66 missioned cruiser, made in the legitimate exercise of Courts do tain ques § 235. The same considerations of Comity which Neutral are now held to preclude the Court of a Neutral not enterNation from sitting in judgment on the question tions of of the validity of a capture made upon the High Damages. Seas, even if the captured property should be voluntarily brought by the captor within its jurisdiction, preclude it from entertaining the question of Damages, even when the seizure has been made. within its Territory, and the Neutral Court has de 39 Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, and the St. Ander, 7 Wheaton, Vol. II. p. 727. P. 336. 40 The Santissima Trinidad creed that the vessel and her cargo shall be set free. If a Belligerent cruiser has attacked and seized an enemy vessel within Neutral Territory, no Right of the enemy vessel has been violated by such an attack and seizure; for no Rights exist between enemies, except what are termed Rights of War, and one of the Rights of War is to attack and destroy an enemy, wherever he may be found. "A capture made within Neutral waters is, as between enemies, deemed to all intents and purposes rightful; it is only by the Neutral Sovereign that its legal validity can be called in question; and as to him, and him only, is it to be considered void"." A Neutral Power may interpose at any time and forbid a Belligerent to exercise within its Territory the Rights, which a state of War gives rise to as against his adversary: it may arrest, in virtue of its exclusive Sovereignty over the place, a combat between Belligerents dum fervet opus; or if the combat should have been brought to an end by the submission of one of the combatants, it may require the victor to set the vanquished party free; but when a Neutral Power so interposes between Belligerent parties, it does not profess to redress a wrong done by one Belligerent to another, but it refuses to allow a Right of War to be exercised by a Belligerent against his enemy, because the Territory of a Neutral State is by the Law of Nations not subject to the exercise of any Right of War against the will of the State. Accordingly, if a Belligerent vessel has attacked an enemy vessel within Neutral territory, and has been worsted in the conflict, the Neutral Power may justly decline, if it sees fit, to interpose between the vanquished party and the operation of the jus belli, which it has been the first to invoke. Whilst the + The Anne, 3 Wheaton, p. 447. 66 ship was lying within Neutral waters, she was bound," says Mr. Justice Story", "to abstain from all hostilities except in self defence. The Privateer had an equal title with herself to the Neutral protection, and was in no fault in approaching the coast without showing its National character. It was a violation of that Neutrality, which the captured ship was bound to observe, to commence hostilities for any purpose in these waters, for no vessel coming here was bound to submit to search, or to account to her for her conduct or character. When therefore she commenced hostilities, she forfeited the Neutral protection, and the capture was no injury for which any redress would be rightfully sought from the Neutral Sovereign." The Supreme Court of the United States has accordingly held that the jurisdiction of a Neutral Court of Admiralty over captures made in violation of Neutral Territory, is exercised only for the purpose of restoring the property which has been voluntarily brought infra præsidia of the Neutral Power, and does not extend to the awarding of damages against the captors as in ordinary cases of maritime torts. A Spanish ship" was captured on the High Seas by a Venezuelan Privateer, La Guerriere, and subsequently brought into the port of New Orleans. It was established that the Privateer had augmented her crew in the United States during the cruise, and before the capture, in violation of the Neutrality of the United States; and one of the questions raised upon appeal before the Supreme Court was, whether 42 The Anne, 3 Wheaton, p. 447. 43 Præsidia vero non esse navim, ad quam deducta erant bona capta, certum est, quæ inter mo bilia numeratur; præsidia autem stationes. Alberic. Gentilis, Hispan. Advocationes, L. I. c. 11. 44 La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheaton, p. 385. the District Court of New Orleans had rightfully decreed damages against the captors. Mr. Justice Story, in delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court in reversal of the decree of the District Court as to damages, observed: "The doctrine heretofore asserted in this Court is, that whenever a capture is made by any belligerent in violation of our Neutrality, if the Prize comes voluntarily within our jurisdiction, it shall be restored to its owners. This is done upon the footing of the General Law of Nations, and the doctrine is fully recognised by the Act of Congress of 1794. But this Court has never yet been understood to carry its jurisdiction in cases of violation of Neutrality beyond the authority to decree restitution of the specific property, with the costs and expenses during the pending of the judicial proceeding. We are now called upon to give general damages for plunderage; and if the particular circumstances of any case shall hereafter require it, we may be called upon to inflict exemplary damages to the same extent as in ordinary cases of marine torts. We entirely disclaim any right to inflict such damages; and consider it no part of the duty of a Neutral Nation to interpose, upon the mere footing of the Law of Nations, to settle all the rights and wrongs which may grow out of a capture between Belligerents. Strictly speaking, there can be no such thing as a marine tort between enemies. Each has an undoubted Right to exercise all the Rights of War against the other; and it cannot be made a matter of judicial complaint, that they are exercised with severity, even if the parties do transcend those rules which the Customary Laws of War justify. At least they have never been held within the cognisance of the Prize tribunals of Neutral Nations. The captors are amenable to their own Government exclusively for any excess or irregularity in their proceedings; and a Neutral Nation ought not otherwise to interfere, than to prevent captors from obtaining any unjust advantage by a violation of its Neutral jurisdiction. A Neutral Nation may indeed inflict pecuniary or other penalties on the parties for such violation, but then it does it professedly in vindication of its own Rights, not by way of compensation to the captured. When called upon by either of the Belligerents to act in such cases, all that justice seems to require is, that the Neutral Nation shall fairly execute its own laws, and give no asylum to the property unjustly captured. It is bound therefore to restore the property, if found within its own ports; but beyond this it is not obliged to interpose between the Belligerents. If indeed it were otherwise, there would be no end of the difficulties and embarrassments of Neutral Prize tribunals. They would be compelled to decide in every variety of shape upon marine trespasses in rem and in personam, between Belligerents, without possessing adequate means of ascertaining the real facts, or of compelling the attendance of witnesses, and thus they would draw within their jurisdiction almost every incident of Prize. Such a course of things would necessarily create irritations and animosities, and very soon embark Neutral Nations in all the controversies and hostilities of the conflicting parties. Considerations of policy came therefore in aid of what we consider the Law of Nations on the subject." Power may § 236. The Court of a Neutral Power, in decreeing A Neutral restitution of property which has been captured by claim a a Belligerent in violation of its Territory, when such vessel cap. property has been brought by the Belligerent infra violation of præsidia of the Neutral Power, performs a duty in tory, before tured in its Terri |