gaged in a common contest against the mother country. Why then should they not lend each other the aid of their tribunals to pronounce condemnations, as well as of their ports to fit out the armaments with which the captures of Spanish property are made? If, according to the original practice of nations, a carrying infra præsidia were to consummate the title, would it not be sufficient to carry the prize within the territory of an ally, or co-belligerent? If one cobelligerent can consent to a foreign tribunal sitting within its territory, and condemning prizes made by the cruizers of its ally, why may not the ally permit its captures to be adjudged in the Courts of its cobelligerent? But at all events, Venezuela was herself engaged in war against Spain, and this was the property of her enemy brought into her territory. She had a right to condemn it in her Courts, and did condemn it so as to make it a part of the mass of national property. There is no positive authority which denies the authority of the Courts of a belligerent, to condemn prizes captured by its co-belligerent ; and in the absence of any case to the contrary, it is sufficient that no reason of principle or public policy exists to prevent it. The learned counsel also referred to the Resolution of Congress during the revolutionary war, authorizing their Courts to condemn prizes captured by French cruizers, to show that the opinion and practice of nations had authorized similar proceedings.

a 5 Wheat. Rep. Appx. 123.

1822.

The

Arrogante Barcelones.

1822.

The Arrogante Barcelones.

Mr. Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The offence proved upon Almeida in this case is March 14th. one of a very aggravated nature. He not only violated the neutrality of this government, but enected his purpose, by practising a flagrant fraud, either upon his crew, or upon the revenue officers of the port of Baltimore; or perhaps partially upon both. Every thing in the case proves that the sealing voyage round Cape Horn was a mere pretext; and if it be true that the crew were kidnapped under that pretext, and forced into belligerent service after getting to sea, it is a remarkable instance of bold and successful imposition. But who can believe it? The truth unquestionably is, that the crew, with perhaps the exception of the few who were put in irons, URderstood perfectly the nature of the enterprize they were embarking in, and were deceived into the belief that their affected ignorance, or the impudence of the fraud, would screen them from the penalties of the laws which forbade their entering into belligerent service.

It cannot, then, be questioned that Almeida now appears before us in the character of a flagrant offender against the laws and neutral obligations of this country. And there is no shadow of a ground for hesitating to apply to this case the established rule of this Court, in cases of illegal outfit, unless it be the condemnation of this vessel and cargo in the Court of Margaritta.

This Court will, for the present, waive all expression of its opinion on the questions raised the upon validity of that condemnation, or the sufficiency of the

1822.

The

document produced to prove it. We will put our decision upon a single, and independent ground, that the view of this Court, with regard to all such cases, Arrogante may henceforth be distinctly understood.

We find the captured property in the hands of the offender, and hold it to be immaterial through what circuity of changes it has come back to him. It is not for him to claim a right springing out of his own wrong. In the hands of a third person, a valid sentence of condemnation, properly authenticated, would present a very different view of the subject. The offender's touch here restores the taint from which the condemnation may have purified the prize. Although a purchaser without notice, may, in many cases, hold his purchase free from an interest with which it was chargeable in the hands of the vendor, yet it cannot return into the hands of that vendor, without reviving the original heir. Nor will Courts of justice ever yield the locus standi in judicio to the suitor, who is compelled to trace his title through his own criminal acts."

Decree affirmed.

a In the case of the Nereyda, which was argued at the present term, the Court was of opinion, that in cases where a condemnation is relied on, the libel as well as the sentence ought to be produced, in order that the Court might judicially see that the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction, and what was the ground of application for condemnation, and the parties by whom it was sought. The Court also.thought that the claimant ought to show by competent evidence that he was a bonâ fide purchaser of the property for a valuable consideration; and from the defects of the proofs on both points, the cause was ordered to farther proof. It has therefore been thought fit to omit a re port of the case, until its final decision.

Barcelones.

March 14th.

March 18th.

The MONTE ALLEGRE and the RAINHA DE LOS ANJOS. The Portuguese Consul General, Libellant.

A question of fact upon the bona fides of an alleged sale of Portuguese ships, and their cargoes, which had been captured in violation of our neutrality. Restitution to the original owners decreed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maryland. These causes were argued by Mr. Winder, for the appellant and claimant, and by Mr. D. Hoffman, tor the respondent and libellant; but as the same points were insisted on as in the preceding cases of the Gran Para and the Arrogante Barcelones, ante pp. 471. 496., it is not thought necessary to report the argument of counsel in the present case. The facts

are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Monte Allegre was captured by the private armed vessel called La Fortuna, cruising at the time under a commission from the chief of the Oriental Republic. She was completely fitted out, equipped, and manned, in Baltimore, from which port she sailed on her first cruize, in December, 1816; owned and commanded by citizens of the United States; but commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres. She sailed again on her second cruize, in August,

1817, from the port of Baltimore. This cruize terminated at Buenos Ayres, where she was in part dismantled, some of her rigging and arms being deposited in a store ship which lay near her. The crew also were discharged. After lying in port four or five weeks, she sailed on her third cruize, having the same armament with which she sailed from Baltimore, and about twenty or thirty of the same crew. Her commander was changed, but was still a citizen of the United States; and she sailed under a commission from the Oriental Republic. On this cruize, the Monte Allegre was taken, and sent into the port of Baltimore, where she was libelled by the Consul General of Portugal. She was claimed by William Foster, the prize master, in behalf of the Oriental Republic, who alleged, that while she lay in the port of Bueros Ayres, she was purchased by the government of the Banda Oriental.

The reality of this sale constitutes the only question which can arise in this case.

The testimony in support of it is found in the depositions of James Brown, James Williams, William Towson, and Alexander Towson. They mention the partial dismantling of the vessel, and speak of a report that she was sold, but they give no positive information on the subject, nor did they even hear to whom the sale was made. This testimony would weigh very little, were it even uncontradicted. But the regular transmission of her prizes to Baltimore, her returning to that port, at the termination of her cruize, the depositions taken to show that the original proprietors had not parted with their interest.

1822.

The Monte

Allegre.