In late September 1816, the privateer Mangoree, commanded by Captain James Barnes, set sail from Port au Prince, Haiti, under the flag of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (i.e., Argentina) on a cruise against Spanish shipping. On October 31, the Mangoree seized its fourth prize-the Spanish ship Divina Pastora. The crew was removed from the captured vessel, and a prize crew of seven men under the command of Daniel Utley was placed on board. Utley purportedly set sail for Port au Prince to procure provisions before heading to Buenos Aires for adjudication before a prize court. Unfortunately, a combination of sickness, bad weather, and lack of supplies forced him to put into the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts, on December 12. News of the ship's arrival quickly reached John Stoughton, the Spanish consul for New England, in Boston, who immediately claimed the vessel in federal court on behalf of its owners. This action began a three-year legal struggle over ownership of the ship and its cargo that reached the United States Supreme Court.1The Divina Pastora prize case is one of many such cases that worked its way through the American legal system after war broke out between Spain and its colonies in 1810. This case and others resulted from the failure of the American government to maintain strict neutrality. Contrary to U.S. laws and treaty obligations, Americans fitted out and manned privateers for Latin American insurgents. The Spanish minister to the United States vehemently protested these violations and called upon the government to enforce its laws. Congress subsequently passed the Neutrality Acts of 1817 and 1818, which confirmed earlier prohibitions against American citizens accepting commissions as privateers and prohibited the sale of armed vessels. Nonetheless, privateers continued to fit out in and operate from American ports, and Spain made further complaints to the government. Spain did not limit its efforts to diplomatic protests. It also turned to the courts, where Spanish consuls sought to redeem Spanish property captured by privateers illegally outfitted in the United States. The efforts of consuls to seek redress in the courts became central to Spain's diplomacy with the United States at this time. The Spanish undoubtedly hoped that favorable judicial rulings would compel the U.S. government to enforce its laws and abide by its treaty obligations. These cases also provide insight on the development of American and international law in the early republic. Without the diligence of consuls, American judges would have had fewer opportunities to review admiralty and maritime law and to establish legal precedents for U.S. courts in subsequent cases with potentially overlapping jurisdiction between municipal law, international law, and treaty obligations. Moreover, by bringing prize cases before the courts, consuls helped to make foreign affairs the day-to-day business of the Supreme Court in the Marshall era. The Divina Pastora prize case, then, highlights the intersection of important diplomatic and legal developments and elucidates the impact of court rulings on the domestic and international dealings of the republic.2The case was heard in federal court. The U.S. Constitution had stripped the states of their admiralty jurisdiction and placed admiralty proceedings in the federal courts. So, all prize cases went directly to the District Court in its capacity as an admiralty court. From there appeals could be made to the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court, and, given the large sums of money involved, prize cases were almost inevitably appealed. The challenge for the courts was to determine whether the Divina Pastora was a legitimate prize or stolen property. Understandings of sovereignty, the law of nations, Pinckney's Treaty (1795) between Spain and the United States, and U.S. statute law set the legal context for these proceedings. Federal judges wrestled with these often contradictory legal principles to adjudicate prize cases. …