enjoined by the instructions not to release any prisoners belonging to the ships of the enemy, and they violate their duty whenever they do. When I advert to the imposition that has been put upon the court in that transaction, how can I trust myself to any representation coming from the same persons. Indeed, I think, I can perceive strong traits of bad faith running throughout the whole conduct of the captors in the present case. In answer to the complaint that has been made against the captors for bringing this prize to England, it was said, that it was done at the desire of the master of the captured vessel; though in the affidavit of the master, which is not contradicted, it is sworn, that the captors offered to set him on shore, but that he refused to be separated from his cargo.'

"The conduct of the captors has on all points been highly reprehensible. Looking to all the circumstances of previous misconduct, I feel myself bound to pronounce, that there has been a violation of territory, and that as to the question of property, there was not sufficient ground of seizure; and that these acts of misconduct have been further aggravated, by bringing the vessel to England, without any necessity that can justify such a measure. In such a case it would be falling short of the justice due to the violated rights of America, and to the individuals who have sustained injury by such misconduct, if I did not follow up the restitution which has passed on the former day, with a decree of costs and damages."

THE "GENERAL ARMSTRONG."

LOUIS NAPOLEON, ARBITRATOR, 1851.

(2 Wharton's Digest, 604.)

Where a capture has been made in neutral waters, claims for damages by the injured belligerent against the neutral state not allowed, if the captured ship resisted, instead of asking protection of the neutral.

"The destruction of the American armed brig General Armstrong by a British man-of-war, in the harbor of Fayal, in 1814, gave rise to a long-continuing correspondence, which resulted, in 1851, in an agreement to refer the claims growing out of it to the arbitrament of a sovereign, potentate, or chief of some nation in amity with both the high contracting parties.' The President of the French Republic (afterwards Napoleon III.) was selected as the arbiter. This decision was adverse to the United States."

The following is a translation of the material parts of the decision:

"Considering that it is clear, in fact, that the United States were at war with Her Britannic Majesty, and Her Most Faithful Majesty preserving her neutrality, the American brig the General Armstrong, commanded by Captain Reid, legally provided with letters of marque, and armed for privateering purposes, having sailed from the port of New York, did, on the 26th of September, 1814, cast anchor in the port of Fayal, one of the Azores Islands, constituting part of Her Most Faithful Majesty's dominions.

"That it is equally clear that, on the evening of the same day, an English squadron, commanded by Commodore Lloyd, entered the same port;

"That it is no less certain that, during the following night, regardless of the rights of sovereignty and neutrality of Her Most Faithful Majesty, a bloody encounter took place between the Americans and the English; and that on the following day, the 27th of September, one of the vessels belonging to the English squadron came to range herself near the American privateer for the purpose of cannonading her; that this demonstration, accompanied by the act, determined Captain Reid, followed by his crew, to abandon his vessel and to destroy her;

Considering that if it be clear that, on the night of the 26th of September, some English long-boats, commanded by Lieutenant Robert Fausset, of the British navy, approached the American brig, the General Armstrong, it is not certain that the men who manned the boats aforesaid were provided with arms and ammunition;

"That it is evident, in fact, from the documents which have been exhibited, that the aforesaid long-boats, having approached the American brig, the crew of the latter, after having hailed them and summoned them to be off, immediately fired upon them, and that some men were killed on board the English boats, and others wounded -some of whom mortally-without any attempt having been made on the part of the crew of the boats to repel at once force by force; "Considering that the report of the governor of Fayal proves that the American captain did not apply to the Portuguese government for protection until blood had already been shed, and, when the fire had ceased, the brig General Armstrong came to anchor under the castle at a distance of a stone's-throw; that the said governor states that it was only then that he was informed of what was passing in the port; that he did, on several occasions, interpose with Commodore Lloyd with a view of obtaining a cessation of hostilities, and to complain of the violation of a neutral territory;

"That he effectively prevented some American sailors, who

were on land, from embarking on board the American brig for the purpose of prolonging a conflict which was contrary to the law of nations;

"That the weakness of the garrison of the island and the constant dismantling of the forts, by the removal of the guns which guarded them, rendered all armed intervention on his part impos sible;

66

Considering, in this state of things, that Captain Reid, not having applied from the beginning for the intervention of the neutral sovereign, and having had recourse to arms in order to repel an unjust aggression, of which he pretended to be the object, has thus failed to respect the neutrality of the territory of the foreign sovereign, and released that sovereign of the obligation in which he was, to afford him protection by any other means than that of a pacific intervention;

"From which it follows that the government of Her Most Faithful Majesty cannot be held responsible for the results of the collision which took place in contempt of her rights of sovereignty, in violation of the neutrality of her territory, and without the local officers or lieutenants having been required in proper time, and enabled to grant aid and protection to those having a right to the same;

"Therefore, we have decided, and we declare, that the claim presented by the government of the United States against Her Most Faithful Majesty has no foundation, and that no indemnity is due by Portugal in consequence of the loss of the American brig, the General Armstrong, armed for privateering purposes."

THE "PERLE."

CONSEIL DES PRISES, AN VIII.

