The General C. C. Pinckney.

ter of the transaction, that the vessel was purchased during the war and the blockade, from an enemy owner, in the enemy country, and was laden with the produce of the enemy, is in evidence in the case. But the claimant of the vessel and cargo, he being also master of the vessel, suggests and claims, through his counsel, as matter of protection against the arrest, that his fealty to the Confederate States was simulated and illusive; that he never was a subject of that government, nor willingly associated with it; that he is a native of Prussia, and loyal, in sentiments, to the United States government; and that the vessel and cargo were purchased by him with the proceeds of his own industry, with intent solely to rescue such proceeds from the rebel government, and withdraw himself and his family and property from that confederacy.

This court can deal with the matter solely upon the principles of prize law, applicable to a state of facts of this similitude. If any relief exists anywhere in behalf of the claimant, it must be obtained from the United States government, the party injured by his misconduct, and the claim, on the foundation assumed for him, cannot be considered in this tribunal. 1st. His own written acts, supported by his oath, prove the vessel and cargo to be property of the enemy state. 2d. He withdrew it covertly from a blockaded port in time of open war. 3d. He was, at the time of procuring the property, and had been for several preceding years, a resident in the enemy country, in solidarity with its industry and interests. 4th. He assumed allegiance to that government by covering his property with the protection of the confederate flag, and of ship's documents from the enemy government—acts which disqualify him from appearing in this court to contest the legality of the capture. 5th. Even if he could justly maintain the assertion that he was, in sentiment, a loyal subject of the United States, he would stand disqualified from appearing in a prize court to question the legality of the seizure of his property acquired during the war, in an enemy country, by trade with the enemy. (12 U. S. Stat. at Large, 319.)

The law upon most of the foregoing points has been so repeatedly cited and relied upon in this court, in suits recently heard and decided, that the grounds on which it is supported need not now be further recapitulated.

Decree of condemnation and forfeiture.*

*This decree was reversed, on appeal, by the circuit court, December 3, 1863.

The Albert.

THE SCHOONER ALBERT AND CARGO.

Invocation of proofs from another case, on the allegation that the consignor and consignee of the cargo were the same in the two cases, and that the shipments had relation to a common commodity and purpose, a bill of lading found on board of one vessel covering cargo on both vessels. False papers as to destination of vessel and cargo.

Mutilation and imperfection of log-book.

Purchase of vessel from an enemy during the war by a resident in a neutral country with intent to employ her in violating the blockade.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

(Before BETTS, J., December 23, 1862.)

BETTS, J.: In this case, heard at the same term and almost simultaneously with that of the schooner Maria and cargo, the proofs given in the latter suit are invoked by the libellants and made part of the evidence. The vessel and cargo were captured May 1, 1862, at sea, a few miles off Charleston harbor, by the United States gunboat Huron, and were sent to this port for adjudication. The libel, demanding their confiscation as prize of war, was filed May 17, 1862. On the 10th of June thereafter, the master of the vessel, John F. Stein, intervened, and filed claims and answers to the libel, in behalf of Thomas McWilliam, as owner of the vessel, and of Francisco Otero & Co. and Rafael L. Sanchez, as owners of different portions of the cargo.

The ship's papers exhibit a British certificate of registry, given at Nassau, April 9, 1862, to Thomas McWilliam, of that port, but a resident of Matanzas. The vessel was built in New Jersey, and then took the name of Irene. Her crew list bears date April 18, 1862, and is for a voyage from Nassau to New York, without any return port being designated. A clearance of the vessel at Nassau for the port of New York was granted by the receiver general, April 20, 1862. There were on board bills of lading and invoices of portions of the cargo from Nassau and Matanzas, and a charter-party between Thomas McWilliam and Francisco Otero & Co., executed in Matanzas March 20, 1862, letting the vessel to the latter for the transportation of a cargo to be furnished by the hirers at Matanzas and Nassau on a voyage to New York.

The suit from which evidence is invoked into this case is that of the United States v. The schooner Maria and cargo. It was instituted May 21, 1862. The vessel was registered at Nassau, April 16, 1862, to William Smith, of Glasgow, Scotland, as having been built in Charleston, South Carolina, and was cleared at Nassau for New York

The Albert.

April 16, 1862, and was captured April 30, 1862, by a United States vessel-of war, near the coast of South Carolina. She had on board an invoice of forty boxes, containing 80 dozen cotton cards, shipped March 28, 1862, by Rafael L. Sanchez, at Matanzas, to be delivered at New York to Martinez, Gonzales & Co. The said Sanchez, by his claim and answer, filed in that suit July 8, 1862, claimed the merchandise as his property; and it is alleged by the counsel for the libellants that the consignor and consignees in that suit (the Maria and cargo) and the one here on trial (the Albert and cargo) are the same parties, and that the shipments have relation to a common commodity and purpose. On that allegation the evidence in the suit of The United States v. The Maria was allowed by the court to become, by invocation, evidence in the present suit.

That evidence, so brought into this case, shows that a Mr. Monet, of the firm of Monet, Jemenez & Co., charterers of the schooner Maria, was a passenger on board of that vessel at the time of her capture, and had with him on board a triplicate bill of lading for the cards on the two vessels, in which it was expressed that the cards should be landed in a southern port. It also appears, by comparison of the ship's papers, found on board the two vessels, that the said cards were shipped in both vessels under a common statement in the shipping papers of the destination of the vessels from Matanzas to New York, and a common letter of instructions by the shipper to the consignees.

This evidence shows, satisfactorily, that the shipment of the cards was for some southern port, and that the destination of this vessel, equally with that of her consort, the Maria, was simulated and false in that respect. The bill of lading engaging the delivery of one of the shipments at a southern port was carried covertly on board of the Maria, by one of the carriers of the goods, as his instructions and guide for the delivery of the cotton cards shipped on both vessels.

The log of the vessel, found on board, presents a suspicious appearance in several particulars. The whole front part of the book, consisting of many leaves, is cut out and absent. The first entry remaining bears date April 21, 1862, and appears to be the continuation of a preceding statement. The log does not name the time or place of departure, nor the place of destination; but the first entry implies that the vessel was then under way, and ten miles east of the Holein-the-Wall. The latitude and longitude are first noted April 23, and the latitude is recorded each succeeding day in April, but the longi

The Albert.

tude is not mentioned again. No course or distance run is given in the log. The vessel was captured on the 1st of May, but no entry is made of the fact. It is manifest that the log was kept with a view to conceal the true nature and intention of the voyage; and its gross mutilation amounts, under the rules of the prize law, to an act of culpability, which incurs the penalty of forfeiture of vessel and cargo.

The purchase of the vessel from an enemy by a resident in a neutral country, and the knowledge by the purchaser and the charterers of the existence of the war and of the blockade, and the intention to employ the vessel in violation of the blockade, are condemnatory facts, and, on the proofs before the court, plainly induce the forfeiture of vessel and cargo.

Again, there are in proof cumulative offences, in the conduct of this voyage and of its antecedent one, either one of which subjects the vessel to confiscation; and the last one is conclusively criminatory of the cargo. The voