ested in the point, and that the French Minister had
given no instructions for arguing it", the Court at once
proceeded to render a decision, disposing of both questions. It upheld the jurisdiction of the District Court
to pass upon the legality of prizes brought into our
ports; and it made the important announcement that
"the admiralty jurisdiction which has been exercised
in the United States by the consuls of France” was not
warranted and "is not of right."[1]
By this decision, belligerent foreign nations were formally notified that the legal ownership of prizes brought into our ports, the legality of their capture and the legal effect of breaches of our neutrality by the captors were all matters which might be tested in the Courts of the United States and over which those Courts had full jurisdiction. No decision of the Court ever did more to vindicate our international rights, to establish respect amongst other nations for the sovereignty of this country, and to keep the United States out of international complications. As was said by Timothy Pickering in a letter of January 16, 1797, to Pinckney, United States Minister to France, in replying to complaints made by the French Minister, Adet, regarding the case of the Betsy and of other captures made by illegally armed French privateers, "the most effectual means of defeating their unlawful practices was the seizure of their prizes when brought within our jurisdiction. . . . No examination of such prizes had been attempted by our Government or tribunals unless on clear evidence or reasonable presumption that the captures were made in circumstances which amounted to a violation of our sovereignty and territorial rights. . . No one will find sufficient ground to impeach the
- ↑ See The Defence, by "Camillus", New York Daily Advertiser, Sept. 23, 1795. The opinion of the Court was published very fully in most of the Philadelphia newspapers and in most of the other leading contemporary newspapers.
