A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIZE. 
States by the Consuls of France was not of right.* 
The principle was also emphatically expressed by 
Lord Stowell in The Christopher that all similar 
proceedings were illegal, and that it was not to 
be assumed that a neutral Government would so 
far depart from the duties of neutrality as to permit 
the exercise of that ‘last and crowning act of 
hostility, the condemnation of the property of one 
belligerent to the other, thereby confirming and 
securing him in the acquisition of his enemy’s 
property by hostile means.””® The same doctrine 
1s maintained in Article 4 of the Thirteenth 
Hague Convention, 1907, which strictly forbids 
the institution by a belligerent of a Prize Tribunal 
on neutral territory or on a vessel in neutral 
waters. 
Practice and § 283. Fach Power regulates the practice 
De taeot® and procedure to be followed in its Prize Courts. 
eguiated by Tt is a matter governed by the municipal legis- 
municipal ; 3 ! oO 
law lation of the State from which the Prize Court 
derives its jurisdiction, and it cannot be influenced 
or modified by the laws or decrees of any other 
nation.” 
It is noteworthy that the English Prize Court 
4 (1794), 3 Dall. 6, 19. 
5 (1799), 2 C. Rob. 207. 
6 Italian Decree of May 380, 1915, Article 6, G. U., June 11, 
1915, No. 147; French Prize Court in The Barmbek, [1916] J. O., 
July 24, 1916, 6611; and German Supreme Prize Court in The 
Davanger, [1917] J. A. P., 177. . 
7 The Consul Corfitzon, [1917] A. C. 550. Cf. The Marie 
Glaeser, [1914] P. 218; The Roland, [1915] 1 B. & C. P. C. 188. A 
natural corollary to this principle is that none of the statutes and 
rules of law and practice which relate to execution against property 
within the jurisdiction under normal conditions have any application 
to goods brought in as prize. The goods are subject to no execution 
at the suit of a creditor under municipal law : The Oranie Nassatt 
[19211 8 B. & C. P. C. 915. 
204