, have their share of difficulties on this subject. Under this view of the matter before me, I have given a patient hearing to both sides; and have particularly attended to the arguments by