in neutral waters and
afterwards comes of her own accord within the neutral jurisdiction. In
that case, and in that case alone, the neutral prize court may
adjudicate the case, and if they find the allegation of _infra terminos_
proved, they may restore the property to the original owner.

If a lawful prize, contrary to prohibition, come within neutral waters,
the most the neutral can do is to order her to depart without
interfering in any manner with the captor's possession.

It is admitted that if she obstinately refuses to depart, or conducts
herself otherwise in an improper manner, she may be compelled to depart,
or may, indeed, be seized and confiscated as a penalty for her offence.
But there is no plea of that kind set up here. To show how sacred is the
title of mere possession on the part of a captor, permit me to quote
from one of your own authorities. On page 42 of the first volume of
Phillimore on International Law, you will find the following passage:
"In 1654 a treaty was entered into between England and Portugal, by
which, among other things, both countries mutually bound themselves not
to suffer the ships and goods of the other taken by enemies and carried
into the ports of the other to be conveyed away from the original owners
or proprietors."

"Now, I have no scruple in saying (observes Lord Stowell in 1798) that
this is an article incapable of being carried into literal execution
according to the modern understanding of the law of nations; for no
neutral country can intervene to wrest from a belligerent prizes
lawfully taken. This is perhaps the strongest instance that could be
cited of what civilians call the _consuetudo obrogatoria."_

This being the nature of my title, the reasons should be very urgent
which should justify my being forcibly dispossessed of it. But there are
no such reasons apparent. It is not contended that there was any
misconduct on the part of the Tuscaloosa, unless her entry into a
British port as a Confederate cruiser be deemed misconduct. As stated in
the beginning of this letter, she had no intention of violating any
order of the Queen. Her error, therefore, if it were an error, is
entitled to be considered with gentleness and not with hardship. Her
error was the error of yourself and his Excellency the Governor, as well
as myself. We all agreed, I believe, that she was a lawfully
commissioned ship, and that her commission estopped all further enquiry.
In the meantime, she