AT the last term Gideon Olmstead, in behalf of himself and Artimus White, Aquilla Rumsdale, and David Clark, moved the court for a mandamus*fn1 *
to be directed to the honourable Richard Peters, judge of the district court of the United States for the Pennsylvania district, commanding him to order and direct an attachment or other proper process to issue to enforce obedience to the sentence of the said district court in a civil cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, in which the said Gildeon Olmstead and others were libellants, and Elizabeth Serjeant and Esther Waters were respondents. This motion was made upon a suggestion, supported by affidavit, that a copy of the sentence had been served upon the respondents, which they refused to obey; and that application had been made to the judge for an attachment, which he had refused to grant; whereupon a mandamus nisi was granted returnable to this term; when the judge made the following return: 'To the honourable the supreme court of the United States,
'The subscriber, judge of the district court of the United States in and for the district of Pennsylvania, in obedience to the mandamus issued by order of the supreme court in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others, libellants, against the surviving executrixes of the late David Rittenhouse, Esq. and to the said district judge directed, begs leave to return,
'That the proceedings of the district court in the above cause, which are herewith transmitted, and respectfully submitted, will show the grounds of the judgment by the said court rendered. Every opportunity, through the whole course of these proceedings, was given to the parties to litigate the claim, or discuss questions, either on the merits or jurisdiction. Nor was any step taken, without due and timely notice.
'The answer of the respondents will show their objections to the claim of the libellants. This answer refere to an act of assembly of the state of Pennsylvania, passed the 26th day of February, 1801, which was not produced or brought under the legal notice of the court.
'No application for execution of the decree was made until within twelve or eighteen months past; nor has it been, till more recently, much pressed.
'By the suggestion filed by the respondents, their objections to the execution of the decree will appear. They have made an act of assembly of the state of Pennsylvania a part of their suggestion; and thus, for the first time, during the pendency of the suit, brought this act under the judicial notice of the court. It is entitled 'An act relating to the claim of this commonwealth against Elizabeth Serjeant and Esther Waters, surviving executrixes of David Rittenhouse, Esq. deceased, passed April the second, 1803:' and to this act I pray leave to refer.
'This act, or any of its allegations, has no influence on my opinion. Let this opinion be erroneous or correct, a proceeding, in some of its parts, indecorous, and, in others, unjustifiable, can have no operation in rectifying supposed errors, or convincing my judgment. But from prudential, more than other motives, I deemed it best to avoid embroiling the government of the United States and that of Pennsylvania (if the latter government should choose so to do) on a question which has rested on my single opinion, so far as it is touched by my decree; and, under the influence of this sentiment, I have withheld the process required. If this be not considered a legal cause, it must be deemed a candid acknowledgment that I do not invariably obey a rigorous dictate of duty, or follow an inflexibly strict construction of law.
'I entertained a hope that a legislature succeeding that by which the act before mentioned was passed, would, under a more temperate view of the subject, have repealed it; and enabled and directed the executive of the state, or some other authority, to put this case in a legal train of investigation: so that the final judgment and decree of the superior tribunal of the United States might have been, in a proper course, obtained; and thereby any erroneous opinion, or decree, given or made by me, might have been rectified (if any opinion or decree should have been found illegal or erroneous) in a manner more becoming the real dignity of a state, more suitable to the situation of those who execute the duties of a branch of the government of the United States, and more consistent with the good order and peace of the community. This hope was cherished by the proceedings of the legislature of Pennsylvania, in other cases wherein the state claimed interests. This expectation has been disappointed. There being no other legal mode or obtaining the decision of the superior tribunal of the United States, (the only jurisdiction by which the judgments of inferior courts of the United States can be finally rectified or judicially annulled,) I have thought it proper, and, under all circumstances, fully justifiable, to obtain that decision, by placing the case under the cognisance of your honourable court, in its present form.
'On the merits and justice of the claim of the libellants, I have no doubt; but remain of the same opinion I have mentioned in my decree.
'As to the jurisdiction; I have never conceived that the allegations on this point, contained in the act of assembly last mentioned, had legal foundation. It is well known to your honourable court, that third persons claiming interests in pais, cannot, by such claims, constitute themselves, or be judidially considered, parties in suits pending in the names of others. Nor does there now exist any legal mode of interpleading, or compelling states to become parties to suits in the courts of the United States. Yet if your honourable court shall be of opinion that the objections to jurisdiction are relevant, I shall, agreeably to my duty, continue to withhold any farther proceeding. But if, on the other hand, a peremptory direction to execute the decree shall be the consequence of your deliberations, having now the whole case before you, there can be no order or direction, which it is in my legal obligation to obey, to which (impelled by a sense of justice, however I may regret the circumstance, as it respects the parties respondents, or other consequences which may flow from it) I shall more cheerfully submit.
