
70 U.S. 425 (1865)
3 Wall. 425
THE IRON-CLAD ATLANTA.
Supreme Court of United States.

*428 Mr. Reverdy Johnson, for the appellants; the Attorney-General, Mr. Speed, and the Assistant Attorney-General, Mr. Ashton, not opposing.
*431 Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of Congress of July 17, 1862, provides that if the prize taken be of equal or superior force to the capturing vessel or vessels, the whole shall go to the captors, but if it be of an inferior force the proceeds shall be divided equally between them and the United States. The court below decided that the prize was of an inferior force, and, therefore, awarded only one-half of the proceeds to the captors; and from this decision the appeal is taken.
There is no dispute about the facts of the case; they are stated with accuracy and clearness in the opinion of the learned district judge, and we can do little more than repeat his argument, and affirm his conclusion upon the point presented for our consideration.
The Atlanta had been for some time previous to her capture in Wassau Sound, and the monitors, the Weehawken and the Nahant, guarded its entrance to prevent her egress. The presence of the monitors and their character and force were known to the rebels, but in the belief that the Atlanta was of superior force to both, she was sent down the sound to capture or destroy them. It was early in the morning of the seventeenth of June, 1863, that her approach was described. The monitors immediately began to prepare for action. The Weehawken, lying further up the sound than the *432 Nahant, slipped her cable, and steamed towards the sea; the Nahant weighed her anchor and followed in the wake of the Weehawken. Both vessels took this course for the purpose of gaining time to get fully ready for the engagement. The Weehawken first turned toward the enemy. At this moment the Atlanta opened her fire on the Nahant, then being the nearest vessel to her, but her shot did not take effect. The Nahant soon afterwards rounded, following the Weehawken, and the latter vessel, when within between three and four hundred yards of the Atlanta, opened her fire, and when within two hundred yards repeated it, and such was the destructive effect of her shot, that the Atlanta in a few minutes surrendered. In the meantime, the Nahant was advancing with all practicable speed, making directly for the Atlanta, the captain reserving his fire until he could lay his vessel alongside the enemy, thinking that it could then be delivered with greater effect. The shortness of the period between the first fire of the Weehawken and the surrender of the Atlanta prevented the captain of the Nahant from accomplishing his purpose.
The point presented is whether, under these circumstances, the Nahant is to be regarded as one of the capturing vessels within the meaning of the act of Congress. The importance of the point is this: the Weehawken was confessedly inferior in force to the Atlanta, and if she is alone to be regarded in the comparison of forces, the whole prize-money goes to the captors. On the other hand, the combined force of the two monitors was superior to that of the Atlanta, and if both are to be regarded as capturing vessels, only one-half of the prize-money goes to the captors, and the decree must be affirmed.
The mere fact that the only shot fired, and the only damage done, was by the Weehawken, is not decisive. Other circumstances must be taken into account in determining the matter  such as the force, position, conduct, and intention of the Nahant. The two vessels were known to be under the same command, and of nearly equal force. The *433 Atlanta descended the sound to attack both, and governed herself with reference to their combined action. It is not reasonable to suppose that her course would have been the one pursued, had she had only the Weehawken to encounter. Besides, the fire of the Atlanta was directed entirely to the Nahant, and of course diverted from her consort. It is possible that a different result might have followed had the fire been turned upon the Weehawken. This diversion must be considered in every just sense of the terms as giving aid to her. Again, the power of the shot of the Weehawken had evidently surprised the officers of the Atlanta, who found their vessel speedily disabled and their crew demoralized. The advance upon her, at full speed, of a second monitor, of equal force, ready to inflict similar injuries, may have hastened the surrender. It can hardly be supposed that the approach of the second monitor did not enter into the consideration of the captain and officers of the Atlanta. If the shot from the guns of one of the monitors could, in a few moments, penetrate the casemate of the Atlanta, crush in the bars of her pilot-house, and prostrate between forty and fifty of her men, her captain might well conclude that the combined fire of both would speedily sink his vessel and destroy his entire crew. It cannot be affirmed, nor is it reasonable to suppose, that any of the incidents of the battle would have occurred as they did, if the Nahant had not been present in the action.
We concur, therefore, in the view of the learned district judge, that in the comparison of the forces engaged in the conflict, the Nahant must be included with the Weehawken.
We fully appreciate the observations of counsel as to the arduous service of the officers and crews of our iron-clad monitors, but considerations of this character, or admiration of conduct of highest merit are not allowed to influence our decision, and however much we might feel disposed to do so, we are not at liberty to award to the gallant officers and men of the Weehawken and Nahant the entire proceeds of the prize. Our duty is simply to announce and apply the law; and there our power ends.
*434 The appeal of Hodge, the agent of the officers and crews of the monitors, is dismissed. The court below had no power to award payment from the prize-money of the compensation which was agreed upon between these parties. He must apply, under his power of attorney, to the proper officers of the government charged with the distribution of the money.
The decree of the court below is
AFFIRMED.
