
    THE BRIG WILLIAM. DAVID G. HASKINS, Jr., Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES F. ADAMS, Administrator, v. THE SAME. HENRY W. BLAGGE, ET AL., v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations
    1482, 1857, 2261.
    Decided March 26, 1888.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    A cargo owned hy a subject of Great Britain is insured by citizens of the United States.
    I. After the Act 7th July, 1798 (1 Stat. L., 578), abrogating the treaties, our commerce could claim from France no exemption which was not secured to it by the law of nations. That law made enemies* goods in a neutral ship liable to condemnation.
    
      II. A subject of Great Britain, and so an enemy of Prance, could claim no indemnity from France through the United States, and the United States could not release a claim which they had no right to demand.
    III. If a subject of Great Britain had no right to claim indemnity from Prance he could not assign a claim to an insurer, though a citizen of the United States.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The brig William, a duly registered vessel of the United States, built at Pownalborough, Mass., in 1785, of 152tons burden, whereof James Gilmore was master and David Greene owner, both of Boston, Mass., and citizens of tbe United States, sailed from Boston August 2,1798, bound for Jamaica, with a cargo of merchandise owned by and consigned to Robert Thompson, a citizen of Jamaica, then a colony of GreatBritain.
    II. While pursuing said voyage the brig was captured by the. French privateer La Favorite, Captain Martin (Fier-des-bras), on the high seas, September 6, 1798, and carried into the French port Jeremie, October 26,1798. Said brig and cargo were condemned as lawful prize by the French Tribunal of Commerce' sitting at Cayes, St. Domingo.
    III. The grounds of condemnation are stated in the decree as ■follows:
    “The brig William, Oapt. James Gilmore, is a good prize with her cargo and everything loaded upon her; (1) as having been proved that she is loaded with goods belonging to enemies of the Republic; (2) as no role d’équipage was found among the papers annexed to the proceedings, or in any event as the one exhibited by Oapt. James Gilmore was. not issued by the public officers of the neutral port from which she sailed, and . was not, moreover, conforming to the form annexed to the treaty of 1798, since it did not state the places of birth of the men of the crew.”
    IV. ‘The brig was sold under the decree of condemnation and bought in by the master for the owner, David Greene, at a cost, including expenses and repairs occasioned by the capture, of $2,000. The loss of said Greene was as follows :
    Value of the brig as repurchased. $2,000
    Freight earned. 2,533
    Total loss. 4,533
    
      V. July 30,179S, said Greene procured an insurance upon tbe cargo in favor of Robert Thompson, of Jamaica, in the sum of $4,000. The insurers also agreeing to bear a proportional share oflíxpenses that might be incurred in consequence of capture. This policy was underwritten by William Smith, Crowell Hatch, S. W. Pomeroy, and Caleb Hopkins, each $1,000. Subsequently the insurance was paid as for a total loss and $101.60 expenses, making the whole sum paid on insurance $4,101.60. William Smith, on the 16th day of December, 1801, for the consideration of $4,000, paid by the said Peter C. Brooks to the said Smith, assigned all his right, title, and interest in all his underwriting done in the office of the said Brooks, which said assignment is on file in case 176; Isaac Rands, the administrator of the said Caleb Hopkins, on the 8th of December, 1801, for the consideration of $3,000, paid by the said Peter C. Brooks to the said Rands, assigned all the said Hopkins’s right, title, and interest in all underwriting doue in the office of the said Brooks by the said Hopkins, which said assignment is on file in case No. 176 ; the said Samuel W. Pomeroy, on the 7th day of February, 18Ó4, for the consideration of $4,900, to him paid by the said Peter C. Brooks, assigned all his right, title, and interest in all his underwriting done in the office of the said Brooks up to May 1, 1801, which said assignment is on file in ease No. 189. There is therefore due the claimant, if the claim can be allowed, in case No. 1857, as assignee of said .Smith, Hopkins & Pome-roy, the sum of $3,076.20.
    YI. Crowell Hatch, of whom Henry W. Blagge and Susan B. Samuels are duly appointed administrators, paid on the loss .aforesaid $1,025.40. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United ■States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831.
    The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claim, which have never been assigned except as -aforesaid.
    
      
      Mr. William E. 'Earle for the claimants, Haskins and Adams r
    That this was an American vessel, owned by an American citizen, cannot be disputed; her voyage was lawful; but because bound to an English port, and her róle d’équipage noCin for.m as prescribed by the French decrees, she was condemned. Even admitting that this cargo belonged to an Englishman in Jamaica, the vessel was not subject to condemnation, and as free ships make free goods, the cargo likewise was exempt. •
    
      Mr. George 8. Boutwell for Henry W. Blagge and Susan Ik Samuels, administrators.
    
