Mansfield had declared from the Queen's Bench of England that an Act of Parliament would not alter the Law of Nations (m), and that all the world were parties to a sentence in a Court of Admiralty, that is, a Prize Court (n).

(m) Heathfield v. Chilton, 4 Burrow's Reports, p. 2016.

66

The Act of Parliament (7 Anne, c. 12) did not intend to alter, nor can alter, the Law of Nations."

(n) Bernardi v. Motteux, 2 Douglas's Reports, p. 581.

CHAPTER II.

THE CONSTITUTION OF PRIZE TRIBUNALS IN DIFFERENT
STATES.

CCCCXXXVII. THE tribunals in the United States of North America which take cognizance of maritime capture appear to be the following:

First. The District Courts (a). These, as well as the Circuit Courts, are derived from the power granted by the Constitution to Congress of constituting tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

The United States are at present divided into thirty-five districts, which generally consist of an entire State: but in some States there are more districts than one.

They have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction within certain limitations as to the tonnage of vessels. They have also cognizance, concurrently with the Circuit and State Courts, of causes where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the Law of Nations or a Treaty of the United States.

They have also cognizance of complaints, by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coast.

It is more important to observe that they possess all the powers of a Prize Court (b).

Secondly. The Circuit or Federal Courts. The United States are now divided into nine great circuits. They have appellate jurisdiction from all final decrees and judgments

(a) 1 Kent's Comm. pp. 332–3 (303–4).

(b) Ib. p. 386 (355).

זי

of the District Courts in matters of Prize, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds three hundred dollars (c). Thirdly. The Supreme Court, which is composed of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, of whom five may make a Court. This Court, which is clothed with many attributes and discharges many functions of an international character, receives, as a Court of the last resort, appeals in cases of Prize (d).

CCCCXXXVIII. The Prize Tribunal (e) in France has undergone great changes.

Originally The Admiral or his Lieutenant exercised Prize Jurisdiction.

As late as 1624 it appears that Henry de Montmorency exercised this jurisdiction en vertu du pouvoir attaché à sa charge d'amirauté.

In the time of Louis XIII. the office of Admiral was suppressed and replaced by that of a Grand-maître, who took cognizance of Prizes. This office was filled by Cardinal Richelieu (f).

During the minority of Louis XIV., Anne of Austria exercised the jurisdiction. She was speedily succeeded by the Duc de Vendôme (1650). His appointment introduced a great and lasting change in the Tribunal. He found himself much embarrassed with the questions of International Law, upon which he was obliged to adjudicate, and appeals were constantly prosecuted from his judgments to the Throne, till at last it became necessary to establish a permanent commission for his assistance, with an appeal to the Conseil d'Etat du Roi. Such was the origin of the

(c) 1 Kent's Comm. pp. 331 (302).

(d) Ib. pp. 323 (298). I am not certain that the numbers of the Courts and Judges may not lately have been increased, but the general outline is substantially correct.

(e) De Pist. et Duverdy, Traité des Prises, t. ii. P. viii. ; cc. i. ii. iii. iv.

(f) Ib. p. 162.

Conseil des Prises, which, with some interruptions and variations, has continued to the present day.

The office of the Admiral was re-established in favour of M. le Comte de Vermandois; and in 1695 it appears to have been fully revived in the person of M. le Comte de Toulouse. The Admiral continued to adjudicate with his attendant council till 1789. The last Conseil des Prises under the old law was appointed in 1778 to take cognizance of Prizes made from the English during the war between England and her colonies.

This Conseil des Prises was nominated for each war, having no authority during peace. The members were nominated by the King, with a Procureur-général.

The famous treatise of Valin-his Traité des Priseswas supervised and richly instructed with precedents by the Procureur-général of his time.

In 1793, when the war broke out between France and England, a decree of the Convention (14 July, 1793) gave the jurisdiction over Prizes to the Tribunals of Commerce. Not long afterwards another decree issued, clothing the Conseil exécutif provisoire with this jurisdiction. The effect of this decree was to restore the jurisdiction to the administrative authority of the State, which the French writers appear (g), in very direct opposition to the doctrine of the English and North American United States, to consider as the proper repository of International Law. In a short time the Comité du Salut public seized, and abused with shameless ignorance and injustice, the jurisdiction.

Afterwards the Tribunaux de Commerce possessed the jurisdiction, and with respect to their discharge of these functions Cambacères, Minister of Justice, said :—

"Que la course était devenue un brigandage, parce que "les lois qui lui étaient appliquées étaient insuffisantes ou

(g) "C'était là rendre la connaissance des prises maritimes à l'autorité administrative, qui devoit naturellement en connoître.”. De Pist. et Duverdy, Traité des Prises, t. iii. P. viii. c. iv. p. 149.

66

"mauvaises et que l'on avoit entendu s'élever de toutes parts "les plaintes des négociants et des ministres étrangers, et que cependant le Gouvernement, pénétré de la justice de ces plaintes, avoit toujours été sans pouvoir pour y faire "droit" (h).

66

Under Napoleon the First, a Conseil des Prises was instituted to sit at Paris without any relation to the office of Admiral; and special tribunals with a limited jurisdiction were established in the ports, chiefly, it should seem, for the purpose of collecting information as to the facts of the cases submitted to the Conseil des Prises. From this tribuual there was an appeal to the revived Conseil d'Etat.

Besides the Commissions des Ports, there were also Commissions Coloniales to sit in the French Colonies, and Commissions Consulaires, which established, in violation of the soundest principles of International Law, French Tribunals in the ports of Neutrals or Allies.

Napoleon the Third in the Crimean war re-instituted by decree a Conseil des Prises at Paris. By the fourth article of that decree the sittings of the Council were ordered to be private, a provision which is much to be regretted by all who consider publicity as a great security for the impartial execution of public or international justice.

With respect to Spain, Abreu (i) has a chapter upon the necessity of a regular and formal procedure in a Prize Court in order to obtain the condemnation of a capture, the forms of which are, he says, wisely provided for in las Ordonnonzas de Corso (k), with a view to secure the due administration of international justice.

(h) De Pist. et Duverdy, Tr. des Prises, t. iii. P. viii. c. iv. p. 158. (i) Abreu, cap. xxiii. :

"Sobre el modo de probar el dominio de la Pressa y si la prueba de que se hizo legitimamente incumbe al apressador o el appressado.' (k) Ib. p. 251.

Ordonnanza para Navegar en Corso, December 4th, 1621, is to be found in Phil. iv. t. i. p. 555, and Cedul. pp. 372.-430, to be compared with later ordinances of 1718—1779, &c.