1821. The Bello tract entered into by the endorser and endorsee, upon which the suit is brought; and if the endorsee is a Corrunes. citizen of a different State, he may bring an action against the endorser in the Circuit Court. As to the other objection insisted upon by the plaintiff in error, all that was incumbent upon the holder, was to give due notice to the endorser. No protest of a promissory note or inland bill of exchange is necessary. Judgment affirmed, (PRIZ E. The Spanish Consul, Claimant. THE BELLO CORRUNES. A foreign consul has a right to claim, or institute a proceeding, in rem, where the rights of property of his fellow-citizens are in question, without a special procuration from those for whose benefit he acts. But a consul cannot receive actual restitution of the res in contro- A capture made by citizens of the United States of property be- trary to the 14th article of the Spanish treaty, yet there is no doubt that such acts are to be considered as piratical acts for all civil purposes, and the offending parties cannot appear, and claim in our Courts the property thus taken. It seems, that the terms, "a State with which the said King shall be at war," in the 14th article of the treaty, include the South American provinces which have revolted against Spain. But, however this may be, the Neutrality Act of June, 1797, c. i. extends the same prohibition, with all its consequences, to a colony revolting, and making war against its parent country. In the case of such an illegal capture, the property of the lawful owners cannot be forfeited, for a violation of the revenue laws of this country, by the captors or by persons who have rescued the property from their possession. The rights of salvage may be forfeited by spoliation, smuggling, or other gross misconduct of the salvors. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rhode Island. This was the case of a Spanish vessel and cargo, stranded on Block Island, and there seized by the officers of the customs. An information on behalf of the United States, was filed in the District Court, against the property, as forfeited, for an alleged breach of the revenue laws. His Catholic Majesty's Vice Consul for the district of Rhode Island, interposed a claim on behalf of "certain subjects of the King of Spain," the original owners of the ship and cargo, which was bound on a voyage from the port of Tarragona, in Spain, to La Vera Cruz, and was taken off Cape St. Antonio, on the west end of the island of Cuba, on the 21st of March, 1818, by an armed vessel called the Puyerredon, commanded by one James Barnes, sailing under Buenos Ayres colours, and asserting a right to make captures under the authority of the government of that place. Restitution to the original Spanish owners was claimed, 1821. The Bello 1821. Corrunes. upon the ground that the capturing vessel had been The Bello equipped in the ports of this country, in violation of our neutrality. An allegation was also filed by Barnes, demanding restitution of the property to the captors, as having been taken, jure belli, on the high seas. Another claim was also filed by certain persons, part of the original crew of the Bello Corrunes, left on board after the capture, who asserted a claim for salvage, in case the property should be restored to the original Spanish owners, under the following circumstances. The master of the captured vessel, and all her crew except four, were taken out, and a prize master and crew put on board from the Puyerredon. Thus equipped, the Bello Corrunes cruised in company with the Puyerredon nearly two months, during which period another Spaniard, of the original crew of the Bello Corrunes, was returned to that vessel. The two vessels afterwards separated, and on the 8th of May, in lat. 32° 30' north, and longitude 74° W. from London, the prize crew, assisted by the persons originally on board the Bello Corrunes, rose on the prize master and other officers, and rescued the vessel from their possession. They then steered their course for the United States, and the vessel was by some means stranded upon Block Island, where the vessel and cargo were seized by the revenue officers. A decree was entered in the District Court, pro forma, and by consent of parties, restoring the property to the original Spanish owners as claimed, and dismissing the other allegations and claims. This decree was affirmed, pro forma, and by consent, in the Circuit Court, and the cause was brought by ap- 1821. The Bello It appeared by the evidence in the Courts below, Corrunes. and by the farther proof taken under a commission from this Court, that the capturing vessel was formerly owned by citizens of the United States, and called the Mangoree, and was originally armed, equipped, and manned at Baltimore; and sailed from that port in March, 1817, under the command of Barnes, a citizen of the United States, domiciled in that city, under Buenos Ayres colours, on a cruize; and after capturing several Spanish vessels, proceeded to Buenos Ayres, where the vessel arrived in August, 1817. The vessel was then altered from a schooner into a brig, and her name changed to the Puyerredon, an addition of one gun was made to her armament, some of the original crew were reshipped, and other seamen recruited. An alleged sale of the vessel took place to one Higginbotham, a citizen of the United States domiciled at Buenos Ayres; and a commission was issued by the Supreme Director of the United Provinces of South America, dated the 20th of November, 1817, authorizing Barnes to capture Spanish property; with which the vessel sailed from Buenos Ayres on the cruise, during which the present capture was made. The Attorney-General, for the United States, ar- February 8th. gued, that the officers of the Government being in a This was the same vessel which captured the Divina Pastora, in 1816. Vide ante, Vol. IV. p. 52. 1821. The Bello possession of this property, would hold it as a droit until some person appeared duly authorized to claim it. The consul of Spain has no authority to claim, in his own name, and in his official character, the property of persons to him unknown, and by whom he cannot therefore have been invested with a special procuration. He is not invested with a general authority for that purpose, virtute officii, nor is there evidence in this particular case that the consul is the agent, consignee, or correspondent of the owners, who are sometimes permitted to claim for their principal, when the latter is absent from the country. Great public inconveniences and mischief, a The Anne, 3 Wheat. Rep. 435. De Steck, des Consuls, 64. Warden on Consuls, 116, and opinion of M. PORTALIS there cited. This opinion of M. PORTALIS, in the case of the claim of the Danish Consul before the French Council of Prizes, will be found in the APPENDIX to the present volume of Reports, Note No. V. The passage cited from De Steck, is as follows: § 27. Selon la règle par la plûpart des traités de commerce et par l'usage presque genéralement reçu les consuls sont les juges des gens de mer et des négocians et marchands de leur nation.* 28. Il leur est ordinairement attribuée la jurisdiction tant en matière civile que criminelle. 29. Cette jurisdiction attribuée aux consuls n'émane point de la puissance et de l'autorité du souverain, qui les établit, qui n'a point de pouvoir sur ses sujets expatriés, démeurans, commerçans, établis en des pays étrangers. Elle depend et derive plutôt de la concession, de l'attribution du souverain de l'état où les consuls résident. Elle suppose donc toujours des traités par lesquels elle est stipulée, accordée, attribuée. * Valin. Com. Sur l'Ordonn, de la Marine, l. 1. tit. 9. art. 12. p. 251. |