had before taken and burnt. It was held to be a case of salvage. one-half being allowed to the salvors, and the other half reserved for proper disposition after the close of the war between the United States and Great Britain. The American privateer Cadet, having captured a British vessel, was standing in for the shore with her when another American privateer, the Paul Jones, flying American colors but having sails of English canvas, began a pursuit. The Cadet, supposing the pur suer to be British, parted company with the prize, and the Paul Jones then pursued the latter, firing at her. When near the shore the prize crew abandoned the vessel and the Paul Jones took possession of her. and, raising British colors, carried her away, though aware that she was a prize of the Cadet. Held, that the vessel should be restored to the first captor, with damages. The Mary (1817), 2 Wheat. 123. The general salvage act of March 3, 1800, expressly excepted from its operation recaptured property which had been condemned by competent authority. Section 5 of the prize act of June 26, 1812. provided for the restoration of recaptured property to the "original owners," on payment of salvage "agreeably to the provisions heretofore established by law." Held, that the latter provision did not repeal the former, but was merely affirmative of it, and that, where the captured property had been condemned, the "lawful owners were not the original owners, but those who held title under the condemnation. The Star (1818), 3 Wheat. 78. See a long note by Wheaton to this case, on the subject of salvage, 3 By the British statute of 13 George II., chapter 4, the jus postliminii was reserved to" British subjects" upon all recaptures of their vessels and goods by British ships, even though they had been previously condemned, except where such vessels had, after capture, set forth as ships of war. This rule was not altered by the statute of 43 George III., chapter 160, section 39, which established uniform rates of salvage. Neither of these statutes extended to neutral property. The Star (1818), 3 Wheat. 78. "It is admitted, on all sides, by public jurists, that in cases of capture a firm possession changes the title of the property; and although there has been in former times much vexed discussion as to the time at which this change of property takes place, whether on the capture or on the pernoctation, or on the carrying infra præsidia, of the prize; it is universally allowed, that at all events, a sentence of con demnation completely extinguishes the title of the original proprietor, and transfers a rightful title to the captors or their sovereign." Story, J., delivering the opinion of the court, The Star (1818), 3 Wheat. 78, 86. As the conduct of the French prize courts during the period of spoliations rendered a recapture of an American vessel a rescue from actual danger, the recaptors were entitled to salvage. Hooper v. United States, 22 Ct. Cl. 408. The act of March 3, 1800, providing for salvage in cases of recapture, was substantially embodied in the act of June 30, 1864, and Revised Statutes, sec. 4652. In order to come within its terms the property in question must have been taken by an enemy of the United States," and "retaken" by a public or private vessel of the United States. Where there had been no capture there could be no recapture. Oakes r. United States (1899), 174 U. S. 778, 792–793. 9. SAFE-CONDUCTS; RANSOMS. § 1214. Sometimes, instead of submitting to be sent in, the original owner of the property repurchases his right by a ransom, and the crew is released instead of becoming prisoners of war. The master gives a ransom bill, by which he contracts, for himself and the owner of the vessel and cargo, that a stipulated sum shall be paid to the captor. A copy of the ransom bill is retained by himself and serves as a safeconduct, protecting the vessel from seizure by ships of the enemy country or its allies so long as a prescribed course is kept for a port of destination agreed on. Any divergence or delay, except from stress of weather, renders the vessel subject to a new capture, and any excess realized from her sale over the amount stipulated in the bill goes to the second captors. Usually the captor, besides holding the ransom bill, keeps an officer of the vessel as a hostage for the payment of the stipulated sum; and if, on his way to port with the bill and hostage, or either of them, on board, the captor is himself captured, the owner is exonerated from his debt. But, as the bill and hostage are the equivalent of the prize, this consequence does not follow if both have previously arrived in a place of safety. Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 460–461; Twiss, War, II. § 181; Woolsey, § 150; The English courts do not permit the captor to sue on the ransom bill. See, also, the cases of the Charming Nancy and the Patrixent, Marsden's Below are copies of two marine passports issued by the United States to vessels in order to protect them from molestation: "I, Timothy Pickering, Secretary for the Department of State, of the United States of America, hereby certify and make known. that the ship Benjamin Franklin, whereof Lloyd Jones, a citizen of the said States, is master, and Francis Breuil, also a citizen thereof, is owner, is employed as a flag of truce by the consul-general of the French Republic to the said United States, to transport a number of the citizens of his nation to France: Wherefore I request all armed vessels, sailing under the flag of the said States, and whomsoever else it may concern, to permit the said ship Benjamin Franklin, freely to pursue her intended voyage without giving or suffering to be given to her any let or molestation, but on the contrary to afford her every aid and protection of which she may stand in need. In faith whereof I have signed these presents and caused my official seal to be hereto affixed, at Philadelphia, the first day of June, A. D. 1795, and in the twenty-second year of the Independence of the said States. [L. S.] "TIMOTHY PICKERING." 