## Facts

- Manuel Pinto, a neutral merchant from Buenos Aires, chartered the British merchant ship *Nereide* in London (Aug. 1813) for a voyage to Buenos Aires and return to London.
- The charter contemplated carriage of cargo under bills of lading and sailing under British convoy; the vessel was British-owned, armed, and commanded by William Bennett.
- Pinto loaded goods he claimed as his own neutral property onto the *Nereide*.
- During the War of 1812, the *Nereide* was separated from its convoy and, after a brief engagement, was captured (Dec. 1813) by the American privateer *Governor Tompkins*.
- In prize proceedings in the District of New York, Pinto’s claimed cargo was condemned; the circuit court affirmed pro forma.
- Pinto appealed, arguing his neutral goods should be restored even though carried on an enemy ship that resisted capture and even though he chartered the vessel.

## Issues

1. Whether neutral property aboard an armed enemy merchant vessel that resists capture is condemnable as prize because of the vessel’s character and resistance.
2. Whether a treaty clause that “free ships shall make free goods” implies the converse rule that “enemy ships shall make enemy goods.”
3. Whether a neutral forfeits protection by shipping goods on an armed belligerent carrier, where the neutral does not aid the armament or resistance.
4. Whether Pinto had acquired a hostile commercial character through his conduct or presence in London.
5. Whether courts may condemn neutral property as a form of retaliation against foreign states’ maritime practices.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the condemnation as to Pinto’s claimed cargo and ordered it restored as neutral property.
- The Court held that neutral goods do not lose their neutral character solely because they are carried on an armed enemy vessel that resists capture, absent the neutral’s participation in the armament or resistance.
- The Court rejected any inference that “free ships make free goods” carries an implied converse authorizing condemnation of neutral goods on enemy ships.
- The Court found Pinto remained neutral for prize purposes and did not acquire hostile commercial character through an occasional visit and contracting in London.
- The Court held retaliation against foreign states is for the political branches, not a rule for judicial decision in prize cases.

## Legal Principles

- Neutral goods found on an enemy vessel are to be restored under the law of nations as recognized by the United States; enemy goods on a neutral vessel are prize.
- A neutral may ship goods on an armed belligerent vessel without forfeiture, and the goods remain neutral despite the vessel’s resistance, provided the neutral does not aid the armament or resistance, even if the neutral chartered the vessel and is aboard.
- A treaty stipulation that “free ships shall make free goods” does not, by implication, establish the converse rule that enemy ships make enemy goods.
- Retaliation for foreign wrongdoing is a political measure, not a judicial rule of decision.
- A merchant with fixed residence and business at home does not acquire foreign commercial character by occasional travel or contracting abroad.

## Conclusion

The Court ordered restoration of a neutral merchant’s cargo captured on an armed, resisting enemy vessel, holding that neutrality of goods is not forfeited without the neutral’s participation in hostilities, that “free ships free goods” does not imply a contrary treaty rule, and that retaliatory prize doctrines are for the political branches rather than the judiciary.


The Nereide, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388 (1815)