PRIZE COURTS. Special tribunals for the adjudication of questions of prize (q.v.). The submission of the question of the legality of a capture in war to the determination of a court is not a right which an enemy may claim, since it is assumed that all captures are enemy's prop erty. But the fact that frequently property cap tured is claimed to he owned by neutrals makes a judicial inquiry in such cases necessary in or der to determine the responsibility of a bellig erent to neutrals. As the determination of ques tions of this character involves the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, it is customary to confer jurisdiction in eases of maritime capture upon the admiralty courts. In Great Britain this is done by special commission: in the United States it is a regular branch of the admiralty jurisdic tion, which is exercised in the first instance by the district courts. Prize courts differ from other municipal courts in that jurisdiction over the property of a foreigner is acquired, not by his consent expressed or implied, but by force. A prize court usually sits within the territorial jurisdiction of the belligerent under whose au thority the capture is made, although it may sit within the territory of an ally. It may not, however. sit in the territory of a neutral even with the consent of the latter.
It is highly desirable that the court may have the prize w ithin its own custody, not only as a means of facilitating the investigation, but to dimMish the risks of concealment and fraud and to insure a fair sale or speedy restitution. The
question to he decided by the court is whether, according to the law of nations. the ship and cargo in question were liable to capture, and if so whether the capture was lawfully made. If the decision be in the affirmative, the prize is pro n2unced good, is then sold and the proceeds placed in the hands of an officer of the Government for distribution among the officers and men who made the capture. according to the provisions of the law governing captures. If the decision be in the negative, the vessel is restored to its owners. If in the latter ease it has suffered damage from the hands of the captors, the Government of which the captors are subjects is held responsible only for failure to use reasonable care and skill.
The procedure in prize eases is based chiefly on the principles of the Roman law. The common law doctrine as to the competency of witnesses has no application in the procedure of prize courts. The decision of a prize court is binding upon all parties concerned. but. on account of the magnitude of the interests often involved. pro vision is usually made in the municipal law of every State for the right of appeal to a higher conrt. Thus in the United States appeals from the decisions of the district courts lie to the United States Supreme Court.