a Bellige- which all Belligerents have an equal interest, and Court. which the Court of the Captor is itself bound to dis rent Prize charge, if the property should be brought infra præsidia of the Belligerent Power, under whose Commission the capture has been effected. It is also the privilege of the Neutral Power, within whose Territory a vessel has been captured by a Belligerent cruiser, if the vessel should be carried into a port of the Captor's country, to pursue the vessel in the Courts of the Captor, and to demand its restitution, on the ground that its seizure was a trespass upon its Neutrality. It is not however competent for the owner of a vessel to raise in the Court of a Belligerent Captor the objection, that the capture of the vessel is invalid by reason of its having been effected in violation of the Territory of a Neutral Power. Further, if in the absence of any suggestion from the Government of the Neutral Nation, whose Territory may have been violated, a vessel shall have been condemned in a competent Court of Prize jurisdiction, as good Prize, and sold to a third party under a decree of the Court, the purchaser will have a good title everywhere to the vessel, and may successfully resist any subsequent claim of the former owner, if the vessel should be found within the jurisdiction of the Neutral Nation, whose Territory may have been violated by the act of capture. The case of the Fanny does not conflict with this view of the law, for in that case the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting as a Neutral Admiralty Court and decreeing restitution of property captured in breach of the Neutrality of the United States, held that there had been no condemnation of the pro 45 45 9 Wheaton, p. 658. perty as Prize by a Competent Court; and that even if there had been a bona fide purchase of the goods, a tortious possessor of the property, to which he had no title at all, could not transfer a title to his vendee. There may however be an exception to the rule, that the decree of a competent Court of Prize founds a valid title to a ship, which cannot be called in question in any other Court. If the owner of the Belligerent vessel, which has violated the Sovereign Rights of a Neutral Nation in effecting the capture of an enemy's vessel, should become the purchaser of such vessel under a decree of sale made at his own prayer before a Prize Tribunal of his own country, and should subsequently bring the vessel within the territorial jurisdiction of the Power whose Neutrality was violated by its capture, the Courts of that Power, finding the captured property in the hands of the offender, will disregard the circuit of changes through which it may have passed, and will not allow him to set up a right springing out of his own wrong. Such indeed is the purport of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Arrogante Barcelonas 46 "In the hands of a third person,' Mr. Justice Johnson observes, " a valid sentence of condemnation, properly authenticated, would present a very different view of the subject. The offender's touch here restores the taint from which the condemnation may have purified the Prize. Although a purchaser without notice may in many cases hold his purchase free from an interest, with which it was chargeable in the hands of the vendor, yet it cannot return into the hands of the vendor without reviving the original lien. Nor will Courts of Justice 45 The Arrogante Barcelonas, 7 Wheaton, p 496. Kent's Com mentaries on American Law, Tom. I. p. 121. Powers do ever yield the locus standi in judicio to the suitor, who is compelled to trace his title through his own criminal acts." Neutral $237. A Neutral Court of Admiralty has no not inter jurisdiction to decree restitution of a vessel which pose their has been seized by prisoners on board, or has been in cases of rescued by its crew from its captors, and carried jurisdiction Rescue. into a Neutral port, when there has been no breach of its Neutrality. A Neutral State is bound to regard all captures made by either Belligerent party as equally just, excepting in such cases where its own Rights of Sovereignty have been invaded. "The Right of postliminium," says Vattel", "does not take effect in Neutral countries, for when a Nation chooses to remain Neuter in war, she is bound to consider it as equally just on both sides, so far as relates to its effects, and consequently, to look upon every capture made by either party as a lawful acquisition. To allow one of the parties, in prejudice to the other, to enjoy in her dominions the right of claiming things taken by the latter, or the right of postliminium, would be declaring in favour of the former, and departing from the line of Neutrality." Thus the British vessel Vere was taken possession of on the High Seas by a number of French prisoners, who had been put on board of her by the British Government for conveyance from Jamaica to England, and who rose upon the captain as soon as she parted from the Convoy. The vessel was subsequently carried by the French captors into the port of Georgetown, in South Carolina, where a libel was filed in the District Court, praying for restitution of the vessel under the Law of Nations. The Court held that the captors were entitled to the Right of Asylum, 47 Vattel, L. III. c. 14. § 208. and that their plea in bar to the jurisdiction of the Court ought to be sustained. On the other hand, the United States' merchant-vessel, Lone, commanded by Captain Clarke, in the course of a voyage to New Orleans, as her port of final destination, entered the port of Matamoras, then under blockade by a French squadron. On her homeward voyage she was captured by a vessel belonging to the blockading squadron. Some days after the capture Captain Clarke rescued his vessel, and continuing his original voyage brought her safe into New Orleans, where it terminated. The Government of France applied to the Government of the United States for the vessel and cargo to be delivered up, on the ground of the original forfeiture of the vessel for breach of blockade, and the unlawful rescue of it. On this occasion the Attorney-General of the United States reported to the President of the United States, that there was "no instance known to him in which the United States Government had been called upon to interpose, and restore to the captors property, that was rescued from them by reason of failure on their own part to make the capture sure. By the well settled principles of International Law it is made the duty of the captors to place an adequate force upon the captured vessel; and if from a mistaken reliance on the sufficiency of their force, or misplaced confidence, they fail to do so, the omission is at their peril. No instance is known in which it has been regarded as a ground for asking such interposition as is now sought 49." The same considerations of Law apply to Neutral vessels, which have been rescued by their crews from 48 Reid v. Ship Vere. Bee's Reports, p. 66. (22 Jan. 1795.) 49 Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, a Belligerent captor, and have escaped into a port of their own country after capture. The Supreme Court of the United States, in discussing the point whether the Courts of a Neutral Power were competent to entertain the question of Prize or no Prize in regard to a vessel belonging to a Subject of the Neutral Power, which had been brought into its ports by the Belligerent captor, observed, that “the situation of the captured ship of a citizen is precisely the same as of any other captured Neutral, or rather the obligation to abstain from interference between the captor and the captured becomes greater, inasmuch as it is purchased by a concession from a Belligerent of no little importance to the peace of the world, and particularly of the Nation of the offending individual (namely, that the Neutral Nation shall not be implicated in his misconduct). The Belligerent contents himself with cutting up the unneutral commerce, and makes no complaint to the Neutral Power, not even where the individual rescues his vessel and escapes into his own port after capture." Conflict of § 238. A conflict of jurisdiction may arise between between a a Neutral Admiralty Court and a Belligerent Prize Neutral Court, under circumstances of this nature. Property Court and has been sometimes condemned in the Prize Court of a Belligerent Prize a Belligerent Power, notwithstanding that it has been jurisdiction Admiralty Court. lying in a Neutral port. In case, however, that such property should have been captured in violation of the Neutrality of the State, within whose territorial jurisdiction the captured property has been brought, it will be competent for the Admiralty Court of the Neutral State to decree restitution of such property to the owners, who have been dispossessed of it by the wrongful act of the captors. The captors, on the 50 L'Invincible, 1 Wheaton, p. 256. |