1820. v. Smith. prisoner is guilty of piracy. We are of a different opinion. The special verdict finds that the prisoner U. States is guilty of the plunder and robbery charged in the indictment; and finds certain additional facts from which it is most manifest that he and his associates were, at the time of committing the offence, freebooters upon the sea, not under the acknowledged authority, or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. If, under such circumstances, the offence be not piracy, it is difficult to conceive any which would more completely fit the definition. It is to be certified to the Circuit Court, that upon the facts stated, the case is piracy, as defined by the law of nations, so as to be punishable under the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1819." a To show that piracy is defined by the law of nations, the following citations are believed to be sufficient : Grotius (lib. 3. c. 3. s. 1.) says, "Supra dicere incepimus jus tum bellum apud probos auctores dici saepe, non ex causa unde oritur, neque ut alias ex rerum gestarum magnitudine, sed ob peculiares quosdam juris effectus. Quale autem sit hoc bellum optime intelligitur ex hostium definitione apud Romanos jurisconsultos: Hostes sunt, qui nobis, aut quibus nos publice bellum decernimus; cæteri LATRrones aut præDONES sunt, ait Pomponius (Dig. Lib. 50. tit. 16. l. 118.) nec aliter Ulpianus, (Dig. lib. 49. tir. 15. 1. 24.) hostes sunt, quibus bellum publice populus Romanus decrevit, vel ipsi populo Romano ; cæteri LATRUNCULI vel PRÆDONES appellantur. Et ideo, qui à latronibus captus est servus latronum non est, nec postliminium illi, necessarium est. Ab hostibus dutem captus; puta à Germanis et Parthis et servus est hostium, et postliminio statum pristinum recuperat. Et Paulus, (Dig. lib. 49. tit. 15. l. 19. s. 2.) A piratis aut latronibus capti liberi permanent. Accedat illud Ulpiani; in civilibus dissentionibus quamvis sæpe per eas respublica lædatur, non ta 1820. U. States v. Smith. Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON dissented. In a case affecting life, no apology can be necessary for expres men in exitium reipublicæ contenditur; qui in alterutras partes discedent, vice hostium non sunt eorum, inter quos jura captivitatum aut postliminiorum fuerint; et ideo captos, et venundatos, posteaque manumissos placuit supervacuo repetere a principe ingenuitatem, quam nulla captivitate amiserant. (Dig. lib. 49. tit. 15. 1. 321. s. 2.") Grotius adds, (s. 2.) " Illud tantum notandum, sub exemplo populi Romani quemvis intelligi, qui in civitate summum imperium habeat." Again, he says, (s. 2.) " Non autem statim respublica aut civitas esse desinit, si quid admittat injustum, etiam communiter; nec coetus piratarum aut Latronum civitas est, etiamsi forte æqualitatem quandam inter se servent, sine qua nullus coetus posset consistere. Nam hi criminis causa sociantur; illi etsi interdum delicto non vacant juris tamen fruendi causa sociati sunt, et exteris jus reddunt, si non per omnia secundum jus naturæ, quod multos apud populos ex parte quasi obliteratum alibi ostendimus, certe secundum pacta cum quibus que inita, aut secundum mores." Again, he says, (s. 2.) " A latronibus captos capientium non fieri, supra dicentem audivimus Ulpianum. Idem captos à Germanos ait libertatem amittere. Atqui apud Germanos latrocinia, quæ extra civitatis cujusque fines fiebant, nullam habebant infamiam, quæ verba sunt Cæsaris, etc. Idem alibi Cattos nobilem Germaniæ populum latrocinia agitasse dicit. Apud eundem Garamantes latrociniis facunda gens; sed gens tamen. Illyrici sine discrimine maris proedas agere soliti; de iis tamen triumphus fuit; Pompeio de piratis non fuit. Tantum discrimen est inter populum quantumvis sceleratum et inter eos, qui, cum populus non sint, sceleris causa coïunt." Again, he says, (lib. 3. c. 9. s. 16.) " Eae vexo res quæ intra presidia perductæ nondum sunt, quanquam ab hostibus occupatæ, ideo postliminii non egent, quia dominum nondum mutarunt, ex gentium jure. Et quæ piratæ aut latrones nobis eripuerunt non opus habent postliminis, ut Ulpianus et Javolenus sing my dissent from the opinion which has just been 1820. delivered. responderunt; quia jus gentium illis non concessit ut jus domini mutare possint, &c. Itaque res ab illis captæ ubicunque reperiunter vindicari possunt, nisi quod ex naturali jure alibi censuimus ei qui suo sumtu possessionem rei adeptus est tantum esse reddendum, quantum dominus ipse ad rem recuperandam libenter impensurus fuerat." And (id. s. 17.) " Potest tamen lege civili aliud constitui; sicuti lege Hispanica naves a piratis captæ eorum fiunt, qui eas eripiunt piratis; neque enim iniquum est, ut privata res publicæ utilitati cedat, presertim in tanta recuperandi difficultate. Sed lex talis non obstabit exteris, quo minus res suas vindicent." Again; he says, (lib. 2. c. 17. s. 20.) "Ex neglectu tenuntur reges ac magistratus, qui ad inhibenda latrocinia et piraticam non adhibent ea quae possunt ac debent remedia; quo nomine damnati olim ab Amphictionibus Scyrii. Quae potestatem predarum in maris ex hoste agendarum per codicillos plurimis dedissent, et eorum nonnulli res amicorum rapuissent, desertaque patriae mari vagarentur ac ne revocati quidem redirent, an rectores eo nomine tenerentur, aut quod malorum hominum usiessent opera, aut quod cautionem non exigissent. Dixi eos in nihil amplius teneri, quam ut noxios, si reperiri possent, punirent, aut dederent; praeterea in bona raptorum jus reddi curarent." Again; he says, (Id. c. 18. s. 2, 3.) "Piratae et latrones qui civitatem non faciunt, jure gentium niti non possunt, &c. Sed interdum tales qui sunt jus legationis nanciscuntur fide data, ut olim fugitivi in saltu Pyrenaeo." Again; (lib. 3. c. 13. s. 15.) " Repudiandus ergo Cicero (De Offic. lib. 3. cap. 29.) cum ait perjurium nullum esse predonibus pactum pro capite pretium non adservatur, nec si juratum quidem sit; quia pirata non sit ex perduellium numero desinitus, sed communis hostis omnium, eum quo nec fides esse debeat, nec jus jurandum commune, &c. Atque sicut in jure gentium constituto differe hostem a pirata verum est, et a nobis infra estendetur; ita hic ea differentia locum habere non potest, U. States v. Smith. 1820. U. States v. Smith. The only question of any importance in this case is, whether the act of the 3d of March, 1819, be a ubi, etsi personae jus deficiat cum Deo negotium est; qua de causa juramentum voti nomine nuncupatur. Neque id quod sumit Cicero verum est, nullum esse cum praedone juris societatem. Nam depositum ex ipso gentium jure reddendum latroni, si dominus non apparet recte Tryphonino responsum est." These passages abundantly show the opinion of Grotius, that piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the civil law; and though he no where defines the crime, in precise terms, yet there seems to be no doubt as to what he understood to be comprehended in that crime. Piratae, latrones, pradones, are used to denote the same class of offenders; the first term being generally applied to robbers or plunderers on the sea, and the others to robbers or plunderers on land. The terms are, indeed, convertible in many instances in the civil law. Thus, in the title, De Lege Rhodia de Jactu, (Dig. lib. 14. tit. 2. s. 3.) it is said, " Si navis a piratis redempta sit, Servius, Osilius, Labeo, omnes conferre debere aiunt. Quod vero praedones abstulerint, cum perdere cujus fuerit, nec conferendum ei qui suas merces redimerit." Bynkershoek, (Quest. Jur. Pub. lib. c. 17.) treating on the subject of piracy, says, "interest scire qui piratae ac latrones sunt, nam ab his capta dominium non mutant neque adeo postliminio egent. Sic docet ratio; sic auctoritas juris in l. 19. s. 2. 1. 24. and l. 27. de Capt. et Postlim. rev. (Dig. lib. 49. tit. 15.) et sic ex pactis quarandam gentium supra probavi. Non est igitur ut addam auctoritates Grotii de Jure B. et. P. l. 3. c. 9. s. 16. Alberici Gentilis de jure belli lib. 1. c. 4. Zoucheii de Jure feciali, p. 2. s. 8. qu. 15., aliorumque plurium in eandem sententiam. Qui autem nullius principis auctoritate sive mari sive terra, RAPIUNT, PIRATARUM PRAEDONUMQUE vocabulo intelliguntur." Azuni (Part 2. c. 5. s. 3) says, "A pirate is one who roves the sea in an armed vessel without any commission or passport from any prince or sovereign state, solely on his own authority, constitutional exercise of the power delegated to Congress of " defining and punishing piracies?" and for the purpose of seizing by force, and appropriating to himself without discrimination, every vessel he may meet. For this reason pirates have always been compared to robbers. The only difference between them is, that the sea is the theatre of action for the one, and the land for the other." (s. 11.) "Thus, as pirates are the enemies of the human race, piracy is justly regarded as a crime against the universal laws of society, and is every where punished with death. As they form no national body, as they have no right to arm, nor make war, and on account of their indiscriminate plunder of all vessels are considered only as public robbers, every nation has a right to pursue, and exterminate them, without any declaration of war. For these reasons it is lawful to arrest them, in order that they may undergo the punishment merited by their crimes." (s. 12.) " Pirates having no right to make conquests, cannot, therefore, acquire any lawful property in what they take; for the law of nations does not authorize them to deprive the true owner of his property, who always retains the right of reclaiming it wherever it may be found. Thus, by the principles of common law, as well as the law of nature, at whatever period, or in whatever manner, things taken by a pirate may be recovered, they return again to their former owners, who lose none of their rights by such unjust usurpation." (See Azuni, part. 2. c. 5. art. 3. p. 351.361. Mr. Johnson's translation.) Lord Bacon, in his dialogue De Bello Sacro says, "Indubitatum semper fuit, bellum contra piratas juste geri posse per nationem quamcumque, licet ab iis minime infestatam et læsam, &c. &c. Vera enim causa hujus rei haec est, quod piratæ communes humani generis hostes sint; quos idcirco omnibus nationibus persequi incumbit, non tam propter metus proprios quam respectu fœderis inter homines sociales. Sicut enim quædam sunt fœdera inscriptis et in tractatus redacta contra hostes particulares inita; ita naturalis et tacita confederatio inter 1820. U. States v. Smith. |