Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/117

106 

1784.

or both, has ʃolely exercifed the juriʃdiction oƒ Prize —and that as far back as particular cafes can be traced, which is for a century, the Admiralty has judged of and condemned goods taken on land, as prize,  as well as goods taken on fea, ’’ Lord Mansƒield,  delivering the refolution of the Court, in the cafe of  Lindo againft Rodney and another.

What do treaties, antient and modern, ftipulate for, in order to guard againft violence on the feas ? A trail in the Court oƒ Admiralty, as foon as poffible,  before the effects taken are in any manner to be difpofed of. Why ? becaufe, by the maritime law of nations, that court judges by the law of nations and treaties. Sir George Lee, Doctor Paul,  Sir Dudley Ryder,  and Mr. Murray,  now Lord Mansƒield,  in their report, which forms the principal part of the anfwer of the Britiʃh  Court, and if fo celebrated by Meffrs Monteʃquieu  and Vattel,  fay, ‘‘ By the maritime law of nations, univerfally and immemorially received, there is  an eftabliʃhed method oƒ determination,  whether the capture BE, OR BE NOT, LAWFUL PRIZE. Before the fhip or goods can be DISPOSED OF, by the captor, there muft be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon, as prize, in a Court oƒ Admiralty, judging by the law of nations and treaties. The proper and regular Court for thefe condemnations, is the Court of that ftate to whom the captor belongs. ’’

Are we then, becaufe in England, they call the Admiralty Court a Prize Court when it acts in a caufe of prize, and it then proceeds in a different manner, with an appeal to Commiffioners of the Privy Council, to reject the ‘‘ univerfal and immeorial’’ compact of mankind ? There was a time——when we liftened to the language of her Senates and her Courts, with a partiality of veneration, as to oracles. It is paft—we have informed our ftation among the powers of the earth, and muft attend to the voice of nations—the fentiments of the fociety into which we have entered.

Lord Mansƒield, in the caufe of Lindo  againft Rodney and another,  faid, ‘‘ The end of a Prize Court is to fulpend the property till condemnation ; to punifh every forth of mifbehaviour in the captors ; to reftore inftantly, velis levatis,  if upon the moft fummary examination, there does not appear a fufficient ground ; to condemn finally (if the goods really are prize) againft every body, giving every body a fair opportunity of being heard :— A captor may, and muft force every perfon interefted, to defend ; and every perfon interefted, may force him to proceed to condemn without delay. Theʃe views cannot be anfwered in any Court of Weʃtminʃte-Hall, and therefore the The very great antiquity of the Court of Admiralty in England, and the extent of its jurifdiction, may be known from the learned Selden's notes on Forteʃeue  de Laudibus p 67. Zouch 44, &c. Godelph. p.22, &c. Tho' the authority of this Court, with refpect to matters in which ƒoreign nations may be concerned, and particularly to captures jure belli,  is treated of, yet no diftinction is made by thefe authors, as to the Court oƒ Admiralty  and the Court oƒ Prize. Monteʃquier's Letters, 5 March,  1753. Vattel, bo. 2, ch.7. 84. 3. Blackʃt 70