(Pistoye et Duverdy, I., 100.)

A belligerent capture in neutral waters, held to be illegal, whether under the guns of a fort or on the undefended coast; and the captured ship will be restored by the courts (French) of the captor's country.

Le navire la Perle, sous pavillon américain, parti de New York pour Saint-Sébastien, sous la consignation de Jean Holmière, fut pris par le corsaire l'Effronté, le 30 nivôse an VII. Le corsaire la Légère, voulant concourir à cette prise, jeta quelques homnes à bord de ce navire, qui fut conduit le même jour au port de Socoa.

Le capturé prétendait que la prise, avait été faite sous le canon du fort Saint-Sébastien, et il se plaignait de cette violation du droit des gens.

Le capteur soutenait, au contraire, que le droit des gens n'avait pas été violé, et que la prise n'avait été faite qu'à trois lieues de SaintSébastien.

En fait, le capturé avait raison, la capture avait eu lieu dans les eaux espagnoles. M. Portalis, commissaire du gouvernement, déposa les conclusions suivantes :

"La capture du navire la Perle n'ayant été faite qu'à une demilieue d'un port d'Espagne, que faut-il penser de la validité ou de l'invalidité de cette capture?

"Il serait inutile de discuter les divers systèmes qui ont été publiés relativement aux droits de chaque souverain sur les mers qui environnent son empire. Ces systèmes n'offrent que des questions d'école, abandonnées depuis longtemps à la dispute et à la discussion des publicistes.

"Mais, par le droit conventionnel des puissances maritimes et par la coutume générale, il est reconnu qu'un corsaire ne peut se permettre aucun acte d'hostilité, ni même aucune visite, contre un navire ennemi ou preténdu tel, si ce navire n'est à une distance convenable du territoire de toute puissance neutre. Cette distance a été fixée à deux lieues.

"Plusieurs auteurs avaient déterminé la distance que tout armateur en course doit respecter, par la portée du canon; mais on a très-judicieusement observé qu'il est plus raisonnable de décider que toute prise faite à moins de deux lieues de distance des côtes du pays neutre est contre le droit des gens quoiqu'il n'y ait sur la côte ni forteresse ni canons; car le territoire neutre doit être respecté, indépendamment de la force, et à cause de lui-même.

"Il faut rendre justice à nos temps modernes on a cherché à diminuer les maux de la guerre. Ce sont moins les jalousies de juridiction que les principes d'une philosophie plus humaine qui ont fixé le droit conventionnel des puissances maritimes sur les égards respectifs qu'elles se doivent: de là, elles ont cherché à transformer les prérogatives de leur souverainete en droit d'asile pour les navigateurs; et, sous ce point de vue, les rivalités même de pouvoir, avouées par l'humanité, ont mérité d'être consacrées comme utiles au bien du commerce et au bonheur universel des nations.

"Des doutes s'élèvant encore sur la fixation du territoire de chaque souverain, quand il ne s'agit que de l'intérêt particulier de ses Etats. Ainsi, le voeu des publicistes les plus estimables est de restreindre le plus que l'on peut les prétentions de territoire, lorsque

ces prétentions ne sont motivées que par des idées ambitieuses ou fiscales mais comme, dans la question présente, la règle des deux lieues suppose moins dans les souverains le désir d'étendre leur domination que celui de protéger le malheur et de lui offrir un asile cette règle a été applaudie et adoptée comme un vrai bien public.

"Dans la cause présente, M. l'Ambassadeur d'Espagne a réclamé. Le ministre des relations extérieures, écrivant au ministre de la justice, l'a invité à rappeler les règles internationales à tous les tribunaux qui étaient alors chargés de la matière des prises. La capture soumise à la décision du Conseil ne peut donc être autorisée, si elle a été faite à moins de deux lieues de distance d' un port ou d'une côte espagnole. Or, il est démontré, en point de fait, que la capture du navire la Perle a été faite à demi-lieue du port de Saint-Sébastien ou de celui du Passage. Donc, elle offre une violation manifeste du droit des gens et de la foi publique; et ce n'est pas vis-à-vis d'un allié fidèle que l'on pent tolérer une pareille violation, aussi condamnable aux yeux de l'humanité qu'à ceux de la politique.

"Je conclus à ce que l'arrestation et la prise du navire la Perle soient déclarées invalides.

"LE CONSEIL décide que la prise du navire la Perle et de son chargement, faite par les corsaires francais la Légère et l'Effronté, est nulle et de nul effet."

THE "ANNE.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1818.

(3 Wheaton, 435.)

If the captured ship first commences hostilities in neutral waters, she thereby forfeits neutral protection.

A capture made in neutral waters is, as between enemies, deemed to all intents and purposes a legal capture. The neutral sovereign can alone call its validity in question.

This was the case of a British ship captured while lying at anchor near the Spanish part of the island of St. Domingo, by the American privateer Ultor.

Extract from the judgment of STORY, J. :

"The claim of the Spanish government for the violation of its neutral territory being thus disposed of, it is next to be considered whether the British claimant can assert any title founded upon that circumstance.