minister to Denmark. Indemnities were also obtained by British subjects from the United States in certain prize cases under Article XII. of the treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 336; III. 3209, 3210; V. 4555. For the opinion of Mr. Pinkney in the case of the Betsey, see Moore, Int. VIII. PRIZE MONEY AND BOUNTY. 1. CLAIMANTS OF PRIZE MONEY. § 1245. The crew of a privateer may proceed by libel in admiralty for their respective portions of a prize. Keane v. The Brig Gloucester, Federal Court of Appeals (1782), 2 Dall. 36. Members of a crew of a privateer wrongfully dismissed and left on shore, after the beginning of the voyage, are entitled to their share of the prize money as joint tenants of the right to capture and make prizes conceded by the privateer's commission. It was said that this right attached when they were shipped and received on board by the captain as part of the crew. Keane v. Gloucester, Federal Court of Appeals (1782), 2 Dall. 36. In a case of capture from an enemy by a privateer, persons in other privateers acquire no right merely by witnessing the making of the capture. Talbot v. The Commanders and Owners of Three Brigs, High Court of Where a capture has actually taken place with the assent of the commander of a squadron, express or implied, the question of liability assumes a different aspect, and the prize-master may be considered as bailee to the use of the whole squadron who are to share in the prize money; but not so as to mere trespasses unattended with a conversion to the use of the squadron. The Eleanor, 2 Wheat. 345. The profits of a capture made by individuals acting without a com mission inure to the Government, but it has not been the practice to exact them. On the contrary, it has been the practice to recompense gratuitous enterprise, courage, and patriotism, by assigning the captors a part and sometimes the whole prize. Wirt, At. Gen. 1821, 1 Op. 463. This related to the case of the Dos Hermancs, 2 Wheat. 77. In a case of joint capture by the Army and Navy, it was held that the capture inured exclusively to the benefit of the United States, there being no statutory provision in such a case as to prize money. The Siren, 13 Wall. 389. "As the capture was made by the Army, or by the Army and Navy operating together, it inured exclusively to the benefit of the United States. There is no distribution of prize money in such a case. Porter . United States, 106 U. S. 607; The Siren, 13 Wall. 389." The Nuestra Señora de Regla (1882), 108 U. S. 92, 101. The proceeds of the sale of a vessel seized as a prize, deposited by a marshal in a national bank which is a special or designated depositary of public moneys, do not constitute public moneys of the United States, within the meaning of statutes applicable to public money and authorizing its deposit in a public depositary; and such deposit does not, therefore, constitute a payment of such moneys to the United States, which will make the Government liable therefor in case of the failure of the bank pending appeal. Judgment, United States v. Coudert (1896), 73 Fed. Rep. 505, 19 C. C. A. 543, affirmed. Coudert v. United States (1899), 175 U. S. 178, 20 S. Ct. 56. 2. PROPORTIONS AWARDED. § 1246. The 4th section of the act of 3d March, 1800, adopts the rules which have been or might be provided by law for the distribution of prize money. These rules were taken from the 5th and 6th sections of the act of the 23d of April, 1800, by which the whole of the prize is given to the captors when the vessel captured is of equal or superior force to the vessel making the capture; and when of inferior force, the prize is directed to be divided equally between the United States and the captors. Wirt, At. Gen., 1823, 1 Op. 594. An armed torpedo steam launch without books is a "single ship," within the meaning of the term in United States prize act of June 30, 1864, which gives to the commander of a single ship one-tenth of the prize money awarded to the ship. United States v. Steever, 113 U. S. 747. Under the prize act of 1864 the commander of a single ship making a capture is entitled to one-tenth of the prize money, and can not take, like the other officers, in proportion to his rate of pay in the service, even though his tenth be less than the shares of his subordinate officers. (Nott, J. dissenting.) Swan v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 51. 66 Under said act the terms ' vessel and ship" are synonymous; an armed torpedo launch is a "ship" and her commander “the com mander of a single ship." (Ibid.) Capture of enemy's property does not increase naval pay proper. but enlarges the right to compensation, prize money being given as an inducement to enter the service and perform its duties with bravery and fidelity. Cole v. United States (1899), 34 Ct. Cl. 446. 3. BOUNTY. $1247. Section 4625, Revised Statutes, relating to prizes, refers only to property actually captured, and not to property which has been destroyed without ever having been actually seized or in the possession of the forces of the United States. It was therefore held that the officers and men of the U. S. S. Hawk were not entitled to prize money under that section for the destruction of the Spanish steamer Alphonso XII. But it was suggested that if the steamer, which was publicly reported to have been “in use as an auxiliary vessel of the, Spanish navy," was, at the time of her destruction," a ship or vessel of war belonging to Spain, or in her service," a claim for bounty might, perhaps, be made under section 4635, Revised Statutes. Griggs, At. Gen., Aug. 2, 1898, 22 Op. 171. Questions as to bounty under section 4635, Revised Statutes, should be submitted to a judicial tribunal, and the Court of Claims has authority to hear and determine such questions. Boyd, Act. At. Gen., Sept. 2, 1898, 22 Op. 205. In determining whether the Spanish vessels sunk or destroyed at Manila were of inferior or superior force to the American vessels engaged in the battle, for the purpose of fixing the amount of bounty to be awarded under Revised Statutes, section 4635, the land batteries, mines, and torpedoes not controlled by those in charge of the enemy's vessels, but which supported those vessels, are to be excluded altogether from consideration, and the size and armaments of the vessels sunk or destroyed, together with the number of men upon them, are alone to be regarded. Dewey v. United States (1900), 178 U. S. 510, 20 S. Ct. 981. 4. ABOLITION OF PRIZE MONEY AND BOUNTY. § 1248. "And all provisions of law authorizing the distribution among captors of the whole or any portion of the proceeds of vessels, or any property hereafter captured, condemned as prize, or providing for the payment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed.” Act of March 3, 1899, c. 413, entitled "An act to reorganize and increase the efficiency of the personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps of the United States," 30 Stats. 1004, 1007. See Kleen, De la Contrebande de Guerre; Manceaux, De la Contrebande de Guerre. The trade of neutrals with belligerents in articles not contraband is absolutely free, unless interrupted by blockade. The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28. Contracts for the transportation of contraband articles are enforceable. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. American Trading Co. (1904), 195 U. S. 439, 465. The question of contraband "is a source and a pretext for much vexation to the commerce of neutrals, whilst it is of little real importance to the belligerent parties. The reason is obvious. In the |