by affixing it to the door of the last place of residence, or by hanging it upon the pillars of the Royal Exchange. "That part of the process above described, which is to be executed abroad, may be performed by any person to whom it is committed, and the formal part at home is executed by the officer of the court: a certificate of the service is endorsed upon the back of the instrument, sworn before a surrogate of the superior court, or before a notary public, if the service is abroad. "If the cause be adjudged in a vice-admiralty court, it is usual, upon entering an appeal there, to procure a copy of the proceedings, which the appellant sends over to his correspondent, in England, who carries it to a proctor, and the same steps are taken to procure and serve the inhibition as where the cause has been adjudged in the high court of admiralty. But if a copy of the proceedings can not be procured in due time, an inhibition may be obtained, by sending over a copy of the instrument of appeal, or by writing to the correspondent an account only of the time and substance of the sentence. "Upon an appeal, fresh evidence may be introduced, if, upon hearing the cause, the lords of appeal shall be of opinion that the case is of such doubt as that further proof ought to have been ordered by the court below. Further proof usually consists of affidavits made by the asserted proprietors of the goods, in which they are sometimes joined by their clerks, and others acquainted with the transaction, and with the real property of the goods claimed. In corroboration of these affidavits may be annexed original correspondence, duplicates of bills of lading, invoices, extracts from books, &c. These papers must be proved by the affidavits of persons who can speak to their authenticity; and if copies or extracts, they should be collated and certified by public notaries. The affidavits are sworn before the magistrates or others, competent to administer oaths, in the country where they are made, and authenticated by a certificate from the British consul. "The degree of proof to be required depends upon the degree of suspicion and doubt that belongs to the case. In cases of heavy suspicion and great importance, the court may order what is called 'plea and proof;' that is, instead of admitting affidavits and documents introduced by the claimants only, each party is at liberty to allege, in reguJar pleadings, such circumstances as may tend to acquit or condemn the capture, and to examine witnesses in support of the allegations, to whom the adverse party may administer interrogatories. The depositions of the witnesses are taken in writing. If the witnesses are to be examined abroad, a commission issues for that purpose; but in no case is it necessary for them to come to England. These solemn proceedings are not often resorted to. "Standing commissions may be sent to America, for the general pur pose of receiving examinations of witnesses in all cases where the court may find it necessary, for the purposes of justice, to decree an inquiry to be conducted in that manner. "With respect to captures and condemnations at Martinico, which are the subjects of another inquiry contained in your note, we can only answer, in general, that we are not informed of the particulars of such captures and condemnations; but as we know of no legal court of admiralty established at Martinico, we are clearly of opinion that the legality of any prizes taken there, must be tried in the high court of admiralty of England, upon claims given, in the manner above described, by such persons as may think themselves aggrieved by the said captures." Letter of Sir W. Scott and Sir J. Nicholl to Mr. Jay, min. to England, Sept. 10, 1794, Am. State Papers, I. 494. Imperfectly given in Halleck's Int. Law (3d ed., by Baker), II. 421. Wheaton, in an appendix to the first volume of his reports, p. 494, gives a note on the practice in prize cases. In an appendix to the second volume of his reports, he gives an “Additional Note on the Principles and Practice in Prize Causes;" and, at p. 81 of this appendix, he gives, as note iii, the Standing Interrogatories. See, also, Dana's Wheaton, § 388, note. As to the compensation of prize commissioners and United States marshals in prize cases, see The Adula (1901), 127 Fed. Rep. 849. "No proceedings can be more unlike than those in the courts of common law and in the admiralty. In prize causes, in an especial manner, the allegations, the proofs and the proceedings are, in general, modelled upon the civil law, with such additions and alterations as the practice of nations and the rights of belligerents and neutrals unavoidable impose. The court of prize is emphatically a court of the law of nations; and it takes neither its character nor its rules from the mere municipal regulations of any country." The Adeline (1815), 9 Cranch, 244, 284. An account of proceedings in American prize courts is given in Kaltenborn's Seerecht, II. 389. See, also, as to the practice of prize courts, articles by Prof. Bulmerincą, of Heidelberg, in Rev. de Droit Int. X. 185, 384, 595; XI. 152, 320, 561; XIV. 114. In admiralty a party is not restricted, as at common law, to a recovery strictly secundum allegata et probata. Hence a court of admiralty, having jurisdiction of the case, on a libel asking simply for the condemnation of the property as prize, “will exert its authority over all the incidents. It will decree a restoration of the whole or of a part; it will decree it absolutely, or burthened with salvage, as the circumstances of the case may require: and whether the salvage be held a portion of the thing itself, or a mere lien upon it, or a condition annexed to its restitution, it is an incident to the principal question of prize, and within the scope of the regular prize allegation." The Adeline (1815), 9 Cranch, 244, 285. In every case of a proceeding for condemnation upon captures made by the public ships of war of the United States, whether the same be cases of prize strictly jure belli, or upon public acts in the nature of captures jure belli, the proceedings are in the name and authority of the United States. The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1. Prize proceedings should be in the name of the United States; but if conducted in the name of the captors until the Supreme Court is reached, they will not be reversed on that ground. Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How. 110. "Where merits clearly appear on the record, it is the settled practice, in admiralty proceedings, not to dismiss the libel, but to allow the party to assert his rights in a new allegation." For that purpose a cause may be remanded to the circuit court with directions to allow an amendment of the libel. The Adeline (1815), 9 Cranch, 244, 284. A test affidavit ought to state that the property at the time of shipment, and also at the time of capture, did belong, and will, if restored, belong to the claimant, but an irregularity in this respect is not fatal. A test affidavit by an agent is not sufficient if the principal be within the country and within a reasonable distance from the court. But if test affidavits liable to such objections have been acquiesced in by the parties in the courts below, the objections will not prevail in this court. The Adeline (1815), 9 Cranch, 244. In admiralty proceedings by libel for an offense under the nonimportation act of March 1, 1809, it suffices to describe the offense in the words of the law and to set forth the facts in such manner that if they be true the case is within the statute. Technical nicety is not required in such proceedings. The Samuel (1816), 1 Wheat. 9. Where an inspection and comparison of original documents is material to the decision of a prize case, the Supreme Court of the United States will order the original papers to be sent up from the court below. The Elsineur (1816), 1 Wheat. 439. An agreement by the parties to a prize cause will, like an agreement made in a court of common law or of chancery, be set aside, if made clear under a clear mistake. The Hiram (1816), 1 Wheat. 440. The commander of a French privateer, whose crew had been unlawfully enlisted in the United States, captured on the high seas a Spanish brig with a cargo of slaves, and, after taking out and selling fourteen slaves, conducted the brig and the rest of the slaves towards Belize. On the way a gale was encountered, and the captor then proceeded to New Orleans, arriving there in safety. The Spanish owner having libeled the brig and the remaining slaves for restitution, and restitution having been ordered, the captor claimed salvage. His claim was denied. Washington, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said that nothing could be more remote from the intentions of the captor than to render a service to the brig and her cargo; that he committed a spoliation of the cargo by selling some of the slaves, and intended to smuggle the rest on some part of the coast; that it would ill become an American court to reward a person who had thus violated the laws of the United States in one instance and meditated a violation of them in another; and that it would be still worse to reward him at the expense of the injured Spaniard. The Alerta r. Moran (1815), 9 Cranch, 359. With reference to a complaint of the British consul at Key West, Florida, that the prize master in charge of the British ship Twickenham had refused to permit him to come on board of that vessel, the Department of State explained that the refusal in the first instance was due to a misunderstanding, and that the consul feeling aggrieved afterwards declined to come on board when allowed to do So. The Department of State added that reasonable facilities would be afforded for the visits of consular officers to prize ships when such ships were brought into court. Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambass., per- 2. EXAMINATION IN PREPARATORIO § 1233. If, upon the hearing on the ship's papers and the evidence taken in preparatory, the property appears to belong to enemies, it is immediately condemned; but, if its national character appears doubtful, or even neutral, and no claim is interposed, the court will postpone the cause for a year and a day after the proceedings were begun, in order that an opportunity may be afforded to claimants to appear. The Harrison (1816), 1 Wheat. 298. "It is the established rule in courts of prize, that the evidence to acquit or condemn must, in the first instance, come from the papers and crew of the captured ship. On this account it is the duty of the captors, as soon as practicable, to bring the ship's papers into the registry of the district court, and to have the examinations of the principal officers and seamen of the captured ship taken before the district judge, or commissioners appointed by him, upon the standing interrogatories. It is exclusively upon these papers and the examinations, taken in preparatorio, that the cause is to be heard before the district court. If, from the whole evidence, the property clearly appear to be hostile, or neutral, condemnation or acquittal immediately follows. If, on the other hand, the property appear doubtful, or the case be clouded with suspicions or inconsistencies, it then becomes a case of farther proof, which the court will direct or deny, according to the rules which govern its legal discretion on this subject. Farther proof is not a matter of course. It is granted in cases of honest mistake or ignorance, or to clear away any doubts or defects consistent with good faith. But if the parties have been guilty of gross fraud or misconduct, or illegality, farther proof is not allowed; and under such circumstances, the parties are visited with all the fatal consequences of an original hostile character. It is essential, therefore, to the correct administration of prize law, that the regular modes of proceeding should be observed with the utmost strictness; and it is a great mistake to allow common law notions in respect to evidence or practice, to prevail in proceedings which have very little analogy to those at common law. "These remarks have been drawn forth by an examination of the present record. The court could not but observe with regret that great irregularities had attended the cause in the court below. Neither were the ship's papers produced by the captors, nor the captured crew examined upon the standing interrogatories. Witnesses were produced by the libellants and the claimant indiscriminately at the trial, and their testimony was taken in open court upon any and all points to which the parties chose to interrogate them, and upon this testimony and the documentary proofs offered by the witnesses, the cause was heard and finally adjudged. In fact there was nothing to distinguish the cause from an ordinary proceeding in a mere revenue cause in rem. "This court can not but watch with considerable solicitude irregu larities, which so materially impair the simplicity of prize proceedings, and the rights and duties of the parties. Some apology for |