THOMPSON, Circuit Justice.
This case comes up on appeal from a decree of the district court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. This libel filed in the case is for salvage upon a quantity of seal-skins, alleged to have been saved and rescued from the unlawful and piratical capture of Lewis Vernet, at Port St. Lewis, in. the Eastern . Falkland Island, on the 19th of August, in the year 1831. The libel alleges the skins to have been taken from on board the schooner Superior, Congdon, master, by the said Vernet; who was wrongfully and unlawfully pretending and claiming .to be-governor of the Falkland Islands, under the government of Buenos Ayres, and landed and put into a store-house. Salvage is also claimed upon a quantity of seal-skins, alleged to have been taken in like manner from a boat’s crew, commanded by Isaac-P. Waldron, and put into the same store. The libellant [Gilbert R. Davison] states that he was carried a prisoner on board the schooner Harriet, to Buenos Ayres, where lie arrived on the 20th of November, when he was liberated; and on the 1st of December he shipped as second sailing-master on board the Lexington, a sloop-of-war of the United States, commanded by Captain Duncan, and sailed for Port Lewis, and arrived there on the 27th of December, and sent a boat on shore and took the skins from the store-house, and broke up Vernet’s establishment there: that he obtained a discharge as sailing-master, for the sole purpose of saving the skins for the rightful owner. The skins having been delivered by Captain Duncan to him, were put on board the schooner Dash, on the 5th day of January, 1832, and were afterwards transhipped to the schooner Carrier, of Stonington, John S. Barnum, master; who signed a bill of lading for 790 prime fur, and 401 pup-skins, consigned to Thomas Davison. The Carrier arrived at Stonington on the 15th of April, 1833. And the salvage claimed is for the personal services of the libellant, bestowed upon the skins after they were delivered over to him by Captain Duncan. The skins by order of the district court, were sold by the marshal of the district, and the money brought into court, and a claim for the proceeds was filed by Silas E. Burrows, as owner of the schooner Superior, and her cargo.
Isaac P. Waldron, in behalf of the boat’s crew mentioned in the libel, or under the right of purchase made from them, filed a claim for a portion of the skins. The freight of the skins having been ordered to be paid out of the proceeds, the court decreed against the claim of the libellant for salvage; and after deducting the costs, that $704.52 should be paid to Isaac P. Waldron on his claim, and the remainder of the proceeds to be paid to Silas E. Burrows on his claim. From this decree the libellant and Burrows have severally filed an appeal; and the questions which arise under this appeal, relate, in the first place, to the claim for salvage, and, in the next place, to the respective .pro[193] portions of Burrows and Waldron to these proceeds.
The right to salvage in this case has been placed on the ground that the taking wats piratical,2 and gave a legal right to any person to retake, and claim a compensation for all meritorious and beneficial services rendered in saving the property. There can be no doubt that salvage is demandable of right upon property taken from pirates; and if the taking, in this ease, by Vernet, is to be deemed piratical, the claim for salvage may be maintained; but to entitle a party to salvage, two circumstances must concur. The service rendered must be in a lawful taking of the property, and must be meritorious and useful. The taking must be lawful; for no claim can be maintained in a court of justice, founded on an act in itself tortious. It has, accordingly, been held, that as a recapture made by a neutral power, no claim for salvage can arise, although the beneficial service rendered may be the same as if the recapture had been by a belligerent; but the act of taking by the neutral being unlawful, no right can arise from an act in itself unlawful. [Talbot v. Seeman] 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 28. Bobbery on the high seas is understood to be piracy by our law. The taking must be felonious. A commissioned cruiser, by exceeding his authority, is not thereby to be considered a pirate. It may be a mariné trespass, but not an act of piracy, if the vessel is taken as a prize, unless taken feloniously, and with intent to commit a robbery; the quo animo may be inquired into. [U. S. v. Pirates] 5 Wheat. [18 U. S.] 184; U. S. v. Jones [Case No. 15,494]. A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force, and appropriating to himself, without discrimination,'every vessel [194] he meets with; and hence pirates have always been compared to robbers. The only difference between them is, that the sea is the theatre of action for the one, and the land for the other. 2 Arun. 351. Although the retaking in this case was upon land, yet if it was a piratical taking, the court might have had jurisdiction; for if the admiralty has cognizance of the principal thing, it has also of the incident, though that incident would not, of itself, and if it stood for a principal thing, be within the admiralty jurisdiction: and upon this principle it is, that goods taken by pirates and sold upon land, may be recovered from the vendee by suit-in the admiralty. 1 Kent, Comm. 353. In this view of the case, it becomes proper to inquire into the situation and capacity in which Vernet was acting, and as connected therewith, the territorial government and jurisdiction of the Falkland Islands; and it is very clear, from the evidence in the case, that he was not then acting on his own authority, but under a commission from the government of Buenos Ayres, claiming to exercise jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
THOMPSON, Circuit Justice.
