The United States v. Richard Peters, District Judge

August Term, 1795. A COMMISSION, bearing date the 1st of July, 1795, was read, by which, during the recess of Congress, John Rutledge, Esquire, was appointed Chief Justice, till the end of the next session of the Senate. The United States v. Richard Peters, District Judge. THIS was a motion for a Prohibition to the District Court of Pennsylvania, where a Libel had been filed, by James Yard, and process of attachment thereupon issued, against the Cassius, an armed Corvette, belonging to the French Republic, and Samuel Davis, her Commander. The Libel was in these words : “To the Honorable Richard Peters, Esquire, Judge of the District Court of Pennsylvania. The Libel and Complaint of James Yard, of the State of Pennsylvania, in the United States of America, “ Humbly Sheweth, That the said James Yard is the owner of the Schooner William Lindfey, and her cargo : That on or about the day of last, the said Schooner failed from the island of St. Thomas, to the city of St. Domingo, in the island of Hispaniola ; commanded by a certain Walter Burke, and laden with about one hundred and forty-two barrels of Flour, fix puncheons of Rum, and other Merchandize, of the value of two thousand dollars, the said vessel and cargo amounting in all to ten thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, all regularly-cleared out, from the said island of St. Thomas, and furnished with all Documents, usual, neceffary, and proper, and being on a voyage to the said port of St. Domingo, on the twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, the said Schooner William Lindfey, was forcibly, violently, tortiously, and contrary to the laws and usages of nations, attacked and taken, by a certain armed vessel called the Cassius, commanded by a certain Samuel Davis, pretending an authority from the French Republic, but then, and now, a citizen of the United States of America ; and being so taken, was, by the said Samuel Davis, forcibly, violently, tortiously, and contrary to the Laws of Nations, carried into Port de Paix, where the said Schooner William Lindfey, with her cargo, tackle, apparel and furniture, still are, forcibly, tortiously, and illegally, detained : And your libellant does not admit, that the vessel, called the Cassius, was authorized, by the French Republic, to capture vessels belonging to the United States, who were at that time, and still are, at peace with the said French Republic : That the vessel called Cassius, was originally equipped and fitted for war in the port of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvariia, one of the United States of America, contrary to the laws of the faid United States, and the laws and usages of nations : That your libellant has never received compensation for the damages he has suffered, and has not been able to retrieve the said vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture : That the said vessel, called the Cassius, and the said Samue Davis, are now in the port of Philadelphia, and within the jurisdiction of this Court : In order, therefore, that your libellant may be compensated for the damages he has incurred, by the aforesaid illegal and tortious taking, and detention, of the said Schooner William Lindsey, with her cargo, tackle, apparel, and furniture ; and that all may be done touching the premises, which to your Honor may seem just and right: May it please your Honor to cause to be issued, Process for seizing the said vessel, called the Cassius, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture; and for arresting the body of the said Samuel Davis, so that he be, and appear, &c.” The suggestion, on which the motion for a prohibition was founded, set forth, “ That on the zrft day of August, in the year of our Lord one thoufand feven- hundred and ninety-five, Before the honorable John• Rutledge, Efquire, Chief Juftice, and hisaffo-' ciate Juftices of the' Supreme . Court of the United States, at Philadelphia, comes Samuel B. Davis, by Benjamin R. Morgan, his attorney, and gives this honorable court, now here, to underftánd, and be -informed, That whereas, by tire laws-of nations, ■ and the treaties' fubfifting between the United States⅜ and the' Republic of France,- the triál of prizes taken on the high feas, without the territorial áimits- and- j-ü-rifd-Klion of the United States, and brought within the dominions - and jurifdiftLon of the faid Republic, for.legal adjudication, by tef-fels of war belonging to the fovereignty of the faid Republic, aciing'under the authority of the fame,- and of all queilions incidental thereto, does of right, and cxclufively belong tp the tribunals and judiciary eftablijíhménts of the faid Republic^ and to no other tribunal or tribunals, court ox courts whatfo-: ever:—And whereas, by the faid • laws qf nations and treaties aforefaid, the veffels of war belonging to the faid French'Jiv-public, and the officers command! i% the fame, cannot,, .and ought not-to be arreilcd, feised, attached, or detained, in the ports of the- United States, by procefc of law, at the fuit .or-infcance of individuals, to aisfwer for any capture or captures,’ leisure or feizures, made on the high feas., and brought for legal adjindication into the'ports of the French Republic, by the laid veffels of war, while -belonging to, and ailing under the: authority, and in the immediate fervice of the faid Republic.