10 MS. Dom. Let. 422. "DEPARTMENT OF STATE, "December 21, 1814. "To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: "Whereas Andrew de Daschkoff, esq., envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the Russias, is desirous of obtaining a passport for the steamboat to come from New York or Philadelphia to Alexandria in the District of Columbia, loaded with wines, furniture, &c. for his use: and it has been determined on the part of the Government of the United States to afford him this accommodation: In pursuance, therefore of a provision in the second section of a law of Congress entitled 'An act to prohibit the use of licenses or passes granted by the authority of Great Britain and Ireland,' authority is hereby given to the steamboat —, whereof is commander or master, to proceed on the voyage aforesaid notwithstanding the passport, or license which the said vessel may have from any British admiral or other officer: Provided, however, That the said vessel does not in other respects violate the laws of the United States. "In faith whereof, I have caused the seal of the Department of State to be hereunto affixed. Done at Washington, this 21st day of December, anno Domini eighteen hundred and fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States the thirty-ninth. 16 MS. Dom. Let. 181. "JAS. MONROE." July 22, 1898, the United States consul at Martinique was instructed by telegraph to issue to the Spanish transatlantic steamer Alicante a safe conduct as follows: "By direction of the President of the United States I hereby issue this safe conduct to the Spanish steamer Alicante, while proceeding under contract with the Government of the United States to Santiago de Cuba and sailing therefrom to Spain with Spanish prisoners surrendered to the Army of the United States in Cuba. All persons under the jurisdiction of the United States are commanded to respect this guarantee." Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, July 25, 1898, 230 MS. The United States consul at Vera Cruz was instructed to issue safe See, also, Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Canada, consul at Vera Definitions. XII. PRIVATEERS. 1. WHAT ARE, AND WHAT ARE NOT. § 1215. "A private armed vessel or privateer is a vessel owned and officered by private persons, but acting under a commission from the State, usually called letters of marque. It answers to a company on land raised and commanded by private persons, but acting under rules from the supreme authority, rather than to one raised and acting without license, which would resemble a privateer without commission. (It is equipped not so much to fight an enemy's war ships, to which it would be unequal, as to plunder his commerce; its value to the state commissioning it is thus mainly ncidental.) The commission, on both elements, alone gives a right to the thing captured, and insures good treatment from the enemy. A private vessel levying war without such license, although not engaged in a piratical act, would fare har lly in the enemy's hands.” Wooley's Int. Law, § 127. H. Doc. 551-vol 7---35 "By Swift a privateer is defined to be an armed vessel, belonging to one or more private individuals, licensed by Government to take prizes from an enemy. "In Wilhelm's Military Dictionary (Phil. 1881), the name 'partisan' is stated to be given to 'small corps detached from the main body of an army, and acting independently against the enemy. In partisan warfare much liberty is allowed to partisans.' But if so in military, why not in naval warfare? The objection is to the plunder of private property on the high seas, against which the United States have always remonstrated, not to the particular agency employed. "In McCulloch's Commercial Dictionary, London, 1882, privateers are defined to be ships of war fitted out by private individuals to annoy and plunder the enemy. But before commencing their oper utions, it is indispensable that they obtain letters of marque and reprisal from the government whose subjects they are, authorizing them to commit hostilities, and that they conform strictly to the rules laid down for the regulation of their conduct. All private individuals attacking others at sea, unless empowered by letters of marque, are to be considered pirates."" Wharton, Com. Am. Law, § 201, note; citing Butler-Johnstone, Handbook of Maritime Rights (London, 1876), 12. "Though she [a merchant vessel] has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is thereby made a soldier." Mr. Jeferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, Aug. 16, 1793, 1 Wait's State The term "letter of marque," though originally indicating the commission issued to a privateer, came in the course of time to be applied almost exclusively to a trading vessel that was authorized to make reprisals, whether in peace or in war. The term "privateer" was reserved for a vessel which, although privately fitted out, was employed solely as a cruiser. Hamilton, therefore, in his circular of August 4, 1793, said: "The term privateer is understood not to extend to vessels armed for merchandise and war, commonly called with us letters of marque, nor, of course, to vessels of war in the immediate servia of the government of either of the powers at war." Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 140. "On the 1st March, 1803, the King of France lent the ship Indien, for the term of three years to the Prince of Luxembourg. The Prince then ceded his right to the State of South Carolina; and in order to |