Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

66

on Ransom, is unsupported; and there is not a scintillation "of authority in its favour" (q).

(4) See also-Miller v. The Resolution, 2 Dallas's (Amer.) Rep. P. 15.

Azuni, c. iv. art. 6.

1 Emerigon, c. xii. s. 21. 2 Valin, art. 66, p. 149.

Le Guidon, c. vi. art. 2.

Pothier, Traité du Droit de Propriété, No. 134, 135, 138, 139, 140,

144.

Valin, Ord. des Prises, art. 19.

Ib. ii. 1. iii. t. ix. art. 19.

Ib. Comm. t. ix. p. 261.

PART THE ELEVENTH.

CHAPTER I.

THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DUTY OF TRIBUNALS OF PRIZE.

CCCCXXXIII. IT has been observed that the tribunal of maritime International Law, having cognisance of Prize, has, from circumstances sufficiently apparent upon a very slight reflection, assumed a form, consistency, and regularity of procedure which no tribunal of International Law, respecting military operations by land, and having cognisance of Booty, has yet attained; and that so far as English legislation and jurisprudence is concerned, there has been a growing tendency to submit both subjects to the same tribunal (a).

It seems to the writer of these pages that, within the whole range of International Jurisprudence, there is no subject of more paramount importance than the character, constitution, and mode of procedure of the Prize Court, and of the Appellate Tribunal (b).

It ought to command the respect of nations-it ought to be above, not slander indeed, for then it would not be a human institution, but just and reasonable suspicion. It ought to administer International, not Municipal Law,

(a) Vide antè, p. 221; Banda and Kirwee Booty, 1 L. R. Adm. & Eccl. p. 109.

(b) Vide antè, vol. ii. pp. 367–8, as to International Law administered by the Pope.

except in so far as it might happen that the latter was identical with or declaratory of the former. Its procedure ought to be open and exposed to all criticism. It ought to allow every liberty of speech to the Claimant, or his representative, as well as to the Belligerent, or his representative. It should administer a consistent law upon certain and known principles, impartially applied to all States and to their subjects. The high standard of the great philosopher and jurist of antiquity should be perpetually before its eyes. It should always remember that the law which it has to administer is not of one character at Rome and of another at Athens (c), but one and the same everywhere, founded and applied, so far as human infirmity will permit, upon the principles of immutable right and eternal justice.

CCCCXXXIV. The Prize Courts to whose proceedings the greatest publicity (d) has been given, are, it will not be denied by any candid and intelligent person, those of Great Britain and of the United States of North America.

Nor will it be denied by the United States that they have taken, with few and inconsiderable exceptions, the rules, procedure and practice of the English Courts as their approved and recognised model.

In the case of the Ostsee, decided by the highest English tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, during the late war with Russia, it was well observed that

“The law which we are to lay down cannot be confined "to the British Navy; the rule must be applied to captors "of all nations. No country can be permitted to establish an exceptional rule in its own favour, or in favour of particular classes of its own subjects. On the Law of

66

66

(c) "Neque erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis: alia nunc, alia posthâc," &c.-Cic. de Republ. 1. iii. c. 22.

(d) The reports are duly published, and in England, during the late war with Russia, under the authority of the High Court of Admiralty. These are independent of the daily reports in a great number of newspapers of various political creeds.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

Nations, foreign decisions are entitled to the same weight "as those of the country in which the tribunal sits. "America has adopted almost all her principles of prize "law from the decisions of English Courts; and, whatever may have been the case in former times, no authorities "are now cited in English Courts, in cases to which they "are applicable, with greater respect than those of the distinguished jurists of France and America. Whatever "is held in England to justify or excuse an officer of the "British Navy, will be held by the tribunals of every country, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, "to justify or excuse the captors of their own nation” (e). It may be here observed, first, that England has during the wars which have taken place since 1856 found herself a neutral, having been almost always a belligerent during the wars of the last and the beginning of this century; and that she has accepted loyally all the principles with regard to the duties of neutrals which her Prize Courts, when she was belligerent, had laid down. Secondly, that during the late American war the Prize Courts of America applied, with very few exceptions, these principles with perfect fairness to English ships and owners.

CCCCXXXV. Let us consider, first, whether there has been any theory upon this subject-viz. the duty of the Prize Court towards all States-promulgated by the English Courts; and next, whether that theory has been in accordance with the premisses which have been just laid down; because these facts are of great importance to the civilized world.

States which openly proclaim the standard, by reference to which they assert that international justice ought to be administered in their tribunals, witness, as it were, against themselves, if they depart from it.

True it is that their practice may fall short of their theory; but by the joint effect of openly promulgating

(e) The Ostsee, 9 Moore, P. C. Rep. p. 150. (1855.)

their theory and openly conducting their practice, they have for ever exposed themselves to the severest criticism, and challenged, in some sense, the institution of a constant comparison between the two. Nor, in these days, not only of free but of universal discussion through the agency of the press, can it be contended that this exposure and this challenge do not constitute a great check upon the maladministration of justice, and a great safeguard to those States whose interests are necessarily submitted to the decisions of the Belligerent Tribunal.

CCCCXXXVI. It has so happened that, during the long and general war which ended in 1815, that great magistrate of nations, Lord Stowell, more than once felt it incumbent upon him to declare from the judgment seat what was in his opinion the duty of the tribunal over which he so long presided.

It has appeared desirable to the writer of these pages to collect these passages, and to place them consecutively before the eyes of the reader.

It has been already observed, that, in time of war, Neutral States have a right to demand, ex debito justitiæ (f), that there be courts for the administration of International Law, sitting in the belligerent countries.

66

The duties of those courts are thus faithfully described by Lord Stowell in the case of the Swedish Convoy (g): “ In forming my judgment, I trust that it has not for a moment "escaped my anxious recollection what it is that the duty "of my station calls for from me; namely, not to deliver "occasional and shifting opinions to serve present purposes "of particular national interest, but to administer with in"difference that justice which the Law of Nations holds out "without distinction to independent States, some happening

(f) The Snipe and others, Edwards' Adm. Rep. p. 381, also published separately.

See important remarks of Mably, Droit de Gens, vol. ii. pp. 350, 351; and Wheaton, Hist. p. 171, n.

(g) The Maria, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 350.

« AnteriorContinuar »