territory was set up by the Spanish consul at New York, merely by virtue of his office, without the special authority of his Government. Held, that his official character gave him no authority to make such a claim. The Anne (Mar. 7, 1818), 3 Wheat. 435. "There is one other point in the case which, if all other difficulties were removed, would be decisive against the claimant. It is a fact that the captured ship first commenced hostilities against the privateer. This is admitted on all sides; and it is no excuse to assert that it was done under a mistake of the national character of the privateer, even if this were entirely made out in the evidence. While the ship was lying in neutral waters, she was bound to abstain from all hostilities, except in self defence. The privateer had an equal title with herself to the neutral protection, and was in no default in approaching the coast without showing her national character. It was a violation of that neutrality which the captured ship was bound to observe, to commence hostilities for any purpose in these waters; for no vessel coming thither was bound to submit to search, or to account to her for her conduct or character. When, therefore, she commenced hostilities, she forfeited the neutral protection, and the capture was no injury for which any redress could be rightfully sought from the neutral sovereign." The Anne (Mar. 7, 1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 447. Where it is claimed by a foreign minister that a seizure made by an American vessel was a violation of the sovereignty of his Government, and he satisfies the President of the fact, the latter may, where there is a suit depending for the seizure, cause the AttorneyGeneral to file a suggestion of the fact in the cause, in order that it may be disclosed to the court. Wirt, At. Gen., 1821, 1 Op. 504. "A capture made within neutral waters is, as between enemies, deemed, to all intents and purposes, rightful; it is only by the neutral sovereign that its legal validity can be called in question; and as to him and him only, is it to be considered void.” The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 447; The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177; The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517; The Adela, 6 Wall. 263; Wheaton, Dana's note, 209; Judge Holmes's note to 1 Kent, 118. If a ship or cargo is enemy property, or if either be otherwise liable to condemnation, the circumstance that the vessel at the time of the capture was in neutral waters would not, by itself, avail the claimants in a prize court. It might constitute a ground of claim by the neutral power whose territory had suffered trespass for apology or indemnity. But neither a hostile belligerent, nor a neutral acting the part of such belligerent, can demand restitution of captured property on the sole ground of capture in neutral waters. The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517; The Adela, 6 Wall. 266. As the United States, in the case of American vessels seized by French privateers and carried into Spanish ports and held there, pending prize proceedings in French territory, expressly relinquished any claim against Spain and looked to France alone for indemnity, it must be assumed that the United States, in the exercise of impartial justice, tacitly relinquished similar claims against Sweden and the Netherlands; but where a neutral nation permitted American vessels to be condemned by French consuls in its territory, or permitted such vessels to be seized there, it alone would be responsible, and France would be released. The Happy Return (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 262. In 1881 Mr. Evarts complained to the Chilean minister that the American schooner Mary E. Hall had been fired at, brought to, and searched by the Chilean man-of-war Amazonas in Colombian waters. Mr. Evarts expressed the conviction that the forcible search of a vessel of a friendly state within the waters of another friendly state, under circumstances imperiling the lives of those on board and after conclusive ascertainment of her nationality and of her destination to a neutral port under regular papers, would be the subject of such frank and positive action on the part of Chile as would remove the case from the sphere of diplomatic action. Mr. Evarts added that the failure of the authorities of the State of Panama to find in the occurrence any ground of grievance, because it took place in the jurisdictional waters of that State, was not conceived to preclude action on the part of the United States, inasmuch as the forcible search of the vessel under the circumstances narrated would have been equally contested by the United States if it had been committed on the high seas. Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Asta Buruaga, Chilean min., Mar. 3, 1881, MS. Notes to Chilean Leg. VI. 259. "All American goods in American bottoms will be subject to capture by Spanish cruisers on the high seas and in all but neutral waters." Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Huntley, May 3, 1898, 228 MS. 7. SENDING IN OF PRIZE. § 1212. It is the duty of the captors, as soon as practicable, to bring the ship's papers into the registry of the district court, Duty to Send in. and to have the examinations of the principal officers and seamen of the captured ship taken upon the standing interrogatories. The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 76; The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227. "20. Prizes should be sent in for adjudication, unless otherwise directed, to the nearest home port in which a prize court may be sitting. "21. The prize should be delivered to the court as nearly as possible in the condition in which she was at the time of seizure; and to this end her papers should be sealed at the time of seizure, and kept in the custody of the prize master. Attention is called to articles Nos. 16 and 17 for the Government of the U. S. Navy. (Exhibit A.) "22. All witnesses whose testimony is necessary to the adjudication of the prize should be detained and sent in with her, and if circumstances permit it is preferable that the officer making the search should act as prize master. 66 “23. As to the delivery of the prize to the judicial authority, consult sections 4615, 4616, and 4617, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Exhibit B.) The papers, including the log book of the prize, are delivered to the prize commissioners; the witnesses, to the custody of the United States marshal; and the prize itself remains in the custody of the prize master until the court issues process directing one of its own officers to take charge." United States Instructions to Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General EXHIBIT A. "ART. 16. No person in the Navy shall take out of a prize, or vessel seized as a prize, any money, plate, goods, or any part of her equipment, unless it be for the better preservation thereof, or unless such arti- · cles are absolutely needed for the use of any of the vessels or armed forces of the United States, before the same are adjudged lawful prize by a competent court; but the whole, without fraud, concealment, or embezzlement, shall be brought in, in order that judgment may be passed thereon; and every person who offends against this article shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "ART. 17. If any person in the Navy strips off the clothes of, or pillages, or in any manner maltreats, any person taken on board a prize, he shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may adjudge. 