by which the recapture is made, the award being greater in the case of a privateer or merchant vessel than in that of a vessel of war; none being awarded for the recapture of one public armed vessel by another. "In general no salvage is due for the recapture of neutral vessels and goods, upon the principle that the liberation of a bona fide neutral, from the hands of the enemy to the captor, is no beneficial service to the neutral, inasmuch as the same enemy would be compelled, by the tribunals of his own country, to make restitution of the property thus unjustly seized.” ' As recapture is possible only between the place of original capture and the port to which it is sent by the captor, the right of postliminy exists between the same limits of time and place. The title of the original owner is finally extinguished by the action of the prize-court in decreeing the condemnation and sale of the captured property; and the title acquired by the purchaser is good, even against the original owner or his government. If such property be recaptured after it has been regularly eondemned and sold, it is not restored to the original owner, but is regarded as lawful prize, and is treated as such. England furnishes the only exception to this rule. 'Boyd's Wheaton, p. 435; I Halleck, p. 189; II Ibid. pp. 514-537; Woolsey, 152; Hall,§ 152; Upton, pp. 241-251; II Twiss, p. 345. For the law of the United States on the subject, see § 4652 of Revised Statutes of the United States. For that of France, England, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, see Boyd's Wheaton, pp. 442– 450; Snow, p. 105; the Santa Cruz, 1 Robinson, Adm. Rep. p. 50; the Ceylon, I Dodson, 105, 117-120. 'Hall, pp. 493-495; II Halleck, pp. 522, 523; III Phillimore, pp. 617, 618; Upton, pp. 233-242; Valin, Traité des Prises, liv. iii. tit. ix. art. 10. "In cases of recapture the rule of reciprocity is applied. If France would restore in a like case, then we are bound to restore; if otherwise, then the whole property must be condemned to the recaptors. It appears that by the law of France in cases of recapture, after the property has been twentyfour hours in possession of the enemy, the whole property is adjudged good prize to the recaptors, whether it belonged to her subjects, to her allies, or to neutrals. We are bound, therefore, in this case to apply the same rule; and as the property in this case was recaptured after it had been in possession of the enemy more than twentyfour hours, it must, so far as it belonged to persons domiciled in France, be condemned to the captors."―Schooner Adeline, 9 Cranch, 244 [288]; the Santa Cruz, 1 Robinson, Adm. Rep. p. 50; the Belle According to the English law, property recaptured during the continuance of a war is restored to its owner upon payment of salvage, no matter how long it has been in the enemy's possession nor through how many hands it may have passed in the way of purchase and sale. A treaty of peace is alone held to confirm and perfect the title to captures made during a war.1 PRIZE-COURTS Prize-Courts and their Jurisdiction. Whenever a capture has been made at sea, it becomes the first duty of the captor to cause it to be conveyed to a port of his own country, or that of an ally, for adjudication. The municipal laws of all states provide special tribunals whose duty it is to determine questions of prize. These tribunals are called Prize-Courts, and as the decision of such questions is an incident of admiralty jurisdiction, the admiralty courts of most states are given jurisdiction over cases of maritime capture. This power may be vested in these courts as a branch of their general admiralty jurisdiction, or jurisdiction may be conferred upon them by special commission during a particular war. The former practice prevails in the United States, the latter now prevails in England.' Prize-courts may sit in the ports or territory of a belligerent or in those of an ally. They cannot sit in neutral ports, even with the consent of the neutral government,' and a belligerent would justly regard the granting of such permission as a violation of neutral obligation. jurisdiction of these tribunals. Edwards, Adm. Rep. p. 66; the II Halleck, pp. 514-526; 27 and 28 Victoria, chap. xxv. § 40; III Phillimore, §§ 418-436. II Halleck, pp. 415-422; II Ferguson, § 282; Creasy, $519. "In the United States the district courts have original jurisdiction in prize cases, subject to appeal, however, This arises from the peculiar inal cases or determine controversies arising between individuals. The question before them in case of a particular capture is whether, according to the law of nations, the ship and cargo were liable to capture, and, if so, whether the capture was lawfully made. If their decision be in the affirmative, the ship and cargo are condemned; if the decision be in the negative, they are released. In its investigation of the circumstances of the capture, and in reaching a decree of condemnation, the court, to a certain extent, acts in behalf of the state under whose authority it sits, and its decree fixes upon that government, in the highest degree, the responsibility for the seizure and condemnation of the enemy's property or contraband goods. Its action, therefore, to a much greater degree than is the case with ordinary judicial proceedings, constitutes an act of sovereignty, and for this reason it cannot perform such an act within the jurisdiction of another sovereign state.' The Law Applied by Prize-Courts. In deciding cases of maritime capture prize-courts apply the rules of international rather than municipal law. For this reason decisions in similar cases, rendered by the prize-courts in other states, are regarded by them as constituting precedents of a binding character. "Prize-courts are in no way bound to regard local ordinances and municipal regulations, unless they are sanctioned by the law of nations. Indeed, if such ordinances and regulations are in contravention of the established rules of international jurisprudence, prize-courts must either violate their duty or entirely disregard them. They are not binding on the prize-courts, even of the country by which they are issued. The stipulations of treaties, however, are obligatory upon the nations which have entered into them, and prize-courts must observe them in adjudicating between subjects or citizens of the contracting parties. 