—.• And whereas, by the laws and treaties aforefaid, the Diilriil Courts of the United States, have not and ought not to entertain jurifdiilion, or: hold plea of fuch captures, made as afore-faid, under the above circumilances,, And whereas, by the laws of nations, the veffels of war of.Belligerent powers,-duly by them, authorized to cruize aga.inft their enemies, and to make prize of their ihips and goods, may in timepf war arreiland feize the veffels- belonging to the fubjects or citizens of neutral nations, and bring them into the ports of the foVereigu ¡under whofe commiffion and authority they a<St, -there -to anfwer for any breaches of the laws of nations, concerning the navigation of neutral veffels in time of war ; and the laid veffels of war,, their commanders, officers, and crews, are not amenable before ■ the tribunals cf neutral powers, for their conduit therein, but are only anfwerable to the fevereign in whofe immediate il-r-vice they .were, and from whom, they derived their authority :• And whereas, on and before the twentieth day of May, now lafe pall, the faid Samuel B. Davis, was, and now is, a licut nant of Ihips in the havy of the faid French Republic, and commander of a certain-corvette or Veffel of war, called the Coffins, then, and now, the property of tin* faid Republic,, and in her.immediate fervice, and on the laid twentieth dry oi May, was duly commiffioncd by, and under the authority of the laid,Republic, to cruize againft her enemies, and make prize of their ihips and goods, (as by his commiffion, and the certiii-cate of the Miniller Plenipotentiary of the faid Republic,- to the United States, to the court now 'here, ihewn, fully appears) Neverthelefs, a certain yamss lard, of .the City of Philadelphia, merchant,, not ignorant of the premifes, but -contriving and intending to difturb the peace and harmony fubfifting be-the United States and the French Republic, and him the faid SamuelB. Davis, wrongfully to aggrieve and opprefs and draw to another proof, him the faid Samuel B. Davis, and the faid corvette or veffel of war of the French Republic, the Caf-fius, in the port of Philadelphia, under the protection of the' Jaw's of nations and of the faith of treaties, has, by.proc.sfs out of the Diftridl: Court of the United States, in and for the Dif-trift of Pennfylvania,■ attached and arrefted.him, the faid Samuel B. Davis, and the faid corvette or veffel of war, the Caf-fius, and before the Judge of the faid DiftricS Court, contrary to the faid law of nations and treaties, and againft the form of the laws of iheUnitedStates, hath unjuftly drawn in plea, to anfwer to a certain libel, bv-him, the faid James Yard, againft him the faid Samuel B. Davis, and the laid corvette'or- veffel of war, the CaJJius, her tackle, apparel and furniture, exhibited and promoted, craftily and fubtilly there alledging, articulating and obje&ing, .that on the faid twentienth day of May, now laft paft, the faid Samuel B. Davis, then commanding the faid'cor-vette or veffel, the CaJJius, did forcibly, violently and tortioufly take on the high.feas, acertain fchooner or veffel, belonging to the faid James Yard, called the William Lindfey, and brought her into Port de Paix, (in the dominions of the French Republic) where ihe ftill remains, andalfo alledging and articulating:', that the faid corvette or veffel, called tbe CaJJius, was originally equipped and fitted for war, in the-port of Philadelphia, in the United States, and that the faid Samuel B. Davis, was, at the time of the faid capture, and now is, a citizen of the United St'ates, without this, however, and. the faid James Yard, not in any manner alledging or articulating, that the faid capture was made within the -territory, rivers or bays of the United States, or within a marine league of the coaft thereof, or that the faid corvette or .veffel, the CaJJius,- was fo fitted.br. equipped for war, in the United States, by the faid French Republic, her agent or agents, with their knowledge, or by their means or procurement, or by the faid- Sarnúd B. Davis, or that at the time of her being fo equipped, or fitted for war'in the United States, (if ever there, ihe was fo, in any manner fitted or equipped) fhe was the property of the faid French Republic, or that the faid 'Samuel B. Davis was, in any manner, in the/faid equipment or fitting for war, concerned; and, without this alfo, and the-faid James Yard,, not in any manner al-ledging, that the laid -Samuel B» Davis was retaineo, ,or engaged in the ferviceof the French Republic, within the territory or jurifdidtion of the United 'States—And the laid' James Yard, him,- the faid Samuel B, Davis, and the faid corvette or veffel of war, called the CaJJius., by force pf the prócefs aforefaid, out of the faid Diftridt Court, had and obtained, as'aforefaid, ftill wrongfully detains, and the faid Samuel B. Davis, and the French Republic, owner of the faid corvette or veflel of war, thereupon, in the faid Diftridt Court to anfwer, and in the premiles caufe to be condemned, with, all his power endea-vours, and daily contrives, in contempt of the government of ths United States, againft the laws of nations, the treaties fub-ftfting between the United States and the French Republic, and againft the laws and cuftoms of the United States, to the manifeft violation of the faid laws of nations, and treaties, and to the manifeft difturbance of the peace and harmony, happily fabftfting between the United States and the faid French• Republic—and this he is ready to verify. Wherefore, the faid Samuel B. Davis, the aid of this honorable court, rnoit ref-pedtfully requefting, prays remedy, by a writ of prohibition, to be iffued out of this honorable court, to the faid Judge, of the Diftridt Court of the United States, in and for the Diftridt of Pennfylvania, to be diredted to prohibit him from holding-the plea aforefaid, the premifes aforefaid any wife concerning, farther before him. Morgan. Samuel B. Davis, being duly sworn, on his oath, doth say, that all and singular, the facts, by him in this suggestion Stated, are true. S. B. Davis. Sworn in open Court, 7 August 22d. 1795. I. Wagner. D. C. Sup, Ct. U. S.” The motion for the prohibition was supported by Ingersoll Du Ponceau and Dallas, and opposed by Tilghman and Lewis: And the controversy, turned principally, upon this point—Whether the District Court could sustain a libel for damages, in the case of a capture, as prize, made by a belligerent power, on the high feas, when the vessel captured was not brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, but carried, for adjudication infra præfidia of the captors ? Dallas, in opening the argument for the prohibition, contended, 1st. That a prohibition will lie in this cafe;—2d. That on the face of the libel, it was evident, that the District Court had no jurisdiction-;—3d. That on the facts disclosed in suggestion the District Court ought not to be allowed to take jurisdiction;—and 4th. That the allegations of the libel itself, would not support the proceedings below. I. A prohibition will lie in this case. The three great objects of the judicial power are an authority—1st to administer justice; 2d. to compel the unwilling, or negligent, magistrate, to perform his duty; and 3d. to restrain the ministers of justice within the regular boundaries of their respective jurisdictions. The judicial power is, therefore, either abstract or relatives in the former character, the court, for itself, declares the law and distributes justice; in the latter, it superintends and controuls the conduct of other tribunals, by a prohibitory or mandatory, interposition. This superintending authority has been deposited in the Supreme Court, by the Federal Constitution ; and it becomes a duty to exercise it upon every proper, occasion. The writ of prohibition is said, indeed, by the English books, to be grantable ex debito justice. 1 Sir T. Raym. 3. 4. and, it is certain, that the Constitution and laws of the Union fix no limitation to the exercise of the power of this court upon the subject, but, by way of implication, that it shall be warranted by the principles and usages of law. Judicial Act, S. 13. The principles and usages of law, warrant, that a prohibition shall issue—1st where the cause does not originally belong to the inferior Court; and 2d. where the collateral matter arising from the cause is not within the jurisdiction of the inferior Court. Nor does the writ issue merely to forbid, proceeding in such cases as belong to the common law court ; for, it equally issues to forbid proceeding in cases that do not belong to the inferior Court, though the courts at common law can give no remedy. Woods, Inst. 570. F. N. B. 106. T. 1 Wood. 142; There is, however, some diversity, whether a prohibition will issue to an Admiralty Court, till sentence; but this clearly arises on cases originally within the jurisdiction of the court; for, in Admiralty, as well as in ecclesiastical courts, if it appears on, the face of the proceedings, that there is no jurisdiction, the court will not permit an attempt to exercise one. 3 Burr. 1922. II. On the face of the libel, it is evident, that the District Court has no jurisdiction. The promonent facts are, that the vessel was taken as prize, carried infra prasidia of the captor, and, at this time, actually remains there. There is no trespass Stated distinct from the capture as prize, and this is not a question of restitution, since the vessel is not within our jurisdiction; Besides, from the very nature of things, the question of damages must be determined by the same tribunal, that determines the question of prize: it is an incident, and whoever takes cognizance of the principal question, must likewise take cognizance of that. In the French Court of Admiralty, the captor and the captured, will stand on a fair and equal footing;—the one, to shew the grounds of condemnation, or, at least, of justifiable suspicion for searching, and, seizing a neutral vessel;—the other, to repel the allegation, to obtain restitution, and to recover damages. By the law of nations, the right of judging is vested in the courts of the captor; the principles of justice enforce the rule in the present instance; for, all the witnesses and documents are with the prize. If, then, the courts of the captor have a right to decide the question of prize, and their decision is binding on all the world, can damages be obtained here, when condemnation has been, or may be, decreed there ? In the Silesia case, the British Lawyers remonstrated against the appointment of a Prussian court of commissioners, to re-examine and re-judge the sentences of their admiralty. Collect. Jurid. Let the facts be as they may, the sentence of the French court must be conclusive. Thus, where an Englishman’s vessel was taken by a French privateer, England and France being at peace, and condemed as Dutch property, the court would not examine into the sentence. Sir T. Raym. 473. 