ishable with death, is piracy under the eighth section of the act of congress, passed the thirtieth of April, A. D. 1790; and whether the circuit court of the United States hath authority to take cognizance of, try, and punish such offence? 21. Whether the crime of robbery, mentioned in the said eighth section of the act of congress aforesaid, is the crime of robbery, as recognized and defined at common law, or is dispunishable until it is define and expressly punished by some act of congress, other than the art of congress above mentioned? 3.1. Whether the crime of robbery, committed by persons who are not citizens of the United States, on the high seas, on boar.l of any ship or vessel, belonging ex clusively to the subjects of any foreign state or sovereignty, or upon the person of any subject of any foreign state or sovereignty, not on board of any ship or vessel belonging to any citizen or citizens of the United Stated, be a robbery or piracy, within the true intent and meaning of the said eighth section of the act of congress afores i, and of which the ci: cuit court of the United States hath cognizance, to hear, try, determine, and punish the same? 4th. Whether the crime of robbery committed on the high seas, by citizens of the united States, on board of any ship or vessel not belonging to the United States, or to any citizens of the United States, in whole or in part, but owned by, and exclusively belonging to, the subjects of a foreign state or sovereignty, or committed on the high seas, on person of any subj ct of any foreign state or sovereignty, who is not, at the time, on board of any the 1818. The U. States V. Palmer. 614 1818. The ship or vessel, belonging in whole or part to the United States, or to any citizen thereof, be a robbery or piracy within the said eighth section of the acts of congress aforesaid, and of which the circuit court of the Palmer. United States hath cognizance to hear, try, and deter mine, and punish the same? U. States v. 5th. Whether any revolted colony, district, or people, which have thrown off their allegiance to their mother country, but have never been acknowledged by the United States, as a sovereign or independent nation or power, have authority to issue commissions to make captures on the high seas of the persons, property and vessels of the subjects of the inother country, who retain their allegiance; and whether the captures made under such commissions are, as to the United States, to be deemed lawful; and whether the forcible seizure, with violence, and by putting in fear of the persons on board of the vessels, the property of the subjects of such mother country, who retain their allegiance, on the high seas, in virtue of such commissions, is not to be deemed a roobery or piracy within the said eighth section of the act of congress aforesaid? 6th. Whether an act, which would be deemed a robbery on the high seas, if done without a lawful commission, is protected from being considered as a robbery on the high seas, when the same act is done under a commission, or the colour of a commission from any foreign colony, district, or people, which have revolted from their native allegiance, and have declared themselves independent and sovereign, and have assumed to exercise the powers and authorities of an independent and sovereign government, but have never been acknowledge, or recognized, as an independent or sovereign government, or nation, by the United States, or by any other foreign state, prince, or sovereignty? 7th. Whether the existence of a commission to make captures, where it is set up as a defence to an indictment for piracy, must be proved by the production of the original commission, or of a certified copy thereof from the proper department of the foreign state or sovereignty by whom it is granted; or if not, whether the impossibility of producing either the original or such certified copy must not be proved before any inferior and secondary evidence of the existence of such commission is to be allowed, on the trial of such indictment before any court of the United States? 8th. Whether the seal, purporting to be the seal of a foreign state or sovereignty, and annexed to any such commission or a certified copy thereof, is to be admitted in a conrt of the United States as proving itself, with out any other proof of its genuineness, so as to establish the legal existence of such commission from such foreign state or sovereignty? 9th. Whether a seal, annexed to any such com mission, purporting to be the public seal used by the persons exercising the powers of government in any foreign colony, district, or people, which have revolted from their native allegiance, and have declared themselves in lependent and sovereign, and actually exercise the powers of an independent government A 1818. The V. Falmer. 1818. The or nation, but have never been acknowledged as such independent government or nation by the United U. States States, is admissible in a court of the United States as proof of the legal existence of such commission, with or without farther proof of the genuineness of such seal? Palmer. 10th. Whether any colony, district, or people, who have revolted from their native allegiance, and have assumed upon themselves the exercise of independent and sovereign power, can be deemel, in any court of the United States, an independent or sovereign nation, or government, until they have been acknowledged as such by the government of the United States; and whether such acknowledgement can be proved in a court of the United States, otherwise than by some act, or statute, or resolution, of the congress of the United States, or by some public proclamation, or other public act of the executive authority of the United States, directly containing or announcing such acknowledgement, or by publicly receiving and acknowledging an ambassador, or other public ministerfrom such colony, district, or people; and whether such acknowledgement can be proved by mere inference from the private acts or private instructions of the exe. cutive of the United States, when no public acknowledgement has ever been made; and whether the courts of the United States are boun! judicially to take notice of the existing relations of the United States, as to foreign states and sovereignties, their colonies, and dependencies? 11th. Whether in case of a civil war between a mother country and its colony, the subjects of the dif ferent parties arc to be deemed, in respect to neutral 1818. The nations as enemies to each other, entitled to the rights of war; and that captures made of each other's ships and other property on the high seas are to be U. States considered, in respect to neutral nations as rightful, so that courts of law of neutral nations are not authorized to deem such acts as piracy? And the said judges, being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the repuest of the district attorney for the United States, stated, under the direction of the judges and ordered by the court to be certified under the seal of the court to the supreme court, at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by said supreme court; and the court being farther of opinion, that farther proceedings could not be had in said cause without prejudice to the merits of the same cause, did order, that the injury impannelled as aforesaid to try said cause, be discharged from giving any verdict therein. Palmer. Mr. Blake for the United States, argued 1. That March 13th. a robbery committed on the high seas, is piracy, under the 8th section of the act of 1790, ch. 36. "for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," although no law of the United States be sub sisting for the punishment of the same offence if committed on land; and that such piracy is cognizable in the circuit court. The words of the statute are, That if any person or persons shall commit, upon the high seas," &c. "murder or robbery, or any other offence, which if committed within the body of a county, would by the law of the United States, be punishaVOL. III. 79 |