This case comes up on appeal from a decree of the district court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. This libel filed in the case is for salvage upon a quantity of seal-skins, alleged to have been saved and rescued from the unlawful and piratical capture of Lewis Vernet, at Port St. Lewis, in. the Eastern . Falkland Island, on the 19th of August, in the year 1831. The libel alleges the skins to have been taken from on board the schooner Superior, Congdon, master, by the said Vernet; who was wrongfully and unlawfully pretending and claiming .to be-governor of the Falkland Islands, under the government of Buenos Ayres, and landed and put into a store-house. Salvage is also claimed upon a quantity of seal-skins, alleged to have been taken in like manner from a boat’s crew, commanded by Isaac-P. Waldron, and put into the same store. The libellant [Gilbert R. Davison] states that he was carried a prisoner on board the schooner Harriet, to Buenos Ayres, where lie arrived on the 20th of November, when he was liberated; and on the 1st of December he shipped as second sailing-master on board the Lexington, a sloop-of-war of the United States, commanded by Captain Duncan, and sailed for Port Lewis, and arrived there on the 27th of December, and sent a boat on shore and took the skins from the store-house, and broke up Vernet’s establishment there: that he obtained a discharge as sailing-master, for the sole purpose of saving the skins for the rightful owner. The skins having been delivered by Captain Duncan to him, were put on board the schooner Dash, on the 5th day of January, 1832, and were afterwards transhipped to the schooner Carrier, of Stonington, John S. Barnum, master; who signed a bill of lading for 790 prime fur, and 401 pup-skins, consigned to Thomas Davison. The Carrier arrived at Stonington on the 15th of April, 1833. And the salvage claimed is for the personal services of the libellant, bestowed upon the skins after they were delivered over to him by Captain Duncan. The skins by order of the district court, were sold by the marshal of the district, and the money brought into court, and a claim for the proceeds was filed by Silas E. Burrows, as owner of the schooner Superior, and her cargo.
Isaac P. Waldron, in behalf of the boat’s crew mentioned in the libel, or under the right of purchase made from them, filed a claim for a portion of the skins. The freight of the skins having been ordered to be paid out of the proceeds, the court decreed against the claim of the libellant for salvage; and after deducting the costs, that $704.52 should be paid to Isaac P. Waldron on his claim, and the remainder of the proceeds to be paid to Silas E. Burrows on his claim. From this decree the libellant and Burrows have severally filed an appeal; and the questions which arise under this appeal, relate, in the first place, to the claim for salvage, and, in the next place, to the respective .pro[193] portions of Burrows and Waldron to these proceeds.
The right to salvage in this case has been placed on the ground that the taking wats piratical,2 and gave a legal right to any person to retake, and claim a compensation for all meritorious and beneficial services rendered in saving the property. There can be no doubt that salvage is demandable of right upon property taken from pirates; and if the taking, in this ease, by Vernet, is to be deemed piratical, the claim for salvage may be maintained; but to entitle a party to salvage, two circumstances must concur. The service rendered must be in a lawful taking of the property, and must be meritorious and useful. The taking must be lawful; for no claim can be maintained in a court of justice, founded on an act in itself tortious. It has, accordingly, been held, that as a recapture made by a neutral power, no claim for salvage can arise, although the beneficial service rendered may be the same as if the recapture had been by a belligerent; but the act of taking by the neutral being unlawful, no right can arise from an act in itself unlawful. [Talbot v. Seeman] 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 28. Bobbery on the high seas is understood to be piracy by our law. The taking must be felonious. A commissioned cruiser, by exceeding his authority, is not thereby to be considered a pirate. It may be a mariné trespass, but not an act of piracy, if the vessel is taken as a prize, unless taken feloniously, and with intent to commit a robbery; the quo animo may be inquired into. [U. S. v. Pirates] 5 Wheat. [18 U. S.] 184; U. S. v. Jones [Case No. 15,494]. A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force, and appropriating to himself, without discrimination,'every vessel [194] he meets with; and hence pirates have always been compared to robbers. The only difference between them is, that the sea is the theatre of action for the one, and the land for the other. 2 Arun. 351. Although the retaking in this case was upon land, yet if it was a piratical taking, the court might have had jurisdiction; for if the admiralty has cognizance of the principal thing, it has also of the incident, though that incident would not, of itself, and if it stood for a principal thing, be within the admiralty jurisdiction: and upon this principle it is, that goods taken by pirates and sold upon land, may be recovered from the vendee by suit-in the admiralty. 1 Kent, Comm. 353. In this view of the case, it becomes proper to inquire into the situation and capacity in which Vernet was acting, and as connected therewith, the territorial government and jurisdiction of the Falkland Islands; and it is very clear, from the evidence in the case, that he was not then acting on his own authority, but under a commission from the government of Buenos Ayres, claiming to exercise jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands.
