ident has directed that the war should be conducted, the steamship X, at the time and place, and in the circumstances under which she was seized, was not liable to be treated as enemy's property, but on the contrary, having sailed from a port of the United States prior to the 21st of April, 1898, and being bound to another port of the United States, which in the ordinary course of her voyage she would have reached and left, with her coals, long prior to May 21st, 1898, was exempt from capture as prize of war.

Sworn to before me this 18th day of May, 1898. [SEAL] G. H., Dy. Clerk.

ENDORSED:

Test affidavit for X.-Filed May 16th, 1898. E. F., Clerk.

O. P.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States v. Spanish Steamer X and Cargo

PRIZE. DECREE

This cause having come on to be heard upon the allegations of the libel, the claims of the master, and testimony taken in preparatorio, and the same having been fully heard and considered, and it appearing to the Court that the said steamer X was enemy's property, and was upon the high seas and not in any port or place of the United States upon the outbreak of the war, and was liable to condemnation and seizure, it is ordered that the same be condemned and forfeited to the United States as lawful prize of war; but it appearing that the cargo of said steamer was the property of neutrals, and not contraband or subject to condemnation and forfeiture, it is ordered that said cargo be released and restored to the claimants for the benefit of the true and lawful owners thereof.

It is further ordered that the Marshal proceed to advertise and sell said vessel, and make deposit of the proceeds in accordance with law. A. B., Judge.

ENDORSED:

Key West, Florida, May 27th, 1898.

Decree.-Filed May 27th, 1898. E. F., Clerk.

FORM OF DECREE OF DISTRIBUTION

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

The United States

V.

PRIZE

Captured,

1898

A Final Decree of Condemnation of Vessel and Cargo having been pronounced in this Case, and no Appeal being taken, and it Appearing to the Court that the Gross Proceeds of the Sales are as follows,-to-wit,

Vessel,
Cargo,

Total,

And the Costs, Expenses and Charges as taxed and allowed are as follows,— Marshal's Fees and Charges including all expenses of Sales, Advertising, and Auctioneer's Commissions,

And it appearing to the Court upon the Report of the Prize Commissioner, that the U. S. S.

Commanding, was the sole Capturing Vessel, and entitled to share in the Prize, and was of Superior Force to the Captured Vessel, and it appearing that the Marshal has paid and satisfied the Bills of Costs and Charges as herein taxed, and allowed, it is ORDERED that the same be paid to him out of the money on Deposit with the Assistant Treasurer of the United States subject to the Court in this case, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the said Residue of the Gross Proceeds deposited with the Assistant Treasurer in this Case be paid into the Treasury of the United States, for Distribution, one half to the officers and crew of said and one half to the United States.1

Judge of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of Florida.

1 See U. S. Statute cited in Sec. 141 (c), p. 344.

APPENDIX XV

DIGEST OF IMPORTANT CASES ARRANGED

UNDER TITLES

16. PRECEDENT AND DECISIONS

Bolton v. Gladstone, 5 East, 155

In an action on a policy of insurance in 1804 on a Danish ship and cargo warranted neutral and captured by a French ship of war (Denmark being at peace with France), it appeared that the court in which the Danish ship was libeled declared her good and lawful prize. Held by Ellenborough C. J., "that all sentences of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction to decide questions of prize" were to be received "as conclusive evidence in actions upon policies of assurance, upon every subject immediately and properly within the jurisdiction of such foreign courts, and upon which they have professed to decide judicially."

United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407

The defendant was extradited from England on the charge of murder committed on an American vessel on the high seas. He was indicted in the United States Circuit Court, not for murder, but for a minor offense not included in the treaty of extradition. It was held that he could not be tried for any other offense than murder until he had had an opportunity to return to the country from which he was taken for the purpose alone of trial for the offense specified in the demand for his surrender.

22. RECOGNITION OF NEW STATES

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat. 523

This case is fully stated in the text, p. 47.

Williams v. The Suffolk Insurance Company, 13 Pet. 415

This case held that when the executive branch of the government, which is charged with the foreign relations of the United States shall,

in its correspondence with a foreign nation, assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department.

State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, 501

This case held that "a bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a state."

Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202

This case held that the determination of the President, under U. S. Rev. Sts., § 5570, that a guano island shall be considered as appertaining to the United States, may be declared through the Department of State, whose acts in this regard are in legal contemplation the acts of the President.

56. VESSELS

Wildenhus's Case, 120 U. S. 1

This case held that the Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether one of the crew of a foreign vessel in a port of the United States, who is in the custody of the state authorities, charged with the commission of a crime, within the port, against the laws of the state, is exempt from local jurisdiction under the provisions of a treaty between the United States and the foreign nation to which the vessel belongs. The Convention of March 9, 1880, between Belgium and the United States was considered.

67. EXTRADITION

In the Matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, 188

This case held that the Treaty with France of 1843 provides for the mutual surrender of fugitives from justice and that where a district judge decided that there was sufficient cause for the surrender of a person claimed by the French Government, and committed him to custody to await the order of the President of the United States, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue a habeas corpus for the purpose of reviewing that decision.

103. NONCOMBATANTS

Alcinous v. Nigreu, 4 Ellis and Blackburn, 217

This was an action for work and labor brought by a Russian against an Englishman during the Crimean war. Lord Campbell said: "The contract having been entered into before the commencement of hostilities is valid; and, when peace is restored, the plaintiff may enforce it in our Courts. But, by the law of England, so long as hostilities prevail he cannot sue here."

106. PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ENEMY SUBJECTS

Brown v. United States, 8 Cr. 110

It was held that British property within the territory of the United States at the beginning of hostilities with Great Britain could not be condemned without a legislative act, and that the act of Congress declaring war was not such an act. The property in question was the cargo of an American ship and was seized as enemy's property in 1813, nearly a year after it had been discharged from the ship.

112. PRIVATEERS

United States v. Baker, 5 Blatchford, 6

This was an indictment in 1861 against Baker, the master of a private armed schooner, and a part of the officers and crew for piracy. They claimed to have acted under a commission from Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. Nelson J. charged the jury at length; but they failed to agree on a verdict.

114. CAPTURE AND RANSOM

The Grotius, 9 Cr. 368

The question in this case, which was heard in 1815, was whether the capture was valid. The master, the mate, and two of the seamen swore that they did not consider the ship to have been seized as prize, and that the young man who was put on board by the captain of the privateer was received and considered as a passenger during the residue of the voyage. It was held that the validity of the capture of the vessel as a prize of war was sufficiently established by the evidence.