The poem "Frink v. Evans," printed on page 447, was read at a recent meeting of the Tennessee State Bar Association, and was one of the most interesting features of the occasion. A good example of Kansas justice in the early days of that bleeding State is shown in the ', following: In 1862 at a picnic near LeRoy two negroes were killed in a fight. All of the parties concerned were taken be fore Ahijah Jones, justice of the peace at LeRoy, for trial. Ahijah listened to all the testimony patiently, and then announced: "A Philadelphia lawyer couldn't make head or tail of this row. It's too much for me and I ain't a-goin' to try to untangle it. The judgment of the court is that all of 'you be turned over to the citizens here assem bled, for them to apply the law as made and provided. CORRESPONDENCE.
To the Editor of THE GREEN BAG : Sir:—The right of capture at sea in time of war is one of the questions of Inter national Law made of immediate interest by the reported captures by the Russian squad ron in a sortie from Vladivostoc. The object of captures at sea having been originally to make reprisals, and the right to make reprisals ceasing upon sufficient security having been taken to make good the damage concerning which letters of re prisal had been obtained from the sovereign power, it was a usual condition of letters of marque that the captures should be brought into port and submitted to the adjudication of a competent court in order that the validity of each capture should be deter mined and permission be granted or refused to the captor to convert the property to his own use. As a consequence, very different rules have been established in regard to maritime captures from those which are applicable to captures on land. The nature of hostilities which are carried on within an enemy's territory requires that an invading
485
army should not encumber itself with booty, and accordingly, the commander of an army carries with him authority to make immedi ate inquiry and to determine summarily all questions of title to booty. In very early times the admiral of a fleet of armed cruis ers determined in like manner the question of prize or no prize summarily. The cap turing vessel conducted its capture to the admiral's ship, upon the deck of which in quiry was made by inspecting the papers of the captured vessel and interrogating her master and crew, and thereupon the vessel and her cargo were adjudged to be good prizes or were forthwith allowed to pursue their voyage. Under the present practice of warfare upon the high seas, it is the duty of the captors to send their captures to a convenient port of their own country or of an allied country, and to submit them im mediately for inquiry and adjudication be fore a lawfully constituted prize court. If the captors should fail to do this, it is com petent for the party who claims the ship and cargo to apply to a prize court of the cap tor's country for a monition against the cap tors to proceed at once to adjudication, in which case, if the captors should neglect to appear, and consent to adjudication, the court may order restitution with costs, and in some cases with damages. It is imma terial in such a case whether the captor.« have acted in good faith or not in making the capture. "If the captor," says Lord Stowell (1745-1836), as high an authority as can be quoted, has been guilty of no wilful misconduct, but has acted from error or mistake only, the suffering party is still entitled to compensation, provided that he has not by any conduct of his oyvn contri buted to the loss." The personal obligation of a captor to bring his captures into port for investiga tion and adjudication is founded upon the instructions which he has received from the government which has authorized him to make captures. The obligation of every government, on the other hand, to require its cruisers to bring their captures into port for judicial inquiry before a properly con
