The

Paquete Habana
Citation. 175 U.S. 677 (1900)
Brief Fact Summary. The argument of the fishermen whose vessels was seized by the U.S
(P) officials was that international law exempted coastal fishermen from capture as prizes
of war.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The argument of the fishermen whose vessels was seized by the
U.S (P) officials was that international law exempted coastal fishermen from capture as
prizes of war.
Facts. This appeal of a district court decree, which condemned two fishing vessels and their
cargoes as prizes of war, was brought by the owners (D) of two separate fishing vessels.
Each of the vessel running in and out of Havana and sailing under the Spanish flag was a
fishing smack which regularly engaged in fishing on the coast of Cuba. Inside the vessels
were fresh fish which the crew had caught.
The owners of the vessels were not aware of the existence of a war until they were stopped
by U.S. (P) squadron. No incriminating material like arms were found on the fishermen and
they did not make any attempt to run the blockade after learning of its existence not did
they resist their arrest. When the owners (D) appealed, they argued that both customary
international law and writings of leading international scholars recognized an exemption
from seizure at wartime of coastal fishing vessels.
Issue. Are coastal fishing vessels with their cargoes and crews excluded from prizes of
war?
Held. (Gray, J.). Yes. Coastal fishing vessels with their cargoes and crews are excluded from
prizes of war. The doctrine that exempts coastal fishermen with their vessels and crews
from capture as prizes of war has been known by the U.S. (P) from the time of the War of
Independence and has been recognized explicitly by the French and British governments. It
is an established rule of international law that coastal fishing vessels with their equipment
and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of
catching and bringing in fish are exempt from capture as prizes of war. Reversed.
Discussion. Chief Justice Fuller who had a dissenting opinion which was not published in
this casebook argued that the captured vessels were of such a size and range as to not fall
within the exemption. He further argued that the exemption in any case had not become a
customary rule of international law, but was only an act of grace that had not been
authorized by the President.