་ High Court of Admiralty of England), on international law, he observes, after stating the principles that govern the sale of enemies' ships, during war, to neutrals: But the right of purchase by neutrals extends only to merchant ships of enemies, for the purchase of ships of war belonging to enemies is held invalid.' And Mr. T. Pemberton Leigh, in delivering judgment of the judicial committee and lords of the privy council, in the case of The Baltica,2 observes: 'A neutral, while war is imminent, or after it has commenced, is at liberty to purchase either goods or ships (not being ships of war), from either belligerent, and the purchase is valid, whether the subject of it be lying in a neutral port or in an enemy's port.' Mr. Justice Story lays down the same distinction in his Notes on the Principles and Practice of Prize Courts,' a work that has been selected by the British government for the use of its naval officers, as the best code of instruction in the prize law. The same principle is found | in p. 42 Wildman on International Rights in Time of War, a valuable English work published in 1850, and in a still more recent work, Hosack on the Rights of British and Neutral Commerce, published in London in 1854, this question is referred to in connection with sales of several Russian ships of war, which it was said had been sold in the ports of the Mediterranean to neutral purchasers, for the supposed purpose of defeating the belligerent rights of her enemies in the Crimean war, and he very naturally concludes, from the case of The Minerva, that no doubt could exist as to what would be the decision in case of a seizure.3 This work was published before the judgment of the privy council in the case of The Baltica, which was a Russian vessel, sold imminente bello; being, however, a merchant ship, the purchase was upheld; but, as we have seen from the opinion in that case, if it had been a ship of war it would have been condemned.4 It has been suggested that, admitting the rule of law as above stated, the purchase should still be upheld, as the Georgia, in her then condition, was not a vessel of war, but had been dismantled, and all guns and munitions of war removed; that she was purchased as a merchant vessel, and fitted up, bonâ fide, for the merchant service. But the answer to the suggestion is, that if this change in the equipment in the neutral port, and in the contemplated employment in future of the vessel, could have the effect to take her out of the rule, and justify the purchase, it would always be in the power of the belligerent to evade it, and render futile the reasons on which it is founded. The rule is founded on the propriety and justice. of taking away from the belligerent, not only the power of rescuing his vessel from pressure and impending peril of capture, by escaping into a neutral port, but also to take away the facility which would otherwise 1 Page 63, Pratt's London edition. * See 11th Moore's Privy Council, 145. 3 Page 82, note. See also Lawrence's Wheaton, note 182, p. 561, and The Etta, before Field, United States district judge of New Jersey. exist, by a collusive or even actual sale, of again rejoining the naval force of the enemy. The removed armament of a vessel, built for war, can be p. 43 readily replaced, | and so can every other change be made, or equipment furnished for effective and immediate service. The Georgia may be instanced in part illustration of this truth. Her deck remained the same, from which the pivot guns and others had been taken; it had been built originally strong, in order to sustain the war armament, and further strengthened by uprights and stanchions beneath. The claimant states that the alterations, repairs, and outfit of the vessel for the merchant service, cost some £3000. Probably an equal sum would have again fitted her for the replacement of her original armament as a man of war. P. 44 The distinction between the purchase of vessels of war from the belligerent, in time of war, by neutrals, in a neutral port, and of merchant vessels, is founded on reason and justice. It prevents the abuse of the neutral by partiality towards either belligerent, when the vessels of the one are under pressure from the vessels of the others, and removes the temptation to collusive or even actual sales, under the cover of which they may find their way back again into the service of the enemy. That the Georgia, in the present case, entered the port of Liverpool to escape from the vessels of the United States in pursuit, is manifest. The steam frigates Kearsarge, Niagara, and Sacramento were cruising off the coast of France and in the British Channel, in search of this vessel and others that had become notorious for their depredations on American commerce. It was but a few days after the purchase of the Georgia by the claimant, the Alabama was captured in the Channel, after a short and brilliant action, by the Kearsarge. The Georgia was watched from the time she entered the port of Liverpool, and was seized as soon as she left it. The question in this case cannot arise under the French code, as, according to that law, sales even of merchant vessels to a neutral, flagrante bello, are forbidden. And it is understood that the same rule prevails in Russia. Their law, in this respect, differs from the established English and American adjudications on this subject. It may not be inappropriate to remark, that Lord Russell | advised Mr. Adams, on the day the Georgia left Liverpool under the charterparty to the Portuguese government, August 8th, 1864, her Majesty's government had given directions that, 'In future, no ship of war, of either belligerent, shall be allowed to be brought into any of her Majesty's ports for the purpose of being dismantled or sold.' DECREE AFFIRMED. The Siren. (7 Wallace, 152) 1868. A claim for damages exists against a vessel of the United States guilty of a maritime tort, as much as if the offending vessel belonged to a private citizen. And although, for reasons of public policy, the claim cannot be enforced by direct proceedings against the vessel, yet it will be enforced, by the courts, whenever the property itself, upon which the claim exists, becomes, through the affirmative action of the United States, subject to their jurisdiction and control. The government, in such a case, stands, with reference to the rights of the defendants or claimants, as do private suitors, except that it is exempt from costs, and from affirmative relief against it, beyond the demand or property in controversy. 2. By the admiralty law, all maritime claims upon the vessel extend equally to the proceeds arising from its sale, and are to be satisfied out of them. These principles were thus applied : A prize ship, in charge of a prize master and crew, on her way from the place of capture to the port of adjudication, committed a maritime tort by running into and sinking another vessel. Upon the libel of the government, the ship was condemned as lawful prize, and sold, and the proceeds paid into the registry. The owners of the sunken vessel, and the owners of her cargo, thereupon intervened by petition, asserting a claim upon the proceeds for the damages sustained by the collision: Held, that they were entitled to have their damages assessed and paid out of the proceeds before distribution to the captors. 3. The District Court of the United States, sitting as a prize court, may hear and determine all questions respecting claims arising after the capture of the vessel. APPEAL from the District Court for Massachusetts. The steamer Siren was captured in the harbor of Charleston in attempting to violate the blockade of that port, in February, 1865, by the steamer Gladiolus, belonging to the navy of the United States. She was placed in charge of a prize master and crew, and ordered to the port of Boston | for p. 153 adjudication. On her way she was obliged to put into the port of New York for coal, and, in proceeding thence through the narrow passage which leads to Long Island Sound, known as Hurlgate, she ran into and sank the sloop Harper, loaded with iron, and bound from New York to Providence, Rhode Island. The collision was regarded by this court, on the evidence, as the fault of the Siren. On the arrival of the steamer at Boston, a libel in prize was filed against her, and no claim having been presented, she was, in April following, condemned as lawful prize, and sold. The proceeds of the sale were deposited with the assistant treasurer of the United States, in compliance with the act of Congress, where they now remain, subject to the order of the court. In these proceedings the owners of the sloop Harper, and the owners of her cargo, intervened by petition, asserting a claim upon the vessel and her proceeds, for the damages sustained by the collision, and praying that their claim might be allowed and paid out of the proceeds. P. 154 The District Court held that the intervention could not be allowed, and dismissed the petition; and hence the present appeals. Mr. Ashton, Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, argued the case fully, upon principles and authority, maintaining the correctness of the decree below upon several specific grounds, resolvable into these two general ones: Ist. That to allow the intervention would be, in substance, to allow the citizen to implead the government, which, he asserted, was universally repugnant to settled principles; and, 2d. That the question as to a claim upon a prize ship, created after capture, was not within the jurisdiction of a prize court, which, he contended, can deal only with the question of prize or no prize. Mr. Causten Browne, contra. Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. It is a familiar doctrine of the common law, that the | sovereign cannot be sued in his own courts without his consent. The doctrine rests upon reasons of public policy; the inconvenience and danger which would follow from any different rule. It is obvious that the public service would be hindered, and the public safety endangered, if the supreme authority could be subjected to suit at the instance of every citizen, and consequently controlled in the use and disposition of the means required for the proper administration of the government. The exemption from direct suit is, therefore, without exception. This doctrine of the common law is equally applicable to the supreme authority of the nation, the United States. They cannot be subjected to legal proceedings at law or in equity without their consent; and whoever institutes such proceedings must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress. Such is the language of this court in United States v. Clarke.1 The same exemption from judicial process extends to the property of the United States, and for the same reasons. As justly observed by the learned judge who tried this case, there is no distinction between suits against the government directly, and suits against its property. But although direct suits cannot be maintained against the United States, or against their property, yet, when the United States institute a suit, they waive their exemption so far as to allow a presentation by the defendant of set-offs, legal and equitable, to the extent of the demand made or property claimed, and when they proceed in rem, they open to consideration all claims and equities in regard to the property libelled. They then stand in such proceedings, with reference to the rights of defendants or claimants, precisely as private suitors, except that they are exempt from costs and from affirmative relief against them, beyond the demand or property in controversy. In United States v. Ringgold,2 a claim of the defendant was allowed as a set-off to the demand of the government. 'No direct suit,' said the court, can be maintained against the United For the damages occasioned by collision of vessels at sea a claim is In England, when the damage is inflicted by a vessel belonging to the crown, it was formerly held that the remedy must be sought against the officer in command of the offending ship. But the present practice is to file a libel in rem, upon which the court directs the registrar to write to the lords of the admiralty requesting an appearance on behalf of the crownwhich is generally given—when the subsequent proceedings to decree are conducted as in other cases. In the case of The Athol, the court refused to issue a monition to the lords of the admiralty to appear in a suit for damage by collision, occasioned to a vessel by a ship of the crown; but p. 156 the lords having subsequently directed an appearance to be entered, the court proceeded with the case, and awarded damages. As no warrant issues in these cases for the arrest of the vessels of the crown, and no bail is given on the appearance, it is insisted that they are brought simply to ascertain the extent of the damages, and that the decrees are little more than awards, so far as the government is concerned. This may be the only result of the suits, but they are instituted and conducted on the hypothesis that claims against the offending vessels are created by the collision." The vessels are not arrested and taken into custody by the marshal, for 2 Coote's New Admiralty Practice, 31. 17 Peters, 16. 3 1 W. Robinson, 382. The Clara, I Swabey, 3; and the Swallow, Ib. 30. |