210 detention ofvef^els m neutral pot ts. Aug. 14, 

 if so, what are the forms of proceeding in this case ? 

 I do not myself at present recolkct any case exact- 

 ly in point, and therefore I can only reason from 

 what would seem to be the dictates of common, 

 sense. In that point of view it would s^em at first 

 sight, that neutral powers could not naturally af- 

 sume a right of jurisdiction over either of the par- 

 ties; and that therefore the persons who brought vef- 

 sels into their ports, might, without examination 

 into the manner in which they had acquired the pro- 

 perty, be at liberty to dispose of them in any way 

 the establilhed laws of the state permitted ; so that 

 the property of captured vefsels might be disposed 

 of as readily as of others imported by the original 

 owners. 



This, however, is on the supposition that no le- 

 gal alleged claim is made against the person who of- 

 fers it for sale. For if a representation ftiould be 

 made setting forth that the owners of the vefsel had 

 obtained pofsefsion of it by an act of piracy, there 

 can be no doubt but all sales would be stopped till 

 this question was tried and decided. 



In like manner, it would seem that in case a plea 

 were lodged, that a captured vefsel had not been le- 

 gally captured, a stop to all sales must in this case be 

 made till the question be examined and a decision 

 given. • Accordingly we find, that in no case is 

 a prise delivered up for sale, even in a friendly port, 

 without a legal trial and condemnation ; but such a 

 trial and condemnation would be afsuming a juris- 

 diction that no neutral power seems to have a right 

 to exercise, so that it would seem no condemnation 



