1784.
grefs, before the faid Judge, by witneffes, according to the courfe of the civil law ;’’ and —“ That the Captain or Commander of any fhip or veffel of war, or Prize-Mafter, or other perfon, having charge of any capture or re-capture, or other properly feized upon the water as aforefaid, who fhall conduct or bring the ʃame into port, fhall immediately deliver the fame, without (illegible text), to the Marfhall of the faid Court of Admiralty. ’’
The law then goes on to direct the mode of proceeding to the condemnation, ordering, ‘‘ That the Judge fhall caufe notice to be publifhed immediately in fome news-paper of the day appointed for the trial of ʃuch prize, inferting therein the name, fize or burthen, and other defcription of the faid veffel, ʃo taken and brought into part, the name and fur-name of the mafter, the place the laft failed from, the port for which deftined, and in cafe of re-capture, by what fhip or veffel taken, to the end that all perfons concerned may appear and fhew caufe, if any there be, wherefore ʃuch capture, or re-capture, goods, merchandize, or other property, fhould not be condemned and adjudged to the Libellants. ’’
Does the prefent cafe in any manner refemble the ‘‘ caʃes oƒ prize ’’ deʃcribed in this law ? Whare are ‘‘ Claimants intereʃted or pretending to be intereʃted ? ’’ Claimants are voluntary Applicants for Juftice. Shall trefpaffers, compelled to anfwer for their wrong, cover themfelves with that character ? Can there be ‘‘ Claimants, ’’ but in a proceeding in rem ? How would the publication before mentioned fuit ʃuch Claimants as the appellants ? Were the proceedings of the Judge in this cafe, ʃuch as he conʃtantly has obʃerved in cafes of prize ? They were not. Application was made to him for damages. He proceeded in that line. Here is neither libel nor procefs againft the capture.—no mention—, ‘‘ no notice’’ under the act of Affembly.
What could give the Judge of Admiralty for this ʃtate, jurifdiction to proceed as a Court of Prize upon a capture contefted between citizens oƒ different ʃtates, which is the cafe here, rather than any Court of Admiralty in any other ftate, when the property captured was not within the power of his Jurifdiction ? Becaufe, it is faid, some of the offending Captains and their veffels came into this port. Does the jurifdiction of a Court of Prize depend on certain offenders, with refpect to a capture coming into a port ? Where are the authorities of law to fhew that this circuʃtance can give fuch jurifdiction, or, that there can be an inftitution of a cauʃe oƒ prize, according to the maritime law oƒ nations, ƒor damages only? The authorities cited, that there were thought moft Refpondent, were thofe of Brown and Burton againft Franklin, the King's Proctor ; and of the King againft Broom. But they are not in any manner applicable. In the firft, the Plaintiffs, Mafters of two veffels, but having no regular Letters of Marque, took a French fhip, cargo and money, upon land, in the Eaʃt Indies—they being Engliʃh fubjects, it was held, that they acquired no right by this capture, but that it was a perqui-
ʃite
