Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1059

land and at sea, from the subjects of foreign States, the Court of Admiralty has an exclusive jurisdiction, because all questions relative to it must be decided according to the laws of nations, and in a course conformable to the practice of foreign courts, it did not follow that the Court of Admiralty had, or ought to have any jurisdiction over the effects seised and taken from his Majesty's subjects, by other subjects of his Majesty, in a port, or on an island which was neutral till the moment of the capture; nor that questions touching such effects of his Majesty's subjects are, or ought to be decided according to any other than the municipal law; but it was apprehended to be the incontrovertible [429] right of the subject, in all such cases, to have and maintain his action according to the law and custom of England; and, upon the production to a jury of such evidence of property as the law of England requires, to receive a full and complete compensation, according to the nature and extent of the injury. And although there may have been, for a series of years past, many instances in the Admiralty of condemnations of spoil taken at land, yet they will be found to have passed sub silentio, and never to have involved in them any question between the subjects of Great Britain amongst themselves, as to the legality or right of such captures; and it was submitted, that such instances were by no means of sufficient weight to establish a rule, so repugnant to the principles of the constitution, and so dangerous to the liberties and properties of the subject, as that any subject or subjects of this country, intrusted with the command of a fleet or an army, may, in his Majesty's name, seise the properties of his subjects, in his islands or territories beyond the seas, or belonging to neutral states, as prize; and can thereby exclude the jurisdiction of the Judges and juries of the land, and leave the injured subjects no other redress, than an application or appeal to a special Commissioner or Commissioners of prize, who hold his or their commissions merely during the pleasure of the Crown. And, lastly, that the defendants took the goods in question as prize belonging to the enemies of our Lord the King; but it was expressly found by the verdict, that they were the property of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiff's are natural born subjects. It therefore stood upon the record, that the defendants took the goods of the plaintiffs, being natural-born subjects, and sold the same of their own wrong, and without any legal cause or justification whatever; and therefore every thing requisite to entitle the plaintiffs to judgment was made out.

On the other side it was said (W. Wynn, J. Wallace), that the only question made in the cause was, Whether the goods being taken on land, though in consequence of a surrender to ships at sea, gave the Common Law Courts of this country a jurisdiction of the cause? It is established upon the authority of a regular series of decisions, that the question of "Prize or no prize" cannot be tried at common law, but must be tried before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty; and that the jurisdiction depends not upon the locality, or upon the parties, but upon the nature of the question; which is such as is not to be tried by any rules of the common law, but by a more general law, the law of nations, administered by forms best adapted to the subject of its jurisdiction, and the interests of all the parties. That if the capture had been rightfully made, the captor could not apply to the common law, to give him security in his possession to enable him to dispose of it; the common law knows no process to make people say, whether they have or have not a right; he must hold it himself at his peril, without the power of using it, answerable for decay or damage, and liable to separate law-suits from every individual who can set up any claim. That if it had been wrongfully made, the common law could restore nothing upon the affidavit of the party; each [430] individual must bear the whole burthen of his law-suit, though the same question may have been tried and determined in favour of every other individual; and neither party can have the benefit at common law, of that sort of evidence which the subject-matter of litigation in many cases absolutely requires, and which the Court of Admiralty is properly constituted to receive. That all the cases upon the subject exclude the jurisdiction of the common law, and many of them directly declare that jurisdiction to be in the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty; and in the latter judgments it has been held, that even if there were no such previous authorities, and the decision now was not to be directed by the uniform decisions of former cases, but was to be made for the first time, there can be no case in which that maxim, "Quod inconveniens est non est licitum," so often repeated