      Mr. Benjamin Wilson, and Mr. Charles W. Bussell (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants:
    After we had guarantied forever the possessions of France in America, being some departments of the West Indies, parts of each being in possession of her enemy, could we for any pur- ■ pose treat them as no longer belonging to France ? Could we trade with them on the principle that they were become, by hostile occupation, English countries'? I presume other nations could, but could we 1 Gould we allege that our trade with them was with English countries, and deny her right to regard it as trade with French departments, which trade she had a right to regulate or to prevent ?
    If we were helping to do for the enemy what we had promised to do for France — secure' the possession of those departments — could she take effectual measures to put a stop to our doing so? Had she aright, arising out of our guaranty of possession, to confiscate our 'property actually engaged in the guarantying to her the loss of her possession? Was such conduct on our part unlawful, and, if so, was it lawful to affix a penalty and attempt to put an end to it? The French Government, as represented in America, believed that it was, and acted accordingly.
    A conflict of authority was going on between Toussaint and the representative of the French Bepublic. The town council certify that signatures of the secretary of the court and the notaries are entitled to credit. Not even Toussaint certifies to to the town council.
    We submit that the responsibility of the Government of France is tbe one thing least of all demonstrated by the evidence in this case, as it is the most important thing of all to be proven; and that “full faith and credit” are not due to papers authenticated by we know not whom, and that there is not a particle of good evidence that the vessel was lost to the owner,
    We have no doubt that, if there was any such capture and condemnation, one was piratical and the other by a court without jurisdiction ; but the court not merely lacked jurisdiction, it also lacked authority, which is as much as to say the Government of France was not represented by it nor responsible for it.
    If g, court constituted by governmental authority lacks jurisdiction under the law of nations, a condemnation by it is illegal, as where a court of a neutral country assumes to try\a prize case.
    A court’s lack of jurisdiction under municipal law is immaterial except as a municipal question, and no foreigner can raise the question of jurisdiction and illegality except on appeal in the municipal courts; it is a purely municipal illegality. But in the present case there is no court at all. The region was in a state of anarchy, as much in consequence of oür policy •as of anything else, and a suitable place for pirates to sell their booty. Self-appointed judges may have sat there for good or evil purposes, and notaries may have appointed themselves for the sake of fees. But supposing a connection established between the French Government and these people in Arca-haye, and that the court so called, was established by the French Government; the vessel was condemned on the ground chiefly that there was no evidence “of the neutrality of any of the individuals composing the crew.” That, especially after the abrogation of the treaties of 1778, it was not an injustice in re minimé dubia to require such proof, we have shown in our brief of argument.
    As to the attempt to derive rights against France through one of her enemies, we do not think the proposition worth arguing.
   Scofield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

It will be observed by Findings I and Y in this case that the cargo was owned by Eobert Thompson, a subject of Great Britain, but was insured by citizens of tbe United States.

In the ease of the ship Catherine No. 513, the court held, under the twenty-third article of the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and France, concluded February 6,1778, that goods, not contraband of war, found on board an American ship, though belonging to an enemy of France, were not liable to seizure and condemnation; and therefore an American insurer of such goods was entitled to claim indemnity from France.

The cargo in this case.can not be held exempt from capture under that decision. The capture was made and the cargo shipped after the passage of the Act July 7, 1798 (1 Stat. L., 578), abrogating the treaty.

In Hooper’s Case (22 C. Ols. B., 408) the court held (Judge Davis giving the opinion) that the treaty was not obligatory upon the parties after that date. Thereafter our commerce could claim from France no exemption which was not secured to it by the law of nations. That law made enemies’ goods, although in a neutral ship, liable to condemnation.

Thompson, being a subject of Great Britain and so an enemy of France, could claim no indemnity from France, through the United States or otherwise, for the loss of his goods. The United States could not release a claim which they had no right to demand.

If Thompson had no right to claim indemnity from France, it is very certain he could not assign such claim to an insurer, though a citizen of the United States, so as to put his assignee in any better position than he held himself.

The court therefore decides, as conclusion of law, that the insurers of the goods of Bobert Thompson had no valid claim against France for the insurance paid on the loss of the goods, and therefore none against the United States.

The court further decides, as conclusion of law, that said seizure and condemnation of the ship were illegal, and the owner had a valid claim for indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Bepublic, concluded September 30,1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States:

David Greene Haskins, jr., administrator de bonis non of David Greene, deceased, in case No. 1482, $4,533.  