Page images
PDF
EPUB

the said plaintiff and petitioner, and by Honorable Edgar T. Brackett, of counsel for the Honorable Charles M. Hough, Circuit Judge of the United States, in opposition thereto, and due deliberation having been had and the Supreme Court of the United States having on or about June 3rd, 1918, made and handed down its opinion that the said rule be made absolute and that a writ of mandamus issue as prayed, but no writ of mandamus having yet been issued, now on reading and filing a certified copy of said opinion and on motion of Roger Foster, attorney for said plaintiff, it is hereby

ORDERED that the said order of the said District Court of the United States entered at the direction of the said Honorable Circuit Judge be and that the same hereby is set aside and vacated and that the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York proceed with said action and give to the plaintiff her right to a trial at common law upon both causes of action set forth in the complaint herein and that either party to this action may amend his or her pleading within twenty days after the service of a copy of this order upon the attorneys of him or her.

C. M. HOUGH,

U. S. C. J.

FORMS UPON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS

OF PROHIBITION

PROHIBITION FORM 1.-SUGGESTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS.

[Writ granted. 3 Dallas 121, 1 L. ed. 535, 539.]

That on the 21st day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, Before the Honorable John Rutledge, Esquire, Chief Justice, and his associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Philadelphia, comes Samuel B. Davis, by Benjamin R. Morgan, his attorney, and gives this honorable court, now here, to understand, and be informed, That whereas, by the laws of nations, and the treaties, subsisting between the United States, and the Republic of France, the trial of prizes taken on the high seas, without the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the United States, and brought within the dominions and jurisdiction of the said Republic, for legal adjudication, by vessels of war belonging to the sovereignty of the said Republic, acting under the authority of the same, and of all questions incidental thereto, does of right, and exclusively belong to the tribunals and judiciary establishments of the said Republic, and to no other tribunal or tribunals, court or courts whatsoever:-And whereas, by the said laws of nations and treaties aforesaid, the vessels of war belonging to the said French Republic, and the officers commanding the same, cannot, and ought not to be arrested, seized, attached, or detained, in the ports of the United States, by process of law, at the suit or instance of individuals, to answer for any capture or captures, seizure or seizures, made on the high seas, and brought for legal adjudication into the ports of the French Republic, by the said vessels of war, while belonging to, and acting under, the authority, and in the immediate service of the said Republic:-And whereas, by the laws and treaties aforesaid, the District Courts of the United States, have not and ought not to entertain jurisdiction, or hold plea of such captures, made as aforesaid, under the above circumstances. And whereas, by the laws of nations, the vessels of war of Belligerent powers, duly by them authorized to cruise against their enemies, and to make prize of their ships and goods, may in time of war arrest and seize the vessels belonging to the subjects or citizens of neutral nations, and bring them into the ports of the sovereign under whose commission and authority they act, there to answer for any breaches of the laws of nations, concerning the navigation of neutral vessels in time of war; and the said vessels of war, their commanders, officers, and

crews, are not amenable before the tribunals of neutral powers, for their conduct therein, but are only answerable to the sovereign in whose immediate service they were, and from whom they derived their authority: And whereas, on and before the twentieth day of May, now last past, the said Samuel B. Davis, was, and now is, a lieutenant of ships in the navy of the said French Republic, and commander of a certain corvette or vessel of war, called the Cassius, then, and now, the property of the said Republic, and in her immediate service, and on the said twentieth day of May, was duly commissioned by, and under the authority of the said, Republic, to cruise against her enemies, and make prize of their ships and goods (as by his commission, and the certificate of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the said Republic, to the United States, to the court now here, shewn, fully appears). Nevertheless, a certain James Yard, of the City of Philadelphia, merchant, not ignorant of the premises, but contriving and intending to disturb the peace and harmony subsisting between the United States and the French Republic, and him the said Samuel B. Davis, wrongfully to aggrieve and oppress and draw to another proof, him the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette or vessel of war of the French Republic, the Cassius, in the port of Philadelphia, under the protection of the laws of nations and of the faith of treaties, has, by process out of the District Court of the United States, in and for the District of Pennsylvania, attached and arrested him, the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette or vessel of war, the Cassius, and before the Judge of the said District Court, contrary to the said law of nations and treaties, and against the form of the laws of the United States, hath unjustly drawn in plea, to answer to a certain libel, by him, the said James Yard, against him the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette or vessel of war, the Cassius, her tackle, apparel and furniture, exhibited and promoted, craftily and subtilly there alledging, articulating and objecting, that on the said twentieth day of May, now last past, the said Samuel B. Davis, then commanding the said corvette or vessel, the Cassius, did forcibly, violently, and tortiously take on the high seas, a certain schooner or vessel, belonging to the said James Yard, called the William Lindsey, and brought her into Port de Paix (in the dominions of the French Republic), where she still remains, and also alledging and articulating, that the said corvette or vessel, called the Cassius, was originally equipped and fitted for war, in the port of Philadelphia, in the United States, and that the said Samuel B. Davis, was, at the time of the said capture, and now is, a citizen of the United States, without this, however, and the said James Yard, not in any manner alledging or articulating, that the said capture was made within the territory, rivers or bays of the United States, or within a marine league of the coast thereof, or that the said corvette or vessel, the Cassius, was so fitted or equipped for war, in the United States, by the said French Republic, her agent or agents, with their knowledge, or by their means or procurement, or by the said Samuel B. Davis, or that at the time of her being so equipped, or fitted for war in the United States (if ever there, she was so, in any manner fitted or equipped), she was the property of the said French Republic, or that the