1 Dall. Rep. 78. The very statement in the libel, establishes the presumption that the vessel captured was carried into Port de Paix, for legal adjudication; and if justice requires, she will not only be restored, but damages will be there awarded. Where the cause of prohibition appears on the face of the libel, it need not be pleaded below. 2 Salk. 551. III. On the facts disclosed in the suggestion, the District Court ought not to be allowed to take jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States might have rendered the individual States, nay, the Union itself, amenable as defendants af the suit of individuals; but it could not, in that way, bind other sovereign nations, not parties to the compact. Even, indeed, with respect to the States, the language of the proposed amendment, is, that " the judicial power of the Untied States should not be construed to extend to any suit, &c.” by individuals against a State; which furnishes, at least, a legislative opinion of the exemption of sovereigns from such process. But the law of nations is express on the subject. Vatt. b. c. f. p, and Pennsylvania has heretofore judicially recognized the doctrine. 1 Dall. Rep. The Cassius being then the property of a sovereign and independent nation, cannot be attached for any supposed delinquency of her commander, committed on the high seas: it would be making public property responsible for private wrongs. What would be the consequence of an acquiescence in the jurisdiction now set up? Every privateer, every national vessel of war, would be liable to seizure at the instance of every individual, who pretended he was injured. Could the American citizens, who have suffered by spoliation, seize the British frigates, or privateers, upon their entrance into our port ? Could Captain Bliss, whose pilot boat was seized, land rifled of the public papers of the French Minister, within the waters of the United States, attack the Africa, or arrest Captain Holme, who had perpetrated the outrage? The abuse of a public trust is cause of complaint to the Government of the offending party; but to retaliate by seizure, without first demanding redress, is contrary to the general rights and laws of nations, as well as contrary to the existing treaty between the United States and France. IV. The allegations of the libel itself cannot support the proceeding, 1st It is alledged, that the captured vessel was neutral property: but this is a fact to be proved in the French Admiralty; for, the neutral vessel might be carrying contraband articles to an enemy of the captor;—She might be failing to a blockaded port;—She might have defective papers;—or the might act in a suspicious and ambiguous manner. In any of these cases the right of search, and carrying into port for further examination, may be exercised by abelligerent power:—they are subjects for the confideration of the court of the captor, but they give no jurisdiction here.—2nd It is alledged that the Captain of the Corvette was in fact an American Citizen: but, it is answered, that there is no proof of the allegation; and even, if proved, a Citizen of the United States may expatriate himself; and, afterwards, in a foreign country, enter into a foreign service. It is true, that some of our treaties abandon him to be punished as a traitor; and that the fact might be examined here, with a view to punish him personally, for any infraction of our laws ; but it is not a matter that can give jurisdiction to our Courts, on the question of prize, or no prize.—3d. It is alledged that the Cassius was illegally outfitted in the United States ; but it is answered, that there is no allegation, either that she was illegally outfitted by the Captain, or after she had become the property of the French Republic. An illegal outfit is a positive offence, highly penal;—every man will be presumed innocent of it, till the contrary is proved. In ordinary cases, where there is a sale in market overt, no man is entitled to restitution till conviction ; nor can there sooner be a forfeiture of an illegally outfitted vessel." But, it is conclusive, that the libel filed in this case, is not for the forfeiture, under the act of Congress, of June 1794; but for damages, in consequence of the capture as prize, which can only be given by the court having cognizance of that question. Any other interpretation of the law would be attended with intolerable inconveniences. Every owner, freighter, master, seaman, of a vessel taken as prize, might sue the Captor in every Court of every Country. No precedent of such a proceeding exists ; and the universal silence on this subject, amounts to a denial of its legality. The adverse Counsel flopped Dallas, and mentioned, that they had just received, but had not had time to examine, some French papers from Port de Paix which, they believed, would shew, that