66 EXHIBIT B. "SEC. 4615. The commanding officer of any vessel making a capture shall secure the documents of the ship and cargo, including the log book, with all other documents, letters, and other papers found on board, and make an inventory of the same, and seal them up, and send them, with the inventory, to the court in which proceedings are to be had, with a written statement that they are all the papers found, and are in the condition in which they were found; or explaining the absence of any documents or papers, or any change in their condition. He shall also send to such court, as witnesses, the master, one or more of the other officers, the supercargo, purser, or agent of the prize, and any person found on board whom he may suppose to be interested in, or to have knowledge respecting, the title, national character, or destination of the prize. He shall send the prize, with the documents, papers, and witnesses, under charge of a competent prize master and prize crew, into port for adjudication, explaining the absence of any usual witnesses; and in the absence of instructions from superior authority as to the port to which it shall be sent, he shall select such port as he shall deem most convenient, in view of the interests of probable claimants, as well as of the captors. If the captured vessel, or any part of the captured property, is not in condition to be sent in for adjudication, a survey shall be had thereon and an appraisement made by persons as competent and impartial as can be obtained, and their reports shall be sent to the court in which proceedings are to be had; and such property, unless appropriated for the use of the Government, shall be sold by the authority of the commanding officer present, and the proceeds deposited with the assistant treasurer of the United States most accessible to such court, and subject to its order in the cause. (See Sec. 1624, Art. 15.) "SEC. 4616. If any vessel of the United States shall claim to share in a prize, either as having made the capture, or as having been within signal distance of the vessel or vessels making the capture, the commanding officer of such vessel shall make out a written statement of his claim, with the grounds on which it is founded, the principal facts tending to show what vessels made the capture, and what vessels were within signal distance of those making the capture, with reasonable particularity as to times, distances, localities, and signals made, seen, or answered; and such statement of claim shall be signed by him and sent to the court in which proceedings shall be had, and shall be filed in the cause. "SEC. 4617. The prize master shall make his way diligently to the selected port, and there immediately deliver to a prize commissioner the documents and papers, and the inventory thereof, and make affidavit that they are the same, and are in the same condition as delivered to him, or explaining any absence or change of condition therein, and that the prize property is in the same condition as delivered to him, or explaining any loss or damage thereto; and he shall further report to the district attorney and give to him all the information in his possession respecting the prize and her capture; and he shall deliver over the persons sent as witnesses to the custody of the marshal, and shall retain the prize in his custody until it shall be taken therefrom by process from the prize court. (See Sec. 5441.)" In an article by Mr. John A. Bolles, in 1872, under the title "Why Semmes of the Alabama was not tried," extracts are Question of de- given from instructions of the Secretary of the Navy struction. to various commanders, during the war of 1812, enjoining the destruction of enemy ships taken as prize. Mr. Bolles' article was quoted by Sir Alexander Cockburn, in his dissenting opinion at Geneva, and has since been cited by Hall and other writer. The instructions in question were published with a petition presented to Congress in behalf of various naval officers for an allowance in lieu of prize money, in the cases of the vessels which they had destroyed. Claims were made on account of 74 such captures, 6 of which were made by the Essex; 5 by the Constitution; 8 by the President; 8 by the corvette Adams; 1 each by the Chesapeake, the Hornet, and the Rattlesnake and Enterprise combined; 2 each by the Siren, the Frolic, and the Rattlesnake; 11 by the Wasp; 13 by the Argus, and 14 by the Peacock. The instructions do not appear to have been general, but to have been given from time to time, as occasion arose. Thus, Lieutenant Allen, of the Argus, was, on June 5, 1813, directed to "proceed upón a cruise against the commerce and light cruisers of the enemy," which he was to "capture and destroy in all cases," unless the "value and qualities" should "render it morally certain that they may reach a safe and not distant port. Indeed, in the present state of the enemy's force, there are," continued the paper, "very few cases that would justify the manning of a prize, because the chances of reaching a safe port are infinitely against the attempt, and the weakening the crew of the Argus might expose you to an unequal contest with the enemy. It is exceedingly desirable that the enemy should be made to feel the effects of our hostility and of his barbarous system of warfare; and in no way can we so effectually accomplish this object. as by annoying and destroying his commerce, fisheries, and coasting trade. The latter is of the utmost importance, and is much more exposed to the attack of such a vessel as the Argus than is generally understood. This would carry the war home directly to their feelings and interests and produce an astonishing sensation." In a letter of September 19, 1813, Captain Charles Stewart, of the Constitution, was instructed: "The commerce of the enemy is the most vulnerable point we can attack, and its destruction the main object; and to this end all your efforts should be directed. Therefore, unless your prizes shall be very valuable and near a friendly port, it will be imprudent and worse than useless to attempt to send them in. The chances of recapture are excessively great, the crew and the safety of the ship under your command would be diminished and endangered, as well as your own fame and the national honor by hazarding a battle after the reduction |