2 1 II Halleck, pp. 422, 423; III Phillimore, §§ 433-436; V Calvo, $$ 3056, 3057; Dana's Wheaton, § 389. 2 ' II Halleck, pp. 433-436; II Ferguson, § 282; Creasy, § 519; Snow, pp. 165, 166; the Fox, Edw. Adm. Rep. p. 312; the Recovery, 6 Rob. Procedure in Prize Cases. The principles of prize, as at present applied to maritime captures, are almost identical with the provisions of the Roman law on the same subject. "The allegations, proofs, and proceedings are therefore, in general, modelled upon the civil law, with such additions and alterations as the practice of nations and the rights of belligerents and neutrals unavoidably impose. . . . Not only the proceedings, but also the rules of evidence, are, in many respects, different from those of courts of common law; and prize-courts not only decide upon the claims of captors, but also upon their conduct in making the capture, and subsequently, and not infrequently, declare a forfeiture of their rights with vindictive. damages. "In prize cases the evidence to convict or condemn must come, in the first instance, from the papers and crew of the captured ship. It is the duty of the captors to bring the ship's papers into the registry of the district court, verify them on oath, and to have the examinations of the principal officers and seamen of the captured ship taken on the standing interrogatories, and not viva voce. It is exclusively upon these papers and examinations that the case is to be heard in the first instance. If, from this evidence, the property clearly appears to be hostile or neutral, condemnation or restitution immediately follows. If the property appears to be doubtful, Adm. Rep. pp. 348, 349; III Phillimore, §§ 433-436; Boyd's Wheaton, $397a; the Maria, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 350. "The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it." -The Rapid, 8 Cranch, 155 [162]. "The condemnation of a vessel and cargo in a prize-court is not a criminal sentence. No person is charged with an offence, and so no person is in a condition to be relieved and reinstated by a pardon."-10 Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 452. "Prize-courts are subject to the instructions of their own sovereign. In the absence of such instructions their jurisdiction and rules of decision are to be ascertained by reference to the known powers of such tribunals, and the principles by which they are governed under the public law and the practice of nations."-The Amy Warwick, 2 Sprague, 123. “Neither the President nor any military officer can establish a court in a conquered country and authorize it to decide upon the rights of the United States or of individuals in prize causes, or to administer the law of nations."-Jecker vs. Montgomery, 13 Howard, 498. or the case suspicious, further proof may be granted according to the rules which govern the legal discretion of the court, if the claimant has not forfeited his right to it by a breach of good faith. . . . Where the national character does not distinctly appear, or where the question of proprietary interest is left in doubt, further proof is usually ordered." The common-law doctrines, as to the competency of witnesses, are not applicable to prize proceedings. No person is incompetent in those courts merely on the ground of interest. His testimony is admissible, subject to all exceptions as to its credibility. The rule that the testimony, for the condemnation of a prize, must be obtained, in the first instance, directly from documents or witnesses found on board the vessel at the time of her seizure, is always adhered to, unless satisfactory reasons are shown for departing from it in a particular instance.' Right of Appeal in Prize Cases. The right of appeal is invariably recognized in the laws creating prize-courts and defining their jurisdiction; and, on account of the importance of the interests involved, special provision is frequently made to enable prize cases to be carried up, by way of appeal, to a court of last resort, in a much shorter time than is usual, and without passing through any of the courts intervening between those of original and final jurisdiction. The laws of the United States provide for this contingency by permitting an appeal to be taken directly to the Supreme Court, from the district courts, which, in the United States, have original jurisdiction in all cases of maritime capture.* DISTRIBUTION Prize-Money. It has been seen that the title to captured property is vested, by the decree of condemnation, in the gov ernment of the ship by which such capture is made; its sub 1 1II Halleck, pp. 434-436; Upton, pp. 396-434; III Phillimore, §§ 441518; V Calvo, §§ 3060-3087. The Anne, 3 Wheaton, 435. The Zavalla, Blatchford, Prize Cases, p. 173; the Jane Campbell, Blatchford, Prize Cases, p. 101. 4 Upton, pp. 433, 434. |