the Court of Admiralty there, had actually taken cognizance of, and decided upon the cafe ; and, they said, that if such was the fact, they would voluntarily withdraw, the Libel. An adjournment till the evening took place, in afford an opportunity for examining the papers referred to; but the translations not being complete, at the meeting of the Court, and the Judges declaring their intention to break up, sine die, the next morning, a defultory argument enfued, in the course of which the motion for the Prohibition was opposed on three grounds—1st. That the District Court had jurisdiction— 2d. That even if that point were doubtful, the Prohibition ought not to issue till after sentence—and, 3dly; That on a, plea to the jurisdiction, the party injured by the sentence, might have an adequate remedy on appeal. In support of these positions, were cited, I. Sid. 320. Thos. Raym. Vent. 173. Carth. Hard. 406. Skin. 20. Holt. The Judges intimated, that they would again adjourn, in order to give a further opportunity to consider the expediency of withdrawing the Libel ; but no compromise having taken place, on the 24th of August, the Chief Justice, delivered their opinion : [MAJORITY — By the Court] By the Court :—We have consulted together on this motion ; and, though a difference of sentiment exists, a majority of the Court are clearly of opinion, that the motion ought to be granted. Therefore, Let a Prohibition issue; The prohibition issued, accordingly, in the following form: " United States, SS. THEPREsiDENToftheÜNiTED States to the honorable Richard Peters, Efquire, Judge of the Diftridt Court of the United States, in and for the Pennfylvania. diftridt:, It is ihewn to the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United Statesj by Samuel B. Davis, That whereas by the laws of nations, and the treaties fubfifting between the United States and the Republic of France-, the trial of .prizes taken on the high feas, without the territorial limits and jurifdidtion of the United States, and brought within the dominions' and jurifdidtion of the faid Republic, for legal adjudication," by veffels of war belonging to the fovereignty of the faid' Republic, adting. under the f&me, and of all qiieftions incidental thereto, does of fight,' and exclufively, belong to the tribunals and judiciary eftabliih-ments of the faid Republic,, and to no' other tribunal, or tribunals, court, or. courts, whatfoever’: And whereas by the faid law of nations, and treaties aforefaid, the veflcls of war belonging to the faid French Republic, and .the .officers commanding' the fame, cannot, and ought not, to be arrefted, ' feized, • attached, or detained, in the ports of the United States, by procefs of law, at the fuit or injiance .of individuals, to an-fwer for any capture or captures, feizure or fe.izures, made on the high feas, and brought for legal adjudication into the ports of the French Republic, by the faid veffsfs of war, while belonging to, and adding under the authority and in the immediate fervice of the faid Republic : And whereas bythe laws arid treaties aforefáid, the Diftrift Courts of the United States have not, and ought not, to entertain jurifdicnon or hold plea cf fuen captures, made as aforefnid, under the Aove circum-ftances: And whereas by the laws of nations, the veffels of war of belligerent powers, duly by them authorized, to cruize againft their enemies, and to make-prize cf their ftups and goods, may, in time of war, arreft and feize the veiTels belonging to the fubjefts or citizens of neutral nations, and bring them into the ports of the fovereign under whofe com tnifficn and authority they aft, there to anfwer for any breaches of the laws pf nations, concerning the navigation of neutral ihips, in time of war; and the faid veffels of war,, their-commanders, officers and crews, are not amenable before the tribunals of neutral powers for their conduft therein, but are only anfwerable to the- fovereign in whole immediate fervice they were, and from whom they derived their authority: And whereas, on or before-the twentieth day of May", now laft paft, the faid Samuel B. Davis, was, and now is, a Lieutenant of fhips in the navy of the faid French Republic,' and commander of a corvette, or veffel of war, called, the Cajfms, then, <fhd now, the property of the faid Republic, and in her immediate fer-vice ; and on the faid twentieth day of May, was duly com-rniffioned, by and under the Authority of théTaid Republic, to cruize againft her energies, and make prize of their iliips (as by his commiffion and the certificate of the minifter plenipp-ientiaiy of the laid Repuhlife to the United States, to the court fhewn, more fully appears) Nev-erthelefs a certain James Tara, of the city of Philadelphia,merchant, not ignorant of the pre-mifes, but-contriving and intending to difturb the peace and harmony fubfiftlng between the United States and the French Republic, and him, the faid Samuel B. Davis, wrongfully to aggrieve and opprefs,.and draw to another proof, him, the’ faid Samuel B.'Davis, and the faid corvette, or-veflel of war, of the French Republic, the Caffius, in the pofit of Philadelphia, under the protection'of the laws of nations, and-of the faith' of treaties, has, by procefs out ef the Diftricl Court of the United States, in and for