Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/116

Rh 

1784.

fecond taking was a capture as prize, ought any fuch decifion to have weight with us in this cafe?—It ought not.

Such a decifion muft turn entirely upon the municipal law of England. It muft be founded upon this principle governing in the cafes cited by the council for the refpondent ; ‘‘ that, of a feizure as prize,  the Common Law  does not take notice as a trefpafs.’’  Le Caux  and Eden.  Admit the principle. It applies not. This is not a Common Law  Court. The Act of Affembly eftablifhing this Court, makes it a ‘‘ a Court of Appeals from definitive fentences of decrees of the Admiralty.’’ We are therefore a Court of Admiralty. ‘‘ If the fentence of the Court of Admiralty is thought to be erroneous, there is, in ever maritime country, a Superior Court of Review,&c. to which the parties who think themfelves aggrieved, may appeal ; and this Superior Court judges by the fame rule which governs the Court of Admiralty, viz. the law of nations and treaties. This manner of trial and a judication is fupported, alluded to, and enforced by many treaties.’’  Anfwer of the Britiʃh  Court, &c. We are a Court of Admiralty, competent to judge by that rule. The act of Affembly eftablifhing Admiralty Jurifdiction in this ftate, declares, that the Court fhall be governed by ‘‘ the law of nations.’’  Whatever in the law of nations relates to a Court of Admiralty, relates to this Court of Admiralty, relates to this Court, becauʃe no treaty has diverted the application.  Anfwer of the Britiʃh  Court, &c. Vattel. b.2., ch. 7.3. Blackʃt. 69.

Much has been faid of a diftinction in England, between the Inʃtance Court  and the Prize Court,  though the powers of both are excerifed by the fame perfon ; and it is urged that only the latter  judges by the law of nations and treaties. We are told, ‘‘ it is no more like a Court oƒ Admiralty, than it is to any Court of Weʃtminʃter-Hall ;  that the manner of proceeding is totally different ; that the appeal is different—to Delegates from the Admiralty—to Commiffioners confifting of Privy Councellors, from the Court of Prize.—That to conftitute the authority of the Prize Court, or to call it forth in every war, a commiffion under the Great Seal iffues, &c.’’   Such a diftinction may prevail in England,  but it known or regarded in other nations ? The words ‘‘ to call it forth, ’’ are material. It feems only a folemn, official, notification to the Admiralty, that there is a war, and that it may proceed accordingly, as a declaration of war is a notification to the people in general. But this declaration dos not make the war in the one cafe ; nor, perhaps, does the commiffion conftitute the authority in the other. It is confeffed, ‘‘ that the moʃt antient inʃtrument fhews a Prize Juriʃdiction either  inherent  or by commiffion in the Admiral.  It is a letter from Edward the Third to the King of Portugal.  And, ‘‘that fince the reign of Queen Elizabeth,  the Judge oƒ the Admiralty,  either by virtue of an inherent power, or the King's commiffion, Rh Lord Maniʃield delivering the refolution of the Court, in the cafe of againft Rodney and another.