My purpose in this series is limited. I try to identify the impact of "experience," what Holmes said in The Common Law was "the life of the law", rather than logic. I know quite a bit about Holmes' experience. My POV self-delimited, I do not research the cases. I look to Holmes' words only. That provides a focused tunnel vision. With all tunnel vision it leaves context in the dark. In this the eleventh case under examination I am crippled by my own tunnel vision. As I reveal parenthetically below I don't know what the fuck this case is about. In Holmes' statement of the procedural posture the instant case is one in a series of similar vessel seizure cases, including a prior case involving this same boat. I think (but I will not research even this) that this case has to do with the Spanish-American War. Holmes' statement of the facts includes "prize of war", mentions Havana, Cuba and "blockade". Holmes rules here, in a unanimous opinion, against the United States for seizure of the boat Paquete Habana (does not hold liable the persons who captured the vessel), but remands to the lower court for a new hearing on the damages found by the "commissioner" as the damages assessed the United States, were to Holmes clearly "excessive." I have no fucking idea how, if at all, Holmes' experience informs this decision.
The Paquete Habana, 189 U.S. 453 (1903)
Decision April 6, 1903
The case is out of the Southern District of Florida!
Syllabus
This Court having decided in The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, [This is The Paquete Habana Parte Deux! :o] that certain fishing smacks engaged in coast fishing for the daily market were not liable to capture, and ordered that the proceeds of vessels and cargoes be restored to the claimants with compensatory and not punitive damages and costs, and it appearing that the damages allowed were excessive, the cases were remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Under the circumstances of this case, the decree should be entered against the United States, and not against the captors individually.I thought a smack was a fish. That whole time I thought this was a case of smacks, the fish (if there be such thing. I do not know), being wrongfully taken. Like out of season or over the limit or something. I DIDN'T KNOW, OKAY?
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. These are cases of fishing smacks, which were libeled as prize of war.
It seemed to me odd that fish would be a prize of war so I googled "fishing smacks" and was then master of the case.
The pagination of this case on Justia (and other cites I checked) omits ten pages, 454 to almost all of 463, which contain the arguments of counsel for the two sides in the controversy. The unanimous opinion is only four pages long.
It was decided by this Court in two of the cases, The Paquete Habana and Lola, 175 U. S. 677, that smacks of this sort, engaged, as these were, in coast fishing for the daily market, were not liable to capture, and decrees were ordered that the proceeds of the vessels and cargoes be restored to the claimants, with damages and costs.
We do not see how it is possible that a decree should be entered against the captors. ...The libels alleged a capture pursuant to instructions from the President. The captures were by superior force, so that there was no question that the United States was interested in the proceeds. Rev.Stat. § 4630. ...
If we are right so far, we think that, under the circumstances of this case, a decree properly may be entered against the United States.
...
On the amount of the damages, we are of opinion that further proceedings must be had.
...
The fish are allowed for at the highest price in Havana during the blockade, which is too high a rate, and interest was charged at eight percent, there being no reason apparent for charging more than six if interest was allowed. ...
We think that we have said enough to show that a revision of the findings is necessary. It seems to us better that this revision should take place in the district court, rather than be attempted by us. ...
Decrees reversed, and cases remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
