Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/168

 162 Cases ruled and adjudged in the 1792. the bufinefs whs before the Court of Appeals of the United •/W Stater, in December, 1778, I had the honor to be Prefident of that Court; but declined fitting on account of my conne&iou with this State as Chief juftice, and otherwife; and that the fame reafon fiill fubfifled. That the next thing to giving a righte- ous judgment, was to endeavor to give general fatisfaétion; which circumftance might not probably be attained by our deci- `fion of the prefent controverfy, both Court and jury being in ‘fome meafure interefied, as they were all citizens of Pennfylva- nin. For thefe reafons, Iexpreffed a wifh, that fome mode `might be adopted for trying the caufe in the Supreme Court of the United Stute.r." This propofition wasthen affented to, and a]uror withdrawn; but, it feems, our expeétations havebeen _ difappointed, and we are obliged, at laft, to decide the contro- Wff- . ·; T20 determine the firft quefiion, we mufi take into confiden- tion the a& of Cangnj for erecting tribunals competent to de- termine the propriety of captures, paffed the 25th November, 1775, the fourth feétion of which is in thefe words; “ That it be, and hereby is recommended, to the feveral V Legiflatures inthe United Colonies, as foon as poflible, toe- ‘ “ the captures -to be made aforefaid, and to provide, tlaut all “ trial: injiacb ¢¢ be had by a ury, under fuel: qualgfedim: at to “ the ·re@e¢?i·ve Leggfutures All jeem expe¢limt.” The fixth. feftion provides'; •• that in nl! rap: an appeal fhallbe allowed '“ to the Congrefr, or to fuch perfon or perfons as they fhsll ap- ¢• point for the trial of appeals, &c." · ` The aélcinf General Affembly, polled the gth of Septemler, 1778, intitlcd *• an aft for efiablilhing a Court of Admiralty," allows appeals from that Court in- all cafes, unlefs from the determination or finding of the faéis by the `Jury, which was to be without re-examination or appeal. The Congrjr on the rgth of january, 1780, refolved {inter ulia} “ that the trials in the Court of"Appeals be according to W the ufage of nations, `andnet by?»uy.” This has been the prafliee in mofl: nations, but the law o nations,or of nature and rea- fou, is in arbitrary Rates enforced by the royal power, in others, by the munieipul law of the country;which latter may, Iconceive, facilitate or improve the execution of its decifions, by any means they fhall think belt, provided the great univerfal law remains unaltered. Now, why may not afa€t,ref`pcéling the capture from an enemyby citizens of the lhme State, and in which quellion no foreign nation, or perfon, is concerned, be determined by a] ury, as well as in other cafes ‘? This mode of afccrtaining a fat} done on the high feas, to wit, who were the captors of a prize, wlgzln c
 * re£t Courts of jufiice, or give jurifdiétion to the Courts
 * now in being, for the purpofe of determining concerring

