ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

1822.

The

expression, such as, "South American provinces." The doctrine laid down by this Court in Palmer's case," (in which a distinction was taken between an Gran Para. unqualified recognition of the independence of a people, and a partial recognition resulting from the admission of the existence of a civil war between a colony and the parent state,) is in no degree at variance with the principle established in the previous cases of Rose v. Himely, and Gelston v. Hoyt, "that Courts do not possess the power of first recognizing the national character of a people." Whether the recognition be unqualified or partial, the government must speak distinctly; otherwise, the Courts will regard the ancient state of things; and all acts done on the high seas, under the authority of such separated people, will be looked on as wholly unauthorized and null.

3. The claimant, Daniels, is a citizen of the United States, and appears before this Court as a claimant for property procured through means forbidden by the laws of the country, and the duties and obligations of a good citizen. He is an unworthy claimant, and as such will not be permitted to claim the result of his own wrongs, and illegal acts. "A claim," says Sir William Scott, "founded on piracy, or any other act, which in the general estimation of mankind is held to be illegal or immoral, might, I presume, be rejected in any Court on that ground alone;" and Mr. Justice JOHNSON, in the case of

a 3 Wheat. Rep. 610. The Diana, 1 Dodson, 95. 100.

1822.

The Gran Para.

the Bello Corrunes, expresses himself emphatically to the same effect."

4. With respect to there being no proof as to the seizure of the Gran Para, from which the money libelled is alleged to have been taken, it is presumed that this is altogether immaterial. The libel states the fact of the seizure of the Gran Para, and other Portuguese vessels; the answer expressly admits the taking of the money in controversy, and other money, from Portuguese vessels, and the inquiry is, whether it be the Portuguese property, and if so, whether it were rightfully taken.

Mr. Winder, in reply, insisted that the Court would confine its interference to such cases of illegal capture, as would make the United States responsible to the injured foreign country, by the law of na tions, or to such acts as are in violation of our statutes of neutrality; restraining their operation to such provisions as are required and justified by the public law. He compared this case to the analogous one of carrying contraband. The neutral nation was not responsible. The building of ships for sale was a lawful branch of commerce, and even if they were armed and equipped for war, they could only be considered as contraband; and though they might be subject to the penalty of confiscation, if taken in their transit to a belligerent, yet, if once incorporated into the mass of his military marine, they could be considered by neutrals in no other light than the rest of his naval force. But even supposing the ori

a 6 Wheat. Rep. 172.

ginal outfit in the ports of the United States to have

[ocr errors]

Even

1822.

The

been illegal, the vessel was not commissioned as a privateer, nor did she attempt to act as one, until her Gran Para. arrival in the river La Plata, when a lawful commission was obtained, and the crew re-enlisted. if she had made captures on her outward voyage, the delictum would be purged by the termination of that voyage, according to the analogies of the maritime law in other cases. This Court has never yet determined that the original offence is indelible, and that it adheres to the vessel, whatever changes may have taken place, and that it cannot be deposited at the termination of the cruize, in preparing for which, the offence was committed; and as the Irresistible made no captures on her passage from Baltimore to the River La Plata, and even if she had, the offence was deposited at the latter port, the Court cannot connect her subsequent cruize with the transactions at Baltimore, or those which might have happened on her outward voyage. The learned counsel also argued, that the Banda Oriental was a Sovereign state de facto, which had been acknowledged by the executive government of this country, as one of the parties to the war between Spain and her Colonies, and which was engaged in an incidental contest with Portugal, which gave it the rights of war in respect to that power. He also insisted on such of the points in his argument on a former day, in the case of the Santissima Trinidad, as were applicable to the present. But as they will be found re

1822.

The Gran Para.

March 13th.

ported at large in that case," it is not deemed necessary to repeat them in this place.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the facts, proceeded as follows:

The principle is now firmly settled, that prizes, made by vessels which have violated the acts of Congress, that have been enacted for the preservation of the neutrality of the United States, if brought within their territory, shall be restored. The only question therefore is, does this case come . within the principle.

That the Irresistible was purchased, and that she sailed out of the port of Baltimore, armed and manned as a vessel of war, for the purpose of being employed as a cruizer against a nation with whom the United States were at peace, is too clear for controversy. That the arms and ammunition were cleared out as cargo cannot vary the case. Nor is it thought to be material that the men were enlisted in form as for a common mercantile voyage. There is nothing resembling a commercial adventure in any part of the transaction. The vessel was constructed for war, and not for commerce. There was no cargo on board but what was adapted to the purposes of war. The crew was too numerous for a merchantman, and was sufficient for a privateer. These circumstances demonstrate the intent with which the Irresistible sailed out of the port of Baltimore.

a Ante, pp. 290–296.

But she was not commissioned as a privateer, nor

1822.

The

did she attempt to act as one, until she reached the river La Plata, when a commission was obtained, Gran Para. and the crew re-enlisted. This Court has never decided, that the offence adheres to the vessel whatever changes may have taken place, and cannot be deposited at the termination of the cruize in preparing for which it was committed; and as the Irresistible made no prize on her passage from Baltimore to the River La Plata, it is contended that her offence was deposited there, and that the Court cannot connect her subsequent cruize with the transactions of Baltimore.

If this were to be admitted in such a case as this, the laws for the preservation of our neutrality would be completely eluded, so far as this enforcement depends on the restitution of prizes made in violation of them. Vessels completely fitted in our ports for military operations, need only sail to a belligerent port, and there, after obtaining a commission, go through the ceremony of discharging and re-enlisting their crew, to become perfectly legitimate cruizers, purified from every taint contracted at the place where all their real force and capacity for annoyance was acquired. This would, indeed, be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own government, and of which no nation would be the dupe. It is impossible for a moment to disguise the facts, that the arms and ammunition taken on board the Irresistible at Baltimore, were taken for the purpose of being used on a cruize, and that the men there enlisted, though engaged, in form, as for a

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »