PRIZE. 419 PBOBABILISM. niitted the captor to take his prize into a neu- tral port, but neutrals may forbid the use of their ports for this purpose, if they see fit, and this is almost the invariable practice except in case of distress or other emergency, and then only for as short a time as circumstances will allow. A prize intended to be sent into port for adju- dication is put in charge of a prize-master who is . aided by a prize crew. They are charged with taking care that the vessel is not despoiled or damaged and that it is- duly delivered to the cus- tody of the court with the ship's papers, register, etc. In order to avoid depletion of the fighting strength resulting from the necessity of supply- ing prize crews where a number of captures are made, or where for other reasons it may be in- convenient to send a prize into port, it is fre- quently provided by municipal law and is recog- nized by the law of nations that a captor may destroy his prize, subject, of course, to the liability of the captor's Government for any loss or injury occasioned to neutrals thereby. The right of the captor to accept a ransom for his prize is also recognized. This is an arrangement between the captor and the master of the captured vessel by which the vessel is allowed to continue its voyage upon the promise of the master to pay a specified sum to the captor. The ransom con- tract serves as a safe conduct for the vessel dur- ing the remainder of the voyage and is a guar- antee against capture by another vessel of the captor's Government or that of his ally, but not against the perils of the sea. Ransom contracts are valid instnmients under international law, and it is customary to allow either party to bring suit on it in the courts of the other. As a means of encouraging the capture of an enemy's vessels, the laws of many States provide for the offering of special rewards to those taking part in operations leading to the capture of vessels belonging to an enemy. Such is the prize money heretofore allowed by the Government of the United States, which consisted of the proceeds of the sale of captured vessels and cargoes law- fully captured and regularly condemned, and dis- tributed among officers and crew. This provision for prize money, which had been a law of the United States from the establishment of the Gov- ernment, was abolished by an act of March .3. 1899. By this act all laws authorizing the distribution of prize money as well as for the payment of bounties and head-money were repealed. See AoNrlEALTT : CoXTR.BAXD OF WaB ; DeCLABATION OF P.ABIS; PkIVATEEBIXG ; PBIZE COURTS; ReCAP- riRE: W.AR. PRIZE COXTRTS. Special tribunals for the adjudication of questions of prize (q.v.). The submission of the question of the legality of a capture in war to the determination of a court is rot a right which an enemy may claim, since it is assumed that all captures are enemy's prop- erty. But the fact that frequently property cap- tured is claimed to be owned by neutrals makes a judicial inqtiiry in such cases necessary in or- der to determine the responsibility of a bellig- erent to neutrals. As the determination of ques- tions of this character involves the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, it is customary to confer jurisdiction in cases of maritime capture upon the admiralty courts. In Great Britain this is done by special commission : in the United States it is a regular branch of the admiralty juri.sdic- tion, which is e.xercised in the first in.stance by the district courts. Prize courts differ from other municipal courts in that jurisdiction over the property of a foreigner is acquired, not by his consent expressed or implied, but by force. A prize court usually sits within the territorial jurisdiction of the belligerent under whose au- thority the capture is made, although it may sit within the territory of an ally. It may not, however, sit in the territory of a neutral even with the consent of the latter. It is highly desirable that the court may have the prize within its own custody, not only as a means of facilitating the investigation, but to diminish the risks of concealment and fraud and to insure a fair sale or speedy restitution. The question to be decided by the court is whether, according to the law of nations, the ship and cargo in question were liable to capture, and if so whether the capture was lawfully made. If the decision be in the affirmative, the prize is pro- nounced good, is then sold and the proceeds placed in the hands of an officer of the Government for distribution among the officers and men who made the capture, according to the provisions of the law governing captures. If the decision be in the negative, the vessel is restored to its owilers. If in the latter case it has suffered damage from the hands of the captors, the Government of which the captors are subjects is held responsible only for failure to use reasonable care and skill. The procedure in prize cases is based chiefly on the principles of the Roman law. The common- law doctrine as to the competency of witnesses has no application in the procedure of prize courts. The decision of a prize court is binding upon all parties concerned, but, on account of the magnitude of the interests often involved, pro- vision is usually made in the municipal law of everj' State for the right of appeal to a higher court. Thus in the United States appeals from the decisions of the district courts lie to the United States Supreme Court. PBIZE FIGHTING. In law, fighting with the fists, either with or without gloves, in public, and for some reward or prize. It is sometimes said that there must be an intention to fight 'to a finish' in order to constitute a prize fight, but the practice of fixing a limited number of rounds, in order to ostensibl.v make it a sparring exhibi- tion, has necessitated the adoption of a different rule. The question of the intention of the parties and the promoters of the fight is important. If the intention is for either of the contestants to 'knock out' the other or disable him. and the fight is a public exhibition for money or a prize, it will be considered as a prize fight. The man- ner of distribution of the prize money between the contestants is immaterial. A prize fight dif- fers from a sparring match in that the latter is not held for a prize, and there is no intention on the part of the contestants to do each other bod- ily harm, ilost of the States define and prohibit prize fighting by statute. See PrciLlsM. PRJEVALSKY, przha-val'skS, Nikolai. See Przhevai.ski. PROA. See Catamaean. PROBABILISM (from Lat. probabilis, prob- able, from prohnrc. to test, examine, from probiis. good. Skt. prabhu. preeminent, from prn. before + bhu, to be). In Roman Catholic theology, the
