1820.

U. States

v.

Smith.

The act declares, that any person who shall commit on the high seas the crime of piracy as defined by the

omnes nomines intercedit contra communes societatis humanæ hostes." (10 Bac. Works, 313, 314. edit. 1803.)

Martens, in his Essay on Privateers, Captures and Recaptures, (c. 1. s. 1.) says, " L'armateur differe du Pirate, (1.) Le premier est muni d'une commission ou de lettres de marque du souverain, dont le pirate est destitué. (2.) L'armateur suppose le cas d'une guerre, (ou du moins celui de represailles,) le pirate pille au sein de la paix comme au milieu de la guerre. (3.) L'armateur s'oblige d'observer les ordonnances et les instructions qui lui ont été données, et de n'attaquer qu'en consequence de celles ci de l'ennemi, et ceux des vaisseux neutres qui font un commerce illicite, le pirate pille indistinctement les vaisseaux de toutes les nations, sans observer même les loix de la guerre."

Rutherforth (Inst. b. 2. c. 9. s. 9. p. 481.) speaking with reference to the law of nations, says, "All wars of a nation against its external enemies are not public wars. To make a war a public one, both the coutending parties must be public persons; that is, it must be a war of one nation against another, &c. Where a nation makes war upon pirates or other robbers, though these are external enemies, the war will be a mixed one; it is public on one side, because a nation or public person is one of the parties; but it is private on the other side, because the parties on this side are private persons, who act together occasionally, and are not united into a civil society. A band of robbers or a company of pirates may in fact be united to one another by compact, &c. But they are still, by the law of nature, only a number of unconnected individuals; and consequently, in the view of the law of nations they are not considered as a collective body or public person. For the compact by which they unite themselves is void, because the matter of it is unlawful, &c. &c. The common benefit which a band of robbers or a company of pirates propose to themselves consists in doing harm to the rest of mankind."

law of nations, shall be punished with death. The special power here given to define piracy, can be at

Woodeson, (Lect. 34. vol. 2. 422.) treating on captures at sea, after stating that the law of nations is part of the laws of England, and that captures at sea may happen either by pirates, or by way of reprisal, or as prize of war, says, "Piracy, according to the law of nations, is incurred by depredations on or near the sea, without authority from any prince or State." He then quotes the opinion of Sir Leoline Jenkins with approbation, that it is piracy, not only when a man robs without any commission at all, but when, having a commission, he despoils those with whom he is not warranted to fight or meddle, such as are de legantia vel amicitia of the prince or state which hath given him his commission. He then adds : "But according to the judgments of our domestic tribunals, a bare assault without taking or pillaging something away does not constitute the crime, though Molloy pretends, that by the law of nations it is otherwise. Yet it does not seem necessary that any person should be on board the pillaged vessel." "If these violations of property be perpetrated by any national authority, they are the commencement of a public war; if without that sanction, they are acts of piracy." He then proceeds to state several cases which had arisen in the Admiralty of England, and sums up his remarks as follow: "The foregoing particulars are the more deserving of consideration, because it seems agreed that when a piratical taking is ascertained, it becomes a clear and indisputable consequence that there is no transmutation of property. No right to the spoil vests in the piratical captor; no right is derivable from them to any recaptors in prejudice of the original owners. These piratical seizures being wholly unauthorized, and highly criminal by the law of nations, there is no pretence for devesting the dominion of the former proprietor. This principle, therefore, ' a piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant,' is the received opinion of ancient civilians and more modern writers, on general jurisprudence. The same doctrine was maintained in our Courts of Common Law long antecedent to the great cultivation and improvements made in the science of the law of na Vor. V.

22

1820.

U. States v.

Smith.

1820.

U. States

v.

Smith.

tributed to no other cause, than to the uncertainty which it was known existed on this subject in the

tions. And he remarks in a note, (p. 427. note n.) "I have looked into the indictment against Luke Ryan, tried at the Admiralty Sessions, March, 1782, for piracy, and who is alleged to have had a Dutch commission. He was indicted not for piracy generally by the law of nations, but for that, being a natural born subject, he piratically, &c. against the form of the statute." From the whole scope of Mr. Woodeson's observations on the subject of piracy, it is very clear that he considered piracy, as punishable by the law of the admiralty, to be no other than pi.. racy by the law of nations. The definition of piracy, and Mr. Woodeson's comments are cited with approbation by Mr. Gwillim in his late edition of Bacon's Abridgment. (5 Bac. Abr. 310. edit. 1807. London.)

Burlamaqui (Part. 2. c. 7. s. 41.) says: "Lastly, as to the wars of robbers and pirates, if they do not produce the effects above-mentioned, (transmutation of property on capture,) nor give to those pirates a right of appropriating what they have taken, it is because they are robbers and enemies of mankind, and, consequently, persons whose acts of violence are manifestly unjust, which authorizes all nations to treat them as enemies."

Thus far, the authorities cited are such as profess to treat of piracy in terms according to the law of nations, the notion of which was manifestly derived from the civil law, " on which," as Sir William Scott observes, (The Maria, 1 Rob. 340.) "great part of the law of nations is founded." Indeed, in the law of England, it is treated altogether as a civil law offence, and referred to that law for its definition and punishment. Piracies and depredations at sea, are capital offences by the civil law. (5 Bac. Abr. Piracy, 311. Edit. ubi supra, 3 Inst. 112. Hawk. P. C. c. 37. 2 East, P. C. 796. 4 Bl. Comm. 72.) The commentaries of the common law writers on the subject of piracy will be more fully considered hereafter.

Let us now advert to the definitions of the civil law and maritime writers

law of nations, and which it must have been the intention of the framers of the constitution to remove,

In the Novels (Nov. 134. tit. 17. c. 13.) it is declared, "Pro furto autem nolumus omnino quodlibet membrum abscindi, aut mori; sed aliter eum castigari. Fures autem vocamus qui occulte et sine armis hujusmodi delinquunt. Eos vero, qui violenter aggrediuntur aut cum armis aut sine armis in domibus aut itineribus aut IN MARI poenis eos legalibus subdi jubemus."

Calvinus, in his Lexicon Juridicum, says: "Piratae dicuntur praedatores marini; sic dicti vel a pirata, qui prius maria infestavit, vel a Graeco περανω, id est, transeo, quod conspecta insula in illam transirent, jam praedaturi. Hinc piratica ars est, quam exercent." In the French Code des Prises, (Edition of M. Dufriche Foulaines, Paris, 1804, tom. 1. p. 6.) the editor says: "Le pirate est celui qui parcourt les mers avec une batiment armè sans commission ou patente d'aucune etat, dans la vue exclusive de s'approprier tous les navires par la force. La piraterie est un assassinat; tout puissance doit faire arreter et juger des pareils brigands, et en purger la terre." Emerigon (Assur. tom. 1. c. 12. s. 28. p. 523.) says: "Les Pirates sont ceux qui courent les mers sans commission d'aucun Prince ni Etat souverain pour depreder les vaisseaux qu'ils rencontrent." "Les Ennemis sont ceux, qui autorisés par un prince, on etat souverain font la guerre dans la forme établie par le droit des gens; au lieu que les Pirates sont de simples particuliers qui depredent le premier navire qu'ils recontrent." "Les hostilités se commettent de nation a nation; au lieu que la pisaterie est un brigandage qui s'exerce sur mer par gens sans aveu, et d'une maniere furtive." "Les pirates sont ennemis du genre humain." " La piraterie, on le brigandage sur mer, est un delit contre la loi universelle des societies," &c. And Emerigon fortifies his opinion on this subject, by citations from the civil law, from other maritime writers, and from Blackstone's Commentaries. It is plain, therefore, that he considered piracy as defined in the civil law, the maritime law, and the common law of England, as the same crime.

1820.

U. States

v.

Smith.

1820.

U. States v.

Smith.

by conferring on the national legislature the power which has been mentioned. It was well known to

Bouchard (cited in 1 Emerigon, c. 12. s. 28. p. 527.) " Les pirates n'ont pas le droit des armes. Ce sont des voleurs et assassins, qui ne forme pas un corps d'etat. Ennemis des toutes les nations contre lesquelles ils exercent indistinctement leurs brigandages, toutes les nations sont en droit de courir sus, et de les exterminer sans declaration de guerre."

M. Bonnemant, in his edition of the Chevalier De Habreu's treatise on maritime captures, (edit. 1802, Paris, part. 1. c. 1. s. 5. p. 15. note,) says, " les pirates sont ceux dont la navigation, les actions et les entreprises ne sont autorisées ni avoneés par aucune puissance, qui agissent sur la propriété publique et particulière contre le vœu de toutes les nations." And De Habreu himself (as translated by M. Bonnemant, Part 2. c. 6. s. 1. p. 100, 101.) says, " Selon la définition de la prise, il paroît que le droit d'armer en course n'appartient qu'à ceux qui sont ennemis autorisés, appellés, en Latin, hostes. D'ou il s'ensuit que les brigands et les pirates sont exclus de ce droit; qu'ils ne peuvent prétendre aux privilèges que les loix de la guerre accorde aux ennemis, et qu'au contraire ils méritent d'être punis rigoureusement comme les malfaiteurs, et qu'on est autorisé à se saisir de tous leurs biens." "De tous les tems les pirates ont été regardés comme des voleurs publics et des perturbateurs de la paix. C'est pour cela qu'il est libre à quiconque s'en saisit de leur ôter la vie sans se rendre coupable d'injustice. La prejudice qu'ils causent à la tranquillité publique, á la liberté du commerce, et à la sûreté de la navigation, a fait que toutes les nations se sont accordées à les poursuivre et à les punir avec la plus grande rigueur."

Ferriere (Dict. du Droit. art. Pirates) says, "Pirates sont des corsaires, ecumeurs de mer, qui font des courses sur mer sans aveu ni autorité du Prince ou du Souverain."

In the Encyclopedie des Sciences, &c. (Edit. 1765, art. Pirate,) it is said, "On donne ce nom (Pirate) à des bandits, qui