may lawfully sit in the territory of an ally: but not in the territory of a neutral state, so long as the neutral government is de facto still existing. Allies, being co-belligerents, are so far identified that the court of the one can condemn a prize lying at the time in the territory of the other (o). A prize cannot be condemned whilst within neutral jurisdiction, though under control of the captors; for a prize can never be said to be absolutely reduced into the possession of the captors until they shall have brought it safely into one of their ports or into a port of their ally. This principle has not always been strictly maintained by the British Courts, but it may apparently be considered to have been finally decided by Sir W. Scott, in The Henrick and Maria (p). In this case the learned judge, on the ground of previous British irregularities, confirmed a foreign condemnation based on the authority of such exceptions, whilst at the same time vindicating the justice of the principle that there can be no legal condemnation so long as the prize is within neutral jurisdiction. Chancellor Kent (q), however, observes that the United States Court "has followed the English rule, and has held valid the condemnation, by a belligerent court, of prizes carried into a neutral port and remaining there. . . . . And though the prize was in fact within a neutral jurisdiction, it was still to be deemed under the control, or sub potestate, of the captor." And Story (p. 77) also observes that " a condemnation of a prize ship; while lying in a neutral port, by a regular Court of Admiralty in the hostile country, is clearly valid." Owing, however, to the increasing tendency of municipal regulations to restrict the admission of prizes into neutral ports, the question of belligerent rights as to prizes lying in such ports is reduced in importance. Thus, in 1861, (0) Vide Arnould's Marine Insce., 5th ed. 628. (p) 4 Rob. 43. Vide Arnould, 5th ed. p. 629, note. it was, both by the British and the French Governments, proclaimed that the ports of these states were to be closed to prizes of parties engaged in the American civil war. The case of The Polka (q), arising out of the AngloRussian war, though an apparent exception to the principle laid down by the Courts, must rather be regarded as confirming it. The circumstances were very peculiar. Lying in the Russian port of Libau were sundry vessels, presumably Russian, completely dismantled and without papers. These vessels were seized by British captors, who, finding them in a condition which rendered them unfit to perform the voyage to England, carried them into Memel. In these circumstances the vessels were condemned, and, by consent of the Prussian Government, were ordered to be sold at Memel. But the Court wished it to be expressly understood that this case was decided in its own peculiar circumstances, and was not to be considered as a precedent for the condemnation of a prize whilst lying in a neutral port. The port of the captors to which the prize is to be brought is that which the captor shall find in the circumstances most convenient (r). But the captor is not justified in selecting any port he pleases, and the convenience of the claimant, in proceeding to adjudication, has been decided to be one of the first things to which the captor's attention should be directed (8). If a neutral subject acquire a vessel condemned by an irregular court of the captors, and peace ensue before recapture, the defect in the neutral title will be cured by the intervention of peace, which completely bars the title of the former owner (t). (q) 1 Ec. & Ad. Rep. (Spinks), 447. () Instructions to Navy; Story on Prize Courts, p. 254. (8) The Wilhelmsberg, 5 Rob. 143; The Lively and Cargo, 1 Gall. 318; The Washington, 6 Rob. 275. (t) The Schoone Sophie, 6 Rob. 140. The right to all captures has from the earliest times vested primarily in the sovereign, and no captor can have any interest in a prize except that which he receives from the bounty of the state. The common practice, however, is to distribute the proceeds of prizes, when condemned, amongst the captors, whether the capturing vessels be public warships or privateers (u). 