SPANISH AMERICAN WAR,1898

 Appeals From the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida

 Supreme Court of the United States

 Argued November 7–8, 1899
Decided January 8, 1900

 Full case name Paquete Habana.; The Lola. Citations 175 U.S. 677 20 S. Ct. 290; 44 L.
Ed. 320; 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1714

 Holding Federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an

integrated part of American law Court membership

 Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
 Associate Justices
John M. Harlan · Horace Gray
David J. Brewer · Henry B. Brown
George Shiras, Jr. · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham · Joseph McKenna
 In April 1898 two fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana, and the Lola
separately left Cuban ports in Havana in order to fish.

 The two vessels were eventually captured by US Naval vessels as part of

Admiral Sampson's blockade of Cuba.

 The vessels were placed within Cuba's territorial waters at the onset of the
Spanish-American War and then taken to Key West, where both vessels
were eventually auctioned by the district court. Paquete Habana for $ 490
and Lola for $ 800.

 Admiral Sampson justified the seizures by stating that most fishing

vessels, flying under the Spanish banner were manned by excellent
seamen, "liable for further service" as naval reserves, an asset that could
eventually be used against US interests in the Spanish American War.
 The owners of the vessels however made an appeal to the
circuit courts, citing a long held tradition by nations of
exempting fishing vessels from prize capture in times of war.

 This "tradition", a primary example of customary

international law, dates back from an order by Henry IV in
1403, and have more or less been observed by a large
majority of States ever since.

 At the time of capture both vessels had no evidence of aiding

the enemy, and were unaware of the US naval blockade. No
arms were found on board, and no attempts were made to
either run the blockade or resist capture.
 Whether the fishing smacks were subject to
capture by the armed vessels of the United States
during the war with Spain.
 International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and
administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction.

 where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or

judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of
civilized nations,

 and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and

commentators…………Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals,
not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to
be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. Hilton v. Guyot,
159 U.S. 113, 163 , 164 S., 214, 215, 40 L. ed. 95, 108, 125, 126, 16 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 139.
 In 1403 and 1406 Henry IV issued orders to his admirals and other
officers, entitled 'Concerning Safety for Fishermen-De Securitate pro
Piscatoribus.' By an order of October 26, 1403, reciting that it was made
pursuant to a treaty between himself and the King of France; and for the
greater safety of the fishermen of either country.

 The treaty made October 2, 1521, between the Emperor Charles V. and
Francis I. of France, through their ambassadors.

 The herring fishery was permitted, in time of war, by French and Dutch
edicts in 1536. Bynkershoek, Quaestiones Juris Publicae, lib. 1, chap. 3; 1
Emerigon des Assurances, chap. 4, 9; chap. 12, 19, 8.

 The same custom would seem to have prevailed in France until towards
the end of the seventeenth century.
 The doctrine which exempts coast fishermen, with their vessels and
cargoes, from capture as prize of war, has been familiar to the United
States from the time of the War of Independence.

 On June 5, 1779, Louis XVI., addressed a letter to his admiral, informing

him that the wish he had always had of alleviating , the hardships of war,
had directed his attention to that class of his subjects [175 U.S. 677, 690]  
which devoted itself to the trade of fishing, and had no other means of
livelihood….

 By a royal order in council of November 6, 1780, the former orders were

confirmed; and the capture and ransom, by a French cruiser, of The John
and Sarah, an English vessel, coming from Holland, laden with fresh fish,
were pronounced to be illegal. 2 Code des Prises (ed. 1784) 721, 901,
903.

 In the treaty of 1785 between the United States and Prussia, article 23
…..included Fishermen …not to be disturbed. [175 U.S. 677, 691]

 Similar French and English govt. orders.

 Wheaton, in his Digest of the Law of Maritime Captures and Prizes,
published in 1815, wrote: 'It has been usual [175 U.S. 677, 696]   in
maritime wars to exempt from capture fishing boats and their cargoes,
both from views of mutual accommodation between neighboring
countries, and from tenderness to a poor and industrious order of people.
This custom, so honorable to the humanity of civilized nations, has fallen
into disuse….

 During the wars of the French Empire, as both French and English writers
agree, the coast fisheries were left in peace. 2 Ortolan, 54; De Boeck,
193; Hall, 148.

 In the war with Mexico, in 1846, the United States recognized the
exemption of coast fishing boats from capture.
 In the treaty of peace between the United States and Mex- [175 U.S. 677,
699]   ico, in 1848, were inserted the very words of the earlier treaties
with Prussia, already quoted, forbidding the hostile molestation or seizure
in time of war of the persons, occupations, houses, or goods of fishermen.
9 Stat. at L. 939, 940.

 Heffter, 137; 2 Kalterborn, 237, p. 480; Bluntschli, 667; Perels, 37, p.

217. 2 Ortolan, 54; De Boeck, 196; Hall, 148. See also The Susa, 2 C.
Rob. 251; The Johan, Edw. Adm. 275, and appx. L. :

 They all considered this a general principle of law of nations and agreed
upon by Custom and usage by international community to exempt
fishermen from the prize of war.
 It is the duty of this court, sitting as the highest prize court of the
United States, and administering the law of nations, to declare and
adjudge that the capture was unlawful and without probable cause;
and it is therefore, in each case,--

 Ordered, that the decree of the District Court be reversed, and the
proceeds of the sale of the vessel, together with the proceeds of any
sale of her cargo, be restored to the claimant, with damages and
costs. [175 U.S. 677, 715]  
 Treaties, official orders, juristic works established as evidence
of International customary law.

 Marshaling five centuries of state practice and the writings of

scholars from ten countries to support its holding that coastal
fishing vessels were exempt from capture under international
law during the U.S. war with Spain.

 Laid the dictum : “where there is no treaty, and no controlling

executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to
the customs and usages of civilized nations.”
Thank you !