ir decision on this subject, referred to
them by the resolution of the 22nd of February. This representation
was considered by a committee of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives, who concluded that one of them should make inquiry of
some of the judges to know their determination, and upon being informed
that the judges intended to give their opinion, with their reasons, in
writing, the committee would not proceed any further in the business.
On the 27th of June, 1791, Mr. Pagan's counsel moved the justices of
the Supreme Judicial Court for their opinion in the case of Hooper and
Pagan, referred to their consideration by the resolve of the General
Court, founded on the British Consul's memorial. Chief Justice and
Justice Dana being absent, Justice Paine delivered it as the unanimous
opinion of the judges absent as well as present, that Pagan was not
entitled to a new trial for any of the causes mentioned in the said
resolve, and added, 'that the court intended to put their opinions upon
paper and to file them in the cause: that the sickness of two of the
court had hitherto prevented it, but that it would soon be done.'

It is somewhat remarkable, that the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts Bay should allege, that this case did not necessarily
involve a question relative to prize or no prize, when the very jury to
whom the court referred the decision of the case established the fact;
their verdict was for three thousand and nine pounds two shillings and
ten pence, damages, which sum is for the vessel called the brigantine
Thomas, her cargo, and every thing found on board. Hence it is evident,
that the case did involve a question of prize or no prize, and
having received a formal decision by the only court competent to take
cognizance thereof (viz. the High Court of Appeals for prize causes in
England), every thing that at all related to the property in question
or to the legality of the capture, was thereby finally determined. The
legality of the capture being confirmed by the High Court of Appeals in
England, cannot consistently with the principles of the law of nations
be discussed in a foreign court of law; or at least, if a foreign
court of common law is, by any local regulations, deemed competent to
interfere in matters relating to captures, the decisions of admiralty
courts or courts of appeal, should be received and taken as conclusive
evidence of the legality or illegality of captures. By such decis