Sururm Constr or Pnnjjléunie. 16; ed, contra rotheverdiét of the ]ury,inthe State Courtof type. Admiralty? i WV ad. Wastheaélion oflfnpfoal, andothers, a inltthe judg of the Admiralty, iorthe moneylodged in his in con queuceof his own decregeoguiaable inthe—Oourt ofCommon Pleas in·Loa¢g0¢r . As to the iirlt qofg Iownlam noltycoprlrzinced, tha: the {b•crergn° power nation, joint an — common confent of the people andStatesof the Union, with the exelulive rights of war and peace, and with the confequent, andneceiiry powen,of judging inthelaft reiort of thelegli- tyofcspture•onthe—ocean, ,eitlncrirrreafonorfound w, ‘ heprecludedfromdecidingan appeal, lrothof faéh andlaw,a- rilin incalies of prize, merely becaufe they had recommended to the States topafs laws to ellalalilh Courtsof Admiralty, for the trialof prime caufes, in which the facts were, in the lirft inltanoe, to be tried by jury, according to the courfe of the com- ·mo¤ law. tit. Becaufe, tn the nature ofrhings, and according 1:othecourfeanl;lfpn&iceofalleivillawcourts,alldecilionsinthe Courts in the refort, uponuppaalqaretnade upon a viewand full conlideration of both tail: and law. ad. Becaul`e,`otherwil'e, appeals from the inferior Courts would, in moll: cafes, hevain and nugatory. gd. Beeaufe, orherwife, no {teady and uni- form rules of decilion could be eltablilhed, and foreign nations could never know, or conlide in, the grounds of - our decilions; and it does not appear to me material, that, » in the prefent initance, all the parties were American citizens. And laltl , becaufe, in the prefent cafe, Cmgrrfr has explicitly referveddme power of linal decilions upon appeal in all cqér. As to the fecond queltion, whether an aétion is fultainable in ‘ the Court of Commo¤Pleas in behalf of Uujlead, and others, i againlt the ]udge of the Admiralty, for the money he dill:ri· butcd according to his own decree, 1 acknowledge cannot dif- coverany principle, or authority in law, upon which fuch an aétion can be fupported. It is not now to be made a quellion, whether the Courts of Admiralty have not an cxclulive jurifdic- tion over all queilions of prize, or no prize; and alfo who are the - " captors of prizes, and how dillribution {hall be made; to ether with the power of enforcing their own decrees : The cafes o§Lind• -u. Rodney, Le Caux v. Edm, and Camdm •u. Home, fully fcttle the point. 'I`he jurifdiétion of the Admiralty feems, likewife, to be exchjw in many cafes, where the queltion of prize feems to be at rg/I; as where the Admiralty has decided that a {hip taken is mp»·ize,ex.g:·ariv,in the cafe of a neutral ve{l'el. In that cnf: it is not competent for a common law Court to fullain a fuit for the ille- gal capture, but a new libel is exhibited in the Admiralty, to compel the captors to account to the captured. 4 Term. R. 3 8 g.
�
