PRIZE. Robert Findlay and others, subjects of the versus The ship William and her cargo, now in June 21, 1793. A British ed by a French privateer, within the DECREE. THE libel states that the libellants are owners of the ship mentioned in the libel, and that the said vessel captur- ship being on her voyage from Bremen to Potowmac river, in the state of Maryland, and within nine territorial ju- miles of the sea coast of the United States, received an American pilot on board, for the purpose of conducting her to the place of her destination..... That, after receiving the pilot on board, she continued her course until she arrived within two miles of cape Henry, in five fathoms water, and as near the shore as the pilot thought proper to go; when she was seized by a number of armed men, under the command of Peter Johannene, captain of the schooner risdiction of the U. States. The owners of the vessel claim her, with damages, but their claim dismissed, the court having no jurisdiction. * M. Azuni, in his celebrated work, "The Maritime Law of Europe," vol. ii, p. 330, 331, asserts, that the English are the only nation who have been guilty of seizing ships of their enemies in the ports or within the territorial jurisdiction of neutrals. The candour and accuracy of the learned translator of this work would have induced him to notice the case of "the ship William," had it been known to him.-E. PRIZE. the ship William. Citizen Genet, and bearing the national colours of Findlay et al. France, as a prize, and the captain and crew made prisoners;.... That they do not admit, but pray that it may be enquired into, whether the schooner was commissioned or not....That the said ship was, at the time of her capture, within the territorial jurisdiction, and under the protection, of the United States; who are now at peace with the king and people of Great Britain.... That the persons so capturing had no authority from or under the United States, to capture British vessels within that distance of the sea coasts, to which, by the laws of nations, and the laws of the United States, the rights and jurisdiction of the United States extend. They therefore pray that, as the capture and detention are unjust, and against the laws of nations, and of the United States, the ship and cargo be discharged, and the prisoners liberated, and satisfaction given in damages for the capture. To this a plea was offered on the part of Pierre Arcade Joannene, a French citizen, on behalf of himself and all concerned in the capture, setting forth, that he was at that time, &c. commissioned by the French republic, to attack &c. the enemies of the said republic wherever he might find them, and take them prisoners with their ships, &c. That he took the ship, &c. and the persons on board, who were subjects of his Britannic majesty, then at open war with the republic, of France, and brought the ship as prize, and the people as prisoners, into the port of Philadelphia : and alleges that, by the laws of nations, and the treaty between the United States and the said republic, it doth not pertain to this court, nor is it within the cognizance of this court to hold plea re Exception to the jurisdiccourt, taken by the cap tion of the tors. PRIZE. Findlay et al. specting the said ship and property, so taken as prize, or the British subjects on board her, and prays that he may be dismissed, and the ship and cargo discharged. the ship William. Points contended for by the captors. To this the libellants put in a replication in the nature of a demurrer to the plea, and because the ship &c. were captured in the territory of the United States, prayed a sentence and decree, according to the force, form and effect of their libel. The commission from the French republic, whereby it appears that the said schooner Citizen Genet was duly commissioned, &c. was produced, and a copy thereof filed among the proceedings of the court. In this cause it has been contended, in support of the plea to the jurisdiction of the court.... 1. That the treaty between France and the United States, in its 17th article, forbids any examination of the lawfulness of prizes taken by either party when at war, by the officers, which include judges or courts, of the other; and that such prizes may enter into the ports of either party, and depart at pleasure, without search or any impediment; and that this court should immediately stay proceedings when the commission is produced under which the capture in question was made. 2. That, by the laws of nations, to which the treaty is conformable, a neutral nation has no right to be the judge, either of the lawfulness of the war between belligerent powers, or of their conduct towards each other in the prosecution of hostilities. That undertaking to determine on the question of prize, in this case, would be interposing our judgment not only illegally, but in a manner unprecedented; there being no instance to be found, in PRIZE. which the courts of a neutral nation have ever exer- Findlay et al. eised 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.... the ship William. Points made by libellants to support the the court. 1. That every sovereign and independent na- jurisdiction of tion 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, PRIZE. Findlay et al. specting the said ship and property, so taken as US. the ship William. Points contended for by the captors. prize, or the British subjects on board her, and prays that he may be dismissed, and the ship and cargo discharged. To this the libellants put in a replication in the nature of a demurrer to the plea, and because the ship &c. were captured in the territory of the United States, prayed a sentence and decree, according to the force, form and effect of their libel. The commission from the French republic, whereby it appears that the said schooner Citizen Genet was duly commissioned, &c. was produced, and a copy thereof filed among the proceedings of the court. In this cause it has been contended, in support of the plea to the jurisdiction of the court.... 1. That the treaty between France and the United States, in its 17th article, forbids any examination of the lawfulness of prizes taken by either party when at war, by the officers, which include judges or courts, of the other; and that such prizes may enter into the ports of either party, and depart at pleasure, without search or any impediment; and that this court should immediately stay proceedings when the commission is produced under which the capture in question was made. 2. That, by the laws of nations, to which the treaty is conformable, a neutral nation has no right to be the judge, either of the lawfulness of the war between belligerent powers, or of their conduct towards each other in the prosecution of hostilities. That undertaking to determine on the question of prize, in this case, would be interposing our judg ment not only illegally, but in a manner unprecedented; there being no instance to be found, in |