290 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



restore prizes in cases not covered by statute, and even before pas- 

 sage of the first neutrality act,°^ under the general grant of ad- 



" In the absence of every act of Congress in relation to this matter, the 

 court would feel no difficulty in pronouncing the conduct here complained of 

 an abuse of the neutrality of the United States, and although in such cases 

 the offender could not be punished, the former owner would, nevertheless, be 

 entitled to restitution." 



So said the Supreme Court in 1819.^° Almost one hundred years 

 later the same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case 

 of the Appam : ^^° 



"The violation of American neutrality is the basis of jurisdiction, and 

 the admiralty courts may order restitution for a violation of such neutrality. 

 In each case the jurisdiction and order rests upon the authority of the courts 

 of the United States to make restitution to private owners for violations of 

 neutrality where offending vessels are within our jurisdiction, thus vindi- 

 cating our rights and obligations as a neutral people." 



The federal courts also assume jurisdiction to enforce the gen- 

 eral maritime law through admiralty actions in rem, even when no 

 statute specifically governs the case. Thus in the case of the Bel- 

 genland, the Supreme Court sustained the jurisdiction upon the libel 

 of a Belgian steamer for running into and sinking a Norwegian 

 barque in mid ocean. ^°^ 



"Although the courts will use a discretion about assuming jurisdiction 

 of controversies between foreigners in cases arising beyond the territorial 

 jurisdiction of the country to which the courts belong, yet where such con- 

 troversies are communis juris, that is, where they arise under the common 

 law of nations, special grounds should appear to induce the courts to deny 

 its aid to a foreign suitor when it has jurisdiction of the ship or party 

 charged. The existence of jurisdiction in all such cases is beyond dispute; 

 the only question will be, whether it is expedient to exercise it." 



Although federal courts, under the general grant of admiralty 



jurisdiction, may take cognizance of all cases against vessels alleged 



to have violated international law, and decree confiscation, restora- 



miralty jurisdiction. 



98 Glass V. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; Talbot v. Jensen, 3 Dall. 133. 

 9«The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298, 311. 



100 The Appam, 243 U. S. 124, 156 (1916). 



101 The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355. 