the ‘Diftrift of PennfyLvania, attached and a’r-refted him, the faid Samuel B; JDayisi and'the {-¿dá-corvette, or veffel of war, the Gajjius, before the judge .of the faid Diftrift Court* contrary to the faid law, of nations, and treaties, and against the due form of the laws of the United States, hath unjustly drawn in plea, to answer to a certain libel, by him, the said James Yard, against him, the said Samuel B. Davis, and against the said corvette, of vessel of war, the Cassius, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, exhibited and promoted, craftily and subtilly therein alledging, articulating, and objecting, that on the said twentieth day of May, now last past, the said Samuel B. Davis, then commander of the said corvette, or vessel, the Cassius did, forcibly, violently, and tortiously, take on the high feas, a certain Schooner, or vessel, belonging to the said James Yard, called the William Lindfey, and brought her into Port de Paix, (in the dominion of the French Republic) where she still remains; and also alledging and articulating, that the said corvette, or vessel called the Cassius, was originally equipped and fitted for war, in the port of Philadelphia, in the United States, and that the said Samuel B. Davis, was at the time of the said capture, and now is, a citizen of the United States : Without this, however, and the said James Yard, not in any manner alledging, or articulating, that the said capture was made, within the territory, rivers, or bays, of the United States, or within a marine league of the coast thereof, or that the said corvettt or vessel, the Cassius, was so fitted or equipped for war in the United States, by the said French Republic, her agent, or agents, with their knowledge, or by the means, or procurement, or by the said Samuel B. Davis, or that at the time of her being so equipped, or fitted for war, in the United States, (if ever there she was so in any manner fitted or equipped) she was the property of the said French Republic, or that the said Samuel B. Davis was in any manner, in the said equipment, or fitting for war, concerned; and without this, also, and the said James Yard, not in any manner alledging, that the said Samuel B. Davis was retained, or engaged, in the service of the French Republic, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States: And that the said James Yard, him, the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette, or vessel of war, called the Cassius, by force of the process aforesaid, out of the said District Court, had and obtained, as aforesaid, still wrongfully detains, and the said Samuel B. Davis, and the French Republic, owner of the said corvette, or vessel of war, there upon in the said District Court to answer, and in the premises, cards to be condemned, with all his power, endeavours, and daily contrives, in contempt of the government of the United States, against the laws of nations and the treaties subsisting between the United States and the French Republic, and against the laws and customs of the United States, to the manifest violation, of the law of nations, and treaties, and to the manifest disturbance of the peace and harmony happily subsisting between the United States and the French Republic: Wherefore the said Samuel B. Davis, the aid of the said Supreme Court most respectfully. requesting, hath prayed remedy by a writ of prohibition, to be issued out of the said Supreme Court, to you to be directed, do prohibit you from holding the plea aforesaid, the premises aforesaid any wise concerning, further before you :— You, therefore, are hereby prohibited, that you no further hold the plea aforesaid, the premises aforesaid in any wise touching, before you, nor any thing in the said District Court attempt, nor procure to be done, which may be in any wise to the prejudice of the said Samuel B. Davis, or the said corvette, or vessel of war; called the Cassius; or in contempt of the laws of the United States: And also, that from all proceedings there on you do, without delay, release the said Samuel B. Davis, and the said corvette, or vessel of war, called the Cassius, at your peril. Witness, the honorable John Rutledge, Esquire, Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court, at Philadelphia, this 24th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, and of the independence of the United States, the twentieth. I. Wagner, D. C, Sup. Ct. U. S. The proceedings on the libel for damages in the District Court, were accordingly superceded ; but an information, Ketland, qui tam &c. was immediately afterwards filed in the Circuit Courts against the Corvette for the illegal out-fit in violation of the act of Congress, and the vessel being thereupon attached, an application was made to Judge Peters, to discharge her on giving security, but the Judge was of opinion, that he had no power as District Judge, to make such an order in a cause depending in the Circuit Court. The French Minister, then deeming (as I have been informed) this prosecution to be a violation of the rights and property of the Republic, delivered a remonstrance to our government; and, converting the judicial enquiry into a matter of State, abandoned the Corvette) and discharged the officers and crew. See 2 val. p. 365. Ketland qui taps vps sus the Cassius.