1820.

La Amistad de Rues.

damages; and consider it no part of the duty of a neutral nation to interpose, upon the mere footing of the law of nations, to settle all the rights and wrongs which may grow out of a capture between belligerents. Strictly speaking, there can be no such thing as a marine tort between the belligerents. Each has an undoubted right to exercise all the rights of war against the other; and it cannot be a matter of judicial complaint, that they are exercised with severity, even if the parties do transcend those rules which the customary laws of war justify. At least, they have never been held within the cognizance of the prize tribunals of neutral nations. The captors are amenable to their own Government exclusively, for any excess or irregularity in their proceedings; and a neutral nation ought no otherwise to interfere, than to prevent captors from obtaining any unjust advantage by a violation of its neutral jurisdiction. Neutral nations may, indeed, inflict pecuniary, or other penalties, on the parties for any such violation; but it then does it professedly in vindication of its own rights, and not by way of compensation to the captured. When called upon by either of the belligerents to act in such cases, all that justice seems to require is, that the neutral nation should fairly execute its own laws, and give no asylum to the property unjustly captured. It is bound, therefore, to restore the property if found within its own ports; but beyond this it is not obliged to interpose between the belligerents. If indeed it were otherwise, there would be no end to the difficulties and embarrassments of neutral prize

1820.

tribunals. They would be compelled to decide in every variety of shape upon marine trespasses in rem, La Amistad and in personam, between belligerents, without pos- de Rues. sessing adequate means of ascertaining the real facts,

or of compelling the attendance of foreign witnesses; and thus they would draw within their jurisdiction almost every incident of prize. Such a course of things would necessarily create irritations and animosities, and very soon embark neutral nations in all the controversies and hostilities of the conflicting parties. Considerations of public policy come therefore in aid of what we consider the law of nations on this subject; and we may add, that Congress in its legislation has never passed the limit which is here marked out. Until Congress shall choose to prescribe a different rule, this Court will, in cases of this nature, confine itself to the exercise of the simple authority to decree restitution, and decline all inquiries into questions of damages for asserted wrongs. The decree for damages is, therefore, unhesitatingly reversed.

di, in

1

cases

The other question presents more difficulty. It Onus probanmust be admitted, that there is positive testimony where restitu

tion is claimed

directly to the point of the illegal augmentation of by the original the crew of the privateer; and if it stood uncontra- the fround of dicted, and were liable to no deduction, the libellant mament in our would certainly be entitled to restitution. But the upon them. testimony as to the augmentation, comes chiefly from very obscure persons, and is, in itself, in many respects, loose and equivocal; and that of one, at least, of the principal witnesses, is, in a most material fact,

directly contradicted by a written document, whose La Amistad verity has not been questioned. It is proved, by the report of an inspector made to the custom house, that at the arrival of the privateer in port, she had on board 49 men; yet, the witness alluded to, expressly alleges, that at the time of her arrival at NewOrleans, she had not more than ten or twelve persons on board. It appears, too, that the crew of the privateer was wholly composed of foreigners, principally persons from the Spanish Maine, and from St. Domingo. Being arrived at New-Orleans in the course of a cruize, which is not proved to have ended there, the natural presumption is, that her original crew continued attached to her; and this presumption is considerably fortified by the fact, that though the officers of the custom house of that port vigilantly inquire into cases of this nature, there is nothing in their testimony, that in the slightest degree affects the conduct of the privateer in an unfavourable manner. It certainly cannot be said, that the evidence is free from all reasonable doubt. And, in cases of this nature, where the libellant seeks the aid of a neutral Court to interpose itself against a belligerent capture, on account of a supposed violation of neutrality, we think the burthen of proof rests upon him. To justify a restitution to the original owners, the violation of neutrality should be clearly made out. If it remains doubtful, the Court ought to decline the exercise of its jurisdiction, and leave the property where it finds it. We cannot say that the present case is clear from reasonable doubt; and,

1820.

therefore, we reverse the decree of the District Court, and order restitution to be made to the original cap- La Amistad

tors; but, under all the circumstances, the parties are to bear their own costs.

Decree reversed.

DECREE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the District Court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is decreed and ORDERED, that the decree of the said District Court, in this case, be, and the same is, hereby reversed and anculled. And this Court, proceeding to pass such decree as the said District Court should have passed, it is further DECREED and ORDERED, that the libel be dismissed, and the said ship La Amistad, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and cargo, be restored to the claimants. And it is further Ordered, that each party pay their own costs.

de Rues.

(COMMON LAW.)

LYLE et al. v. RODGERS.

Where claims against a party, both in his own right, and in a representative character, are submitted to the award of arbitrators, it is a valid objection to the award, that it does not precisely distinguish between moneys which are to be paid by him in his representative character, and those for which he is personally bound.

An award may be void in part, and good for the residue. But if the part which is void be so connected with the rest as to affect the justice of the case between the parties, the whole is void.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia.

This was an action of debt against the defendant, on a bond given by Jerusha Dennison, and the defendant, to the plaintiffs, with a condition to perform the award of certain persons chosen to arbitrate all differences, &c. between the plaintiffs and Jerusha Dennison, either as administratrix of Gideon Dennison, deceased, or in any other capacity. The condition of the obligation is in these words: "Whereas the said Jerusha Dennison, and the said James Lyle and Joshua B. Bond, have agreed to refer all matters in dispute between them, to the award and arbitrament of David Winchester and Thomas Tenant, of the city of Baltimore; and in case they differ in opinion, then to them and such third person as the said David Winchester and Thomas Tenant shall choose and appoint. Now, the condition of the obligation is such, that if the above bound Jerusha Dennison, her heirs, executors and administrators, do, and shall well and truly stand to, abide by, and keep the award and arbitrament of the said