Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The Paquete Habana case brief (175 U.S. 677)

The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677


Procedural History:
Claimant shipmasters each appealed from the decrees of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida condemning two fishing vessels and their cargoes as prizes of the Spanish-American War, where the evidence showed that each vessel, sailing under a Spanish flag, had been engaged in fishing off the coast of Cuba before being captured by blockading squadrons.

Overview:

Claimants were masters of a sloop and schooner, with crews of three and six. While they were out to sea, fishing along the coast of Cuba and near Yucatan, the United States imposed a blockade of Cuba and declared war against Spain. When the vessels returned with their catches of fresh fish, they were seized and a libel of condemnation of each vessel as a prize of war was filed. The district court entered a final decree of condemnation and public sale at auction. Claimants appealed. The Supreme Court first ruled that, pursuant to 26 Stat. 826 (1891), it had appellate jurisdiction over the controversy without regard to the amount in dispute and without certification from the district court, as required by prior statutory law. In reversing, the Court ruled that, under the law of nations, in each case the capture was unlawful and without probable cause. It was a rule of international law that coast fishing vessels, pursuing their vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish, were exempt, with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war. Although not reduced to treaty or statutory law, courts were obligated to take notice of and give effect to that rule.

Rule:

It was a rule of international law that coast fishing vessels, pursuing their vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish, were exempt, with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war.

Analysis:

By an ancient usage among civilized nations, beginning centuries ago, and gradually ripening into a rule of international law, coast fishing vessels, pursuing their vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish, have been recognized as exempt, with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war.
International law is part of American law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or juricial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
In the absence of higher and more authoritative sanctions, the ordinances of foreign states, the opinions of eminent statesmen, and the writings of distinguished jurists, are regarded as of great consideration on questions not settled by conventional law. In cases where the principal jurists agree, the presumption will be very great in favor of the solidity of their maxims; and no civilized nation, that does not arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance, will venture to disregard the uniform sense of the established writers on international law.
Enemy ships are good prize. Not all, however; for it results from the unanimous accord of the maritime powers that an exception should be made in favor of coast fishermen. Such fishermen are respected by the enemy, so long as they devote themselves exclusively to fishing.
By the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and independently of any express treaty or other public act, it is an established rule of international law, founded on considerations of humanity to a poor and industrious order of men, and of the mutual convenience of belligerent states, that coast fishing vessels, with their implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed, and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, are exempt from capture as prize of war. The exemption, of course, does not apply to coast fishermen or their vessels, if employed for a warlike purpose, or in such a way as to give aid or information to the enemy; nor when military or naval operations create a necessity to which all private interests must give way. Nor has the exemption been extended to ships or vessels employed on the high sea in taking whales or seals, or cod or other fish which are not brought fresh to market, but are salted or otherwise cured and made a regular article of commerce.
The rule of international law that coast fishing vessels are exempt from capture as prize of war is a rule which prize courts, administering the law of nations, are bound to take judicial notice of, and to give effect to, in the absence of any treaty or other public act of their own government in relation to the matter. The exemption of coast fishing vessels from capture is perfectly justiciable, or, in other words, of judicial jurisdiction or cognizance. Nor are judicial precedents wanting in support of the view that this exemption, or a somewhat analogous one, should be recognized and declared by a prize court. By the practice of all civilized nations, vessels employed only for the purposes of discovery or science are considered as exempt from the contingencies of war, and therefore not subject to capture. It has been usual for the government sending out such an expedition to give notice to other powers; but it is not essential.
The power of confiscating enemy property is in the legislature, and the declaration of war does not, of itself, vest the executive with authority to order such property to be confiscated. The universal practice of forbearing to seize and confiscate debts and credits, the principle universally received that the right to them revives on the restoration of peace, would seem to prove that war is not an absolute confiscation of this property, but simply confers the right of confiscation. The modern rule then would seem to be that tangible property belonging to an enemy, and found in the country at the commencement of war, ought not to be immediately confiscated; and in almost every commercial treaty an article is inserted stipulating for the right to withdraw such property.
3. The records of the Navy Department may be consulted by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the question of the recognition of the exemption of coast fishing boats from capture.  4. The works of jurists and commentators on the subject of international law are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.  5. Coast fishing vessels, with their implements, supplies, cargoes, and crews, when unarmed and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, and not employed for a warlike purpose or in such a way as to give aid or information to the enemy, are exempt from capture as prize of war by the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and independently of any express treaty or other public act.  6. Prize courts administering the law of nations are bound to take judicial notice of and give effect to a rule of international law exempting fishing vessels from capture as a prize, when there is no treaty or other public act of their own government in relation to the matter.  7. A vessel of 35 tons burden, with a crew of six men, engaged in coast fishing, and on which the fish caught by the crew from the sea, amounting to about 10,000 pounds, are kept alive on board, two thirds of which belong to the crew and the other third go to the owner of the vessel as compensation for her use, is to be regarded as engaged in coast fishery, and not in a commercial adventure, within the rule of international law exempting coast fishing vessels from capture as prize.

Outcome:

The decrees condemning the vessels were reversed and, in each case, it was ordered that the proceeds of the sales of each vessel and cargo be restored to the respective claimant, with compensatory damages and costs.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...