'Philadelphia, July 18th, 1808.'
The facts as they appear in the record and documents referred to by the judge, the above answer, were in substance as follows.
Gideon Olmstead, Artimus White, Aquilla Rumsdale and David Clark citizens and inhabitants of the state of Connecticut, were, during the revolutionary war, captured by the British and carried to Jamaica, where they were put on board the sloop Active to assist as mariners in navigating the sloop to New-York, then in possession of the Britain, with a cargo of supplies for the fleets and armies of Great Britain. During which voyage, about the 6th of September, 1778, they rose upon the master and crew of the sloop, confined them to the cabin, took the command of the vessel and steered for Egg Harbour, in the state of New-Jersey. On the 8th of September, when in sight of that harbour they were pursued, and forcibly taken possession of by Captain Thomas Houston, commander of the armed brig Convention, belonging to the state of Pennsylvania, and, on the 15th of September, brought into the port of Philadelphia; when Houston libelled the vessel as prize to the Convention. A claim was interposed by Captain James Josiah, master of the American privateer Le Gerard, who claimed a share of the capture as having been in sight and by agreement cruising in concert with the Convention. A claim was also interposed by Olmstead and others for the whole vessel and cargo, as being their exclusive prize. The state court of admiralty, however, adjudged them only one fourth part, and decreed the residue to be divided between the state and the owners of the privateer, and the officers and crews of the Convention and the Le Gerard. From this sentence Olmstead and others appealed to the court of commissioners of appeals in prize causes for the United States of America, where, on the 15th of December, 1778, the sentence of the state court was reversed, and it was ordered and adjudged that the vessel and cargo should be condemned as lawful prize for the use of the appellants, Olmstead and others, and that the marshal should sell the same, and pay the net proceeds to them or their agent or attorney. Upon receipt of a copy of this sentence, the court of admiralty made the following order:'Thomas Houston, Esq. et al., appellees, ads.
'Gideon Olmstead, Artimus White, Aquilla Rumsdale, and David Clark, appellants, claimants of the sloop Active and her cargo.
'In the court of Admiralty, for the State of Pennsylvania.
'The court, taking into consideration the decree of the court of appeals in this cause, reversing the judgment or sentence of this court in the same cause, and further decreeing a condemnation of the sloop Active, her tackle, apparel, furniture and cargo, as prize, &c. and that process of this court should issue for the sale of the said sloop, her cargo, &c. and for the distribution of the moneys arising from the said sale after deducting costs, to the claimants above named, their agent or attorney; after mature consideration are of opinion, that although the court of appeals have full authority to alter or set aside the decree of a judge of this court, yet that the finding of the jury in the cause does establish the facts in the cause without re-examination or appeal. And therefore the verdict of the jury still standing, and being in full force, this court cannot issue any process, or proceed in any manner whatsoever contradictory to the finding of the said jury. And therefore doth now decree, order and adjudge, that the marshal of this court be commanded to sell at public vendue at the highest price that can be gotten for the same, the said sloop or vessel called the Active, her tackle, apparel and furniture, and the goods, wares and merchandises laden and found on board her at the time of her capture, &c. and after deducting the costs and charges of the trial, condemnation and sale thereof, out of the moneys arising from the said sale, that he bring the residue thereof into court, there to remain ready to abide the further order of this court therein.
'December 28th, 1778.'The finding of the jury, alluded to in the above order, was in these words:
'In the cause wherein Thomas Houston is libellant, and Olmstead and others first claimants, and James Josiah second claimant, we find as follows:
1-4th of the net proceeds of the sloop Active and her cargo to the first claimants.
3-4ths of the net proceeds of said sloop and her cargo to the libellant and to the second claimants, as per agreement between them.
The warrant which Judge Ross directed to be issued to the marshal to make sale of the vessel and cargo, in pursuance of the above order, and which was accordingly issued on the 28th of December, 1778, after reciting the proceedings in this court, and in the court of appeals, proceeds as follows: 'This court therefor taking into consideration the premises, and being of opinion that consistent with the laws of this state it cannot carry into execution the whole of the said sentence of the honourable the court of appeals aforesaid: yet willing, so far as the said sentence appears legal, to carry it into effect, and to prevent, as far as possible, any injuries or losses which the parties to this cause, or either of them, may be liable to by the vessel and cargo continuing in their present situation, do therefore hereby command you forthwith to sell,' &c. 'and, after deducting the costs and ...