Mr. Slocum, in his letter to the minister of foreign affairs, dated 21st November, 1831, complaining of the conduct of Vernet, asks whether the government of Buenos Ayres intends to avow and sustain the capture. The minister of foreign affairs, in his reply of November 25, informs him that the subject was under the consideration of the government, which would adopt such decision as the laws of the country required; which Mr. Slocum, by his letter of the 26th of November, informs the minister that he cannot consider the answer in any other light than as an express admission, on the part of his government. of the right to capture American vessels fishing for seals at the Falkland Is[195] lands, and then proceeds to deny in toto the right of Buenos Ayres to prohibit the Americans from taking seals, and protests against all acts which have been adopted by the government for that purpose, including the decree of the 10th of June, 1829, by which the said islands and coasts, and their fisheries, are declared to belong to that government; and protests against all acts of the government asserting any such right. And Capt. Duncan, in his letter of the 1st of December, admits that the captures or services by Vernet were made under the authority of that government He, therefore, before he sailed on the expedition against the Falkland Islands, understood that Yemet was acting under the authority of the government of Buenos Ayres; and the proclamation of the 14th of February, 1832, shows the ~ light in which the conduct of Capt. Duncan was considered. It charges him with having invaded that rising colony, and destroying the public property, and carrying away goods legally deposited there for judicial inquiry: and Capt. Duncan, after he had broken up the establishment, and taken as prisoners all the persons found there, writes to the minister of foreign affairs that he would deliver up and set at liberty the prisoners on board the Lexington, on assurance being given by the Buenos Ayrean government that they had been acting under its authority; and the minister, in his answer of the 15th of February, 1S32, expressly declares, that Vernet was appointed political and military governor of the Falkland Islands, in consequence of the decree of the 1st of June, 1829, published on the 10th of the same month; and that Vernet, and the individuals acting under his authority,’could only be judged of by their own government. Here was a full and complete sanction, by the government of Buenos [196] Ayres, of the acts of Vernet: arid Commodore Rodgers, in his letter of the 24th of April, 1S32, to the minister of foreign affairs, on the subject of Capt Duncan’s conduct, says that he, (Capt. Duncan,) previous to his departui e, wished to ascertain whether the persons alluded to acted under the authority of the government of Buenos Ayres; but not being able to obtain any official declaration upon the subject, he believed that he was justified in considering them as acting without authority, and in treating them as pirates; but that as the government had since officially declared, that the establishment at the Falkland Islands was under its special protection, and that the individuals in charge of it acted under its special authority, he considered the government responsible for the improper conduct of its agents, and that ■the persons arrested by Capt. Duncan were no longer responsible (except to their own government) for their outrages. He should, accordingly, set them at liberty; and he declares that he acts in this measure without instructions from his government; that it is not his intention to discuss the question pending between the two governments. This he should leave to the agent duly authorized to treat upon that matter, and who, it is expected, would shortly arrive at Buenos Ayres. From this correspondence thus far, it is evident that .Capt Duncan, when he went to the Falkland Islands, and broke up Vernet’s establishment was under the impression that they were a nest of pirates; and that Commodore Rodgers, as soon as he found this to be a m’stake, but that they were acting under the authority of the Buenos Ayrean government, discharged the prisoners, disclaiming to hold them as pirates: and there is no pre-tence, in any of this correspondence, that Capt. Duncan, in this particular act, was pursuing any special order of the government of the United States; but he was, no doubt, acting in good faith, under what he considered his dutj-, in protecting the rights of American citizens.