said Samuel B. Davis was, in any manner, in the said equipment or fitting for war, concerned; and without this also, and the said James Yard, not in any manner alledging, that the said Samuel B. Davis was retained, or engaged in the service of the French Republic, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States-And the said James Yard, him, the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette or vessel of war, called the Cassius, by force of the process aforesaid, out of the said District Court, had and obtained, as aforesaid, still wrongfully detains, and the said Samuel B. Davis, and the French Republic, owner of the said corvette or vessel of war, thereupon, in the said District Court to answer, and in the premises cause to be condemned, with all his power endeavours, and daily contrives, in contempt of the government of the United States, against the laws of nations, the treaties subsisting between the United States and the French Republic, and against the laws and customs of the United States, to the manifest violation of the said laws of nations, and treaties, and to the manifest disturbance of the peace and harmony, happily subsisting between the United States and the said French Republic-and this he is ready to verify. Wherefore, the said Samuel B. Davis, the aid of this honorable court most respectfully requesting, prays remedy, by a writ of prohibition, to be issued out of this honorable court, to the said Judge of the District Court of the United States, in and for the District of Pennsylvania, to be directed to prohibit him from holding the plea aforesaid, the premises aforesaid any wise concerning, farther before him.

BENJAMIN R. MORGAN, Proctor for Samuel B. Davis.

Samuel B. Davis, being duly sworn, on his oath, doth say, that all and singular, the facts, by him in this suggestion stated, are true.

S. B. DAVIS.

Sworn in open Court, August 22d, 1795.
I. WAGNER, D. C. Sup. Ct. U. S.

PROHIBITION FORM II.-SUGGESTION FOR WRIT OF
PROHIBITION AGAINST ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS.

[Copied from record In re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404. A motion to file suggestion granted; writ denied, 143 U. S. 472.]

In the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ex parte SIR JOHN THOMPSON, K. C. M. G.,
HER BRITANIC MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GEN-
ERAL OF CANADA.

No.

Original.

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Comes now, Sir John Thompson, K. C. M. G., Her Britanic Majesty's Attorney-General of Canada, and gives this Honorable Court to understand and be informed

That whereas, by the law of nations, the municipal laws of a country have no extra-territorial force and cannot operate on foreign vessels on the high seas, and it is legally impossible, under the public law, for a foreign vessel to commit a breach of municipal law beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the law-making state;

And whereas the seizure of a foreign vessel beyond the limits of the municipal territorial jurisdiction for breach of municipal regulations is not warranted by the law of nations, and such seizure cannot give jurisdiction to the courts of the offended country, least of all where the alleged act was committed by the foreign vessel at the place of seizure beyond the municipal territorial jurisdiction;

And whereas, by the laws of nations, a British vessel sailing on the high seas is not subject to any municipal law except that of Great Britain; and by the said law of nations a British ship so sailing on the high seas ought not to be arrested, seized, attached, or detained under color of any law of the United States;

And whereas, by the laws of the United States as well as by the law of nations, the District Courts of the United States have not, and ought not to entertain, jurisdiction or hold plea of an alleged breach upon the high seas of the municipal laws of the United States by the captain and crew of a British vessel, and can acquire no jurisdiction by a seizure of such vessel on the high seas, though she be afterwards brought by force within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of said courts;

And whereas, on the ninth day of July, 1887, there was between the Governments and peoples of Great Britain and the United States profound peace and friendship, which relations of peace and friendship had happily subsided for nearly three-quarters of a century before said ninth day of July, 1887, and still endure to the great comfort and happiness of two kindred peoples;

And whereas, on the said ninth day of July, 1887, the schooner "W. P. Sayward," a British vessel, duly registered and documented as such, and having her home port at Victoria in the Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada, and commanded by one George R. Ferry, a British subject, as Captain and Master thereof, was lawfully and peaceably sailing on the high seas, to wit: in latitude 54° 43′ North, longitude 167° 51' West, fifty-nine miles from any land whatsoever, and then being fifty-nine miles northwest from Cape Cheerful, Oonalaska Island, upon waters between Oonalaska and Prybyloff Islands in Behring's Sea, as more fully appears by the chart in the record of the proceedings of the District Court of the United States in and for the Territory of Alaska hereinafter referred to;

And whereas, said schooner was at said time and place unlawfully and forcibly seized and arrested by an armed vessel of the United States Revenue Marine, to wit, the U. S. Rev. Cutter "Rush," cruising under instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States for the sole purpose of enforcing the municipal law of the United States, and the said British Schooner was thereupon unlawfully, wrongfully, and forcibly de

« PreviousContinue »