The Paquete Habana Case

Brief Fact Summary. The argument of the fishermen whose vessels was
seized by the U.S (P) officials was that international law exempted
coastal fishermen from capture as prizes of war.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The argument of the fishermen whose vessels

was seized by the U.S (P) officials was that international law exempted
coastal fishermen from capture as prizes of war.

Facts. This appeal of a district court decree, which condemned two

fishing vessels and their cargoes as prizes of war, was brought by the
owners (D) of two separate fishing vessels. Each of the vessel running in
and out of Havana and sailing under the Spanish flag was a fishing smack
which regularly engaged in fishing on the coast of Cuba. Inside the
vessels were fresh fish which the crew had caught.
The owners of the vessels were not aware of the existence of a war until
they were stopped by U.S. (P) squadron. No incriminating material like
arms were found on the fishermen and they did not make any attempt to
run the blockade after learning of its existence not did they resist their
arrest. When the owners (D) appealed, they argued that both customary
international law and writings of leading international scholars recognized
an exemption from seizure at wartime of coastal fishing vessels.

Issue. Are coastal fishing vessels with their cargoes and crews excluded
from prizes of war?

Held. (Gray, J.). Yes. Coastal fishing vessels with their cargoes and
crews are excluded from prizes of war. The doctrine that exempts coastal
fishermen with their vessels and crews from capture as prizes of war has
been known by the U.S. (P) from the time of the War of Independence
and has been recognized explicitly by the French and British
governments. It is an established rule of international law that coastal
fishing vessels with their equipment and supplies, cargoes and crews,
unarmed and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and
bringing in fish are exempt from capture as prizes of war. Reversed.

Discussion. Chief Justice Fuller who had a dissenting opinion which was
not published in this casebook argued that the captured vessels were of
such a size and range as to not fall within the exemption. He further
argued that the exemption in any case had not become a customary rule
of international law, but was only an act of grace that had not been
authorized by the President.
2.

RULE:

International law is part of American law, and must be ascertained and

administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often
as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their
determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no
controlling executive or legislative act or juricial 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, who by years of labor,
research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well
acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. 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.

FACTS:

The United States imposed a blockade of Cuba and declared war against
Spain. While they were out to sea, fishing along the coast of Cuba and
near Yucatan, two Spanish vessels engaged in fishing off the coast of
Cuba were captured by blockading squadrons. Until stopped by the
blockading squadron, the fishing vessels had no knowledge of the
existence of the war, or of any blockade. They had no arms or
ammunition on board, and made no attempt to run the blockade after
they knew of its existence, nor any resistance at the time of the capture.
When the vessels returned with their catches of fresh fish, they were
seized and a libel of condemnation of each vessel as a prize of war was
filed against the vessel in court. The district court entered a final decree
of condemnation and public sale at auction. Claimants appealed.

ISSUE:

Was it proper for the court to issue a decree of condemnation and auction
the fishing vessels?

ANSWER:

No

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court ruled that, under the law of nations, in each case the
capture was unlawful and without probable cause. It was a rule of
international law that coast fishing vessels, pursuing their vocation of
catching and bringing in fresh fish, were exempt, with their cargoes and
crews, from capture as prize of war. Although not reduced to treaty or
statutory law, courts were obligated to take notice of and give effect to
that rule. Thus, the decrees condemning the vessels were reversed and,
in each case, it was ordered that the proceeds of the sales of each vessel
and cargo be restored to the respective claimant, with compensatory
damages and costs. The Court also noted that it had appellate jurisdiction
over the controversy without regard to the amount in dispute and without
certification from the district court, as required by prior statutory law.