I do not mean to enter into the question whether or not American citizens had a right to take seals upon the Falkland Islands: that was a disputed question between our government and that of Buenos Ayres. But if these islands were held in the possession and under the jurisdiction of the Buenos Ayrean government, and Vernet’s establishment then was under the authority and protection of that government, as it clearly was, and even admitting that Vernet had abused his power, Captain Duncan could have no right, without express directions from his government, to enter into the territorial jurisdiction of a country at peace with the United States, and forcibly seize upon property found there and claimed by citizens of the United States. Such a principle would be too hazardous to the peace of nations to be admitted in practice. If the seizure of these skins by Vernet was wrongful, and a violation of the rights of American citizens, the presumption is, that on. application to the judicial tribunals of Buenos Ayres, there would have been a restoration of the property; and if that, and all appeal to the government, should fail of redress it might become a case for the interference of the government of the injured party, and might ultimately lead to a just war. Such, according to the law of nations, would be the course to be adopted toward the citizens or subjects and the government of every sovereign power; and the weakness or strength of such power does not alter the principle. And .this would seem to have been the understanding-of the libellant himself, by the contract he entered into with Vernet, relative to the appeal to the tribunals of Buenos Ayres, for the trial of the right of seizure by Vernet, of the Harriet and Superior; and the employment of the Superior in sealing, until the determination and result of such trial should be known. This was an arrangement beneficial to all parties, and is not at all consistent with the charge that it was a piratical capture. I can discover nothing in the evidence to warrant the conclusion that this contract was forced upon the libel-lant and Captain Congar, by Vernet. It purports to have been entered into at the instance of these captains; and I see no reason to conclude that the trial would not have been proceeded in had not the property been retaken, and the whole establishment broken up by Caijtain Duncan, which the government of Buenos Ayres considered a gross violation of their rights. This right of taking seals (or fishery as it is called, though, perhaps, not strictly proper, as the seals are taken on shore) at the Falkland Islands, was then under discussion between our government and that of Buenos Ayres, as would appear by the letter of the secretary of state to Mr. Forbes, of the date of 10th of February, 1S31, in which he says it is the wish of the president that you should address an earnest remonstrance to that government against any measures that may have been taken by it, including the decree and circular letter referred to, if they be genuine, which are calculated in the remotest degree to impose any restraint whatever upon the enterprise of our citizens engaged in the fisheries in question (the taking seal at the Falkland Islands), or to impair their undoubted right to the freest use of them. But notwithstanding this strong language on the part of our government, it did not undertake to pronounce this a piratical establishment, or to direct our public vessels to proceed there and break it up; but was negotiating on the question. Our government must have been fully apprized of the course pursued by the government of Buenos Ayres; for the decree referred to in this letter was undoubtedly the decree under which Vernet was acting. And that decree, which bears date on the 10th of June, 1S29, in terms declares, that the Falkland Islands shall be governed by a military and civil governor, to be [197] appointed by tbe government of the republic, and whose residence should be on • the island of Solidad, and that he should see to the regulations of-the fisheries on that coast. And our .secretary of state, in a letter of 29th of October, 1830, in answer to the inquiry whether our government had formally declared that it did not recognize the claims of the republic of Buenos Ayres to the jurisdiction of the Falkland Islands, says: “Measures were taken by my predecessor to ascertain on what foundation the claim of jurisdiction to these islands rested; but the sickness and death of Mr. Forbes, our charge d’affaires at Buenos Ayres, had for a time interrupted the investigation. Our right of fishery, however, in those seas, is one that the government considers indisputable, and it will be given in charge to the minister about to be sent there, to make representations against and demand satisfaction for all interruptions of the exercise of that right.” Thus our government, four years after the seizure of the Superior, and, as must be presumed, with full knowledge of the fact, treated this right as a subject for negotiation between the two governments, and does not undertake to affirm such seizure to be a piratical act. And under this view of the case, I cannot consider the retaking by Captain Duncan a lawful act; and unless it was so, the claim of the libellant to compensation as for salvage services, in a court of admiralty, cannot be sustained. I do not. therefore, enter into the inquiry whether any meritorious and beneficial services have been rendered by the libellant. If any have been rendered, which in law entities him to compensation, his redress must be sought in a court of common law, and not in a court of admiralty. The appeal of the libellant must, therefore, be dismissed.
I have not been able to arrive at so satisfactory a conclusion in relation to the distribution of the proceeds of the skins, as between Mr. Burrows and Captain Waldron. It is not denied but that all the skins taken on board the Superior belonged to Mr. Burrows; nor is it denied but that Captain Waldron was the owner of the skins taken from the boat’s crew of the Belville, he having purchased the rights of the other part owners; and it is very satisfactorily established that all these skins were put into the same storehouse at Port Lewis. But the doubt arises from the difficulty of ascertaining whether the whole of the skins taken from the boat’s crew were shipped on board the Thomas Lowry and sent to London, or whether a part remained, and were taken away by Captain Duncan.
The evidence -upon this part of the case is certainly very contradictory in several respects, and cannot be reconciled. Yeraet swears that the skins taken from the boat’s crew were put separately in the store-house, and were all put on board the Thomas Low-ry. In this he is contradicted by several witnesses, who swear that these skins were stored promiscuously in the store-house with the skins of the Harriet and Superior, and that the skins shipped on board the Lowry were selected from the aggregate quantity. Under this view of the case, it cannot with any satisfactory certainty be said on which side the evidence preponderates, so as at all events to justify an appellate court on this ground to disturb the decree of the court below. I am, accordingly, of opinion that the decree of the district court be affirmed.