66 Head-money" is a payment in the nature of prize bounty to the officers and crews of ships of war actually present at the taking or destroying of any armed ship of the enemy. By the Naval Prize Act, 1864, s. 42, it is to be calculated at the rate of 57. for each person on board the enemy's ship at the beginning of the engagement. On the outbreak of war a royal proclamation is issued, of which the effect is to charge the High Court of Admiralty with the duty of adjudicating in cases of prize. But until final condemnation by this Court, the Crown can, by virtue of its prerogative, restore a prize to the enemy from whom it has been captured, without regard to the rights or claims of the captors (x). And, by ancient law of the Admiralty, captors may by any misconduct on their part forfeit their rights of prize, a penalty frequently enforced for fraud, misconduct, or improper deviation from the regular course of proceedings (y). Hostile vessels seized within the British dominions are either droits of Admiralty or the property of the Crown, according to the circumstances in which they entered port. "It appears," said Sir W. Scott (~), in The Marie Françoise, (u) Vide The Emma, Blatch. Pr. Ca. 561, for effect of seizure by noncommissioned transport. (x) The Elsebe, 5 Rob. 181. (y) Vide Story on Prize Courts, p. 32. Also Naval Prize Act, 1864, s. 37 (in Appendix). (*) 6 Rob. 282. Vide also The Gertruyda, 2 Rob. 218. "from the tenor of this order (a), that the distinction between the admiral and rights of the Crown is founded on this :—that when vessels come in not under any motive arising out of the occasions of war, but from distress of weather, or want of provisions, or from ignorance of war, and are seized in port, they belong to the Lord High Admiral; but where the hand of violence has been exercised upon them, where the impression arises from acts connected with war, from revolt of their own crew, or from being forced or driven in by the King's ships, they belong to the Crown. This is the broad distinction which is laid down in the Order in Council, and which has since been invariably observed." In times of war the various national courts of prize, established for adjudicating on captured property, proceed according to the law of nations, and not according to municipal law. But experience shows that such courts of belligerents do not by any means necessarily take always the same strict view of the principles governing questions of condemnation or of restitution. In cases where, owing to the impracticability of carrying it into a port of the captors, or otherwise, the captured property has been lost, destroyed, or sold (b), the Court may, at the instance either of the captors or of the neutral or national claimants, still proceed to adjudication (c). Captors must proceed to adjudication without unnecessary delay, the failure to do so being attended by the liability to pay costs and damages. Moreover, in case of undue delay, any person claiming an interest in the captured property may obtain a monition against captors to proceed in the adjudica (a) I. e., an Order in Council of Charles II., for which vide Maritime Warfare, p. 380. (b) Vide p. 55, supra. (c) The Peacock, 4 Rob. 185; The Falcon, 6 Rob. 194; The Pomona, 1 Dods. 25. See also The L'Eole, 6 Rob. 220; and The La Dame Cecile, ibid. tion. On their continued failure to do so, or inability to show cause why the property should be condemned, it may be restored to the claimants proving an interest in it. But if the capture be justified, instead of restoration being decreed the prize may be condemned to the State,-a result which may also occur if the captor be found guilty of misconduct (d). The Statute of Limitations does not apply to prize causes; so that captors may at any time during the existence of the prize commission be required to proceed to adjudication, for the purpose of obtaining an award of damages against them (e). But claimants will not be allowed to demand adjudication after a great lapse of time (ƒ). The obligation to bring vessels in for adjudication exists as between belligerent captors and neutral claimants, but is not to be extended to cover the case where the seizure has been of enemy property. Enemies have no locus standi in a prize court under the law of nations, unless in virtue of a flag of truce or analogous conditions; and under this law property which is plainly that of an enemy can be destroyed immediately on seizure. This principle was freely acted upon by the Confederate cruiser Alabama in the American civil war. If, however, neutral property be for any reason thus destroyed, restitution must be made (g). If the persons interested in captured property be of opinion that no grounds exist to justify condemnation, it is 257; also The Betsey, 1 Rob. 93; The Der Mohr, 3 Rob. 129; The George, ibid. 212; The William, 4 Rob. 215; The Purissima Concepcion, 6 Rob. 45; The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327. (d) The Bothnea, 2 Gall. 78; The Triton, 4 Rob. 78; Miller v. The Resolution, 2 Dall. 1. (e) The Mentor, 1 Rob. 179; The Huldah, 3 Rob. 235. The Mentor, supra. (ƒ) The Susanna, 6 Rob. 48; 9) The Felicity, 2 Dod. 386. p. 357, infra. But cf. The Ludwig and The Vorwärts, |