Prize Cases - Further Readings
Petitioners
Owners of four ships as claimants: Hiawatha, Crenshaw, Amy Warwick, and Brilliante
Respondent
United States
Petitioners' Claim
That the seizure of these ships for violation of blockade was illegal, because the war was a civil war, not an international war.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Charles Edwards
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Richard Henry Dana, Jr.
Justices for the Court
David Davis, Robert Cooper Grier (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Noah Haynes Swayne, James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
John Catron, Nathan Clifford, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
10 March 1863
Decision
The Court ruled the president could insitute a wartime blockade without congressional approval.
Significance
The case determined that the Union government could pursue the naval war against the Confederacy as if it were an international war, using the rules of blockade.
The Issue of Belligerency
The Prize Cases referred to the adjudication during the American CivilWar of four captures of ships which had violated the blockade of the South by the Union Navy. The cases raised questions which could have worked againstthe Union war effort. The Supreme Court's ruling supported the Union position, establishing the right of a government to set up a blockade of its own ports during an insurrection, and establishing the right of the president to setup the blockade without a declaration of war by Congress. The issue in international law was complicated by the fact that the Union did not want to treatthe Confederacy as an international belligerent or give it belligerent status, while at the same time the Union sought to close the ports of the South byblockade. Since blockades can only be used against belligerents, the Union appeared to want to have it both ways.
In the Prize Cases, if the courts ruled that a blockade existed, foreign powers might regard that as recognition of the status of the Confederacy as a belligerent state. However, if the courts ruled that the blockade was notlegal, then the power of the president to conduct the war through seizure ofmerchant ships carrying arms and other contraband to the Confederacy would be impaired.
The Captured Ships
The four ships, Hiawatha, Crenshaw, Amy Warwick, and Brilliantehad all been condemned in lower courts after having been seized by the UnionNavy. Hiawatha was a British barque captured in Hampton Roads in Mayof 1861. While the ship was loading a cargo of cotton for export, the captainhad received word that the blockade was in effect. Lower courts sustained the seizure and forwarded the case to the Supreme Court for ruling on the constitutional issues.
Amy Warwick had been taken off Cape Henry in July of 1861 by the U.S.gunboat Quaker City. A court in Boston upheld the seizure of propertyaboard the vessel belonging to residents of Virginia, arguing that property belonging to persons resident in enemy territories was subject to condemnationif taken at sea. The schooner Crenshaw was owned by two partners, oneSouthern and one Northern, and the ship was carrying a cargo of tobacco fromRichmond, Virginia to Liverpool, England when it was seized in May of 1861.Lower courts ruled that property aboard the ship belonging to Englishmen wasexempt from seizure, but condemned all the rest of the cargo. Brilliante was a schooner owned by an American and a Mexican citizen, carrying cargothat belonged to the owners of the vessel and to two other Mexicans. Capturedin June of 1861 while anchored off Biloxi, Mississippi, it was found to be carrying cargo it had picked up in New Orleans, Louisiana, after the beginningof the blockade. In a local court in Key West, Florida, the seizure was upheld, and the owners appealed to the Supreme Court.
While these four cases were being heard in the Supreme Court, other cases which had arisen from the blockade were postponed, pending a decision in Washington, D.C. Even so, the Prize Cases were not heard until June of 1863,after Abraham Lincoln had appointed new members to the Supreme Court. Even with his own appointees in the Court, however, the decision was close.
The case for the government was argued by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., famous forhis factual novel, Two Years Before the Mast (1840). Dana argued thatthe government's right to capture property had no relationship to the statusof the owners. Rather, if the owners were under the jurisdiction of the enemy, the government could seize the property, because that control gave the enemy an interest in the property. Further, he argued that the state of war existed, even if it had not been declared by Congress. The president could exercise war powers without such a declaration. The state of war gave the U.S. government belligerent rights, but no such rights were to be assumed for the Confederacy, because an area in rebellion did not have the same rights as a sovereign nation.
Each of the groups of claimants were represented by different attorneys, butCharles Edwards handled the petitioners in the cases of the Crenshaw and the Hiawatha. The attorneys for the claimants argued that the rebels could not be considered enemies, and the conflict could not be considered war. However, Justice Grier, in writing the majority opinion of the Court, accepted Dana's argument that the war was a fact and that Lincoln was empoweredto pursue the war without waiting for Congress to recognize it. Justice Nelson wrote the minority opinion, holding that no war could exist before Congressacted to recognize it in July of 1861. Since the president had no power to set up a blockade or to conduct war before that date, the minority held, the decrees of condemnation of property should be set aside.
The most far-reaching effect of the Prize Cases was to uphold the president's claim to extensive emergency powers. The precedent set in the Prize Cases may have discouraged legal challenges to other acts of PresidentLincoln during the war, including suspension of free speech and press, the Conscription Act, and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Prize Cases established the theory that the president had extraordinary powers to preserve the nation and that he could exercise them legally. Furthermore, the Court hadruled that the Union had full powers as a belligerent but that the Confederacy could claim no such powers. The Curt accepted the paradox that the Union could exercise all power which would come with an international war, but thatit could also exercise sovereign power over the area in rebellion.
Related Cases
Owners of four ships as claimants: Hiawatha, Crenshaw, Amy Warwick, and Brilliante
Respondent
United States
Petitioners' Claim
That the seizure of these ships for violation of blockade was illegal, because the war was a civil war, not an international war.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Charles Edwards
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Richard Henry Dana, Jr.
Justices for the Court
David Davis, Robert Cooper Grier (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Noah Haynes Swayne, James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
John Catron, Nathan Clifford, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
10 March 1863
Decision
The Court ruled the president could insitute a wartime blockade without congressional approval.
Significance
The case determined that the Union government could pursue the naval war against the Confederacy as if it were an international war, using the rules of blockade.
The Issue of Belligerency
The Prize Cases referred to the adjudication during the American CivilWar of four captures of ships which had violated the blockade of the South by the Union Navy. The cases raised questions which could have worked againstthe Union war effort. The Supreme Court's ruling supported the Union position, establishing the right of a government to set up a blockade of its own ports during an insurrection, and establishing the right of the president to setup the blockade without a declaration of war by Congress. The issue in international law was complicated by the fact that the Union did not want to treatthe Confederacy as an international belligerent or give it belligerent status, while at the same time the Union sought to close the ports of the South byblockade. Since blockades can only be used against belligerents, the Union appeared to want to have it both ways.
In the Prize Cases, if the courts ruled that a blockade existed, foreign powers might regard that as recognition of the status of the Confederacy as a belligerent state. However, if the courts ruled that the blockade was notlegal, then the power of the president to conduct the war through seizure ofmerchant ships carrying arms and other contraband to the Confederacy would be impaired.
The Captured Ships
The four ships, Hiawatha, Crenshaw, Amy Warwick, and Brilliantehad all been condemned in lower courts after having been seized by the UnionNavy. Hiawatha was a British barque captured in Hampton Roads in Mayof 1861. While the ship was loading a cargo of cotton for export, the captainhad received word that the blockade was in effect. Lower courts sustained the seizure and forwarded the case to the Supreme Court for ruling on the constitutional issues.
Amy Warwick had been taken off Cape Henry in July of 1861 by the U.S.gunboat Quaker City. A court in Boston upheld the seizure of propertyaboard the vessel belonging to residents of Virginia, arguing that property belonging to persons resident in enemy territories was subject to condemnationif taken at sea. The schooner Crenshaw was owned by two partners, oneSouthern and one Northern, and the ship was carrying a cargo of tobacco fromRichmond, Virginia to Liverpool, England when it was seized in May of 1861.Lower courts ruled that property aboard the ship belonging to Englishmen wasexempt from seizure, but condemned all the rest of the cargo. Brilliante was a schooner owned by an American and a Mexican citizen, carrying cargothat belonged to the owners of the vessel and to two other Mexicans. Capturedin June of 1861 while anchored off Biloxi, Mississippi, it was found to be carrying cargo it had picked up in New Orleans, Louisiana, after the beginningof the blockade. In a local court in Key West, Florida, the seizure was upheld, and the owners appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case for the government was argued by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., famous forhis factual novel, Two Years Before the Mast (1840). Dana argued thatthe government's right to capture property had no relationship to the statusof the owners. Rather, if the owners were under the jurisdiction of the enemy, the government could seize the property, because that control gave the enemy an interest in the property. Further, he argued that the state of war existed, even if it had not been declared by Congress. The president could exercise war powers without such a declaration. The state of war gave the U.S. government belligerent rights, but no such rights were to be assumed for the Confederacy, because an area in rebellion did not have the same rights as a sovereign nation.
Each of the groups of claimants were represented by different attorneys, butCharles Edwards handled the petitioners in the cases of the Crenshaw and the Hiawatha. The attorneys for the claimants argued that the rebels could not be considered enemies, and the conflict could not be considered war. However, Justice Grier, in writing the majority opinion of the Court, accepted Dana's argument that the war was a fact and that Lincoln was empoweredto pursue the war without waiting for Congress to recognize it. Justice Nelson wrote the minority opinion, holding that no war could exist before Congressacted to recognize it in July of 1861. Since the president had no power to set up a blockade or to conduct war before that date, the minority held, the decrees of condemnation of property should be set aside.
The most far-reaching effect of the Prize Cases was to uphold the president's claim to extensive emergency powers. The precedent set in the Prize Cases may have discouraged legal challenges to other acts of PresidentLincoln during the war, including suspension of free speech and press, the Conscription Act, and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Prize Cases established the theory that the president had extraordinary powers to preserve the nation and that he could exercise them legally. Furthermore, the Court hadruled that the Union had full powers as a belligerent but that the Confederacy could claim no such powers. The Curt accepted the paradox that the Union could exercise all power which would come with an international war, but thatit could also exercise sovereign power over the area in rebellion.
- Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., 14 F.Cas. 357 (C.C.D.Va. 1868).
- Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 571 F.Supp. 1460 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
User Comments Add a comment…