1784.
relying on cautions againft malverfations and contraventions to be given by commanders of private veffels or war, rules and regulations for deciding the legality of prizes, and trials in Courts of Admiralty generally. Sixthly—An authority to ‘‘ eftablifh rules for deciding in all cafes, what captures on land or water fhall be legal, and Courts for receiving and determining finally, appeals in all cafes captures,’’ as prize, brought infra prœʃidia of The United States, altogether with the other powers vefted in Congrefs, will fufficiently obviate the mifchiefs apprehended from thee irregularities of citizens of Confederated America upon the high feas.
"Foreigners" are protected by the confederation, from the irregularities mentioned ; for, Congrefs, can, ‘‘ exclufively, appoint Courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high feas,’’ and can fend out a naval force to cruize for and feize the offenders. If the Refpondent was a Frenchman, and the decree goes againft him, he could not juftly complain ; for he inftituted his fuit in an American Court. If the appellants were Frenchmen, and the decree goes againft them, they could not juftly complain, for they took, without battle, by force and violence, from a friend and ally, that which in their fight, according to their own allegations and proofs, he had before fought for and captured, and afterwards voluntarily put themfelves within the jurifdiction, precinct and power of an American Court. What are the fentiments of learned authors, treating of the law of nations, upon fuch an occafion ? ‘‘ Quæ ab hoftibus capiuntur, "ʃtatim" capientium fiunt ; which is to be underftood, when the battle is over. Vœl, and many writers he refers to, maintain with great ftrength, per folam occupationem dominium prædæ hoftibus acquiri. One argument ufed to prove it is, that the inʃtant the captor has got a poʃʃeʃʃion, no friend, fellowfolider, or ally, can take it from him, becaufe it would be a violation of his property. ’’ Lord Mansƒield, delivering the refolutions of the Court, in the cafe of Goƒs and another, againft Withers. In either cafe, and in the frongeft light in which the affair can be viewed, it is no more than a matter to be treated of between their Sovereign and The United States. 2 Shower, 232. Raym. 473. If it be faid that Congrefs fhould have a legal mode of making compenfation, by rectifying improper decifions againft foreigners, thereby to prevent difagreeable confequences, it is a doctrine that cannot be univerfally admitted, for reafons too plain to be infifted on. If it be confined to acts on the high feas, proviʃion has been made by the Confederation, in the cafes where it was judged neceʃʃary. What the Rulers of nations deʃire and ftipulate for in treaties, as to tranfactions on the high feas, is to fecure their people from being plundered by the citizens or fubjects of thofe with whom they treat. That great point being guarded, and it is guarded here, the danger of confequences from cafes that rarely occur, complicated with a variety of circumftances, and decided upon in open Courts, are not to be apprehended. When Sovereigns are determined to quarrel, they will never want pretences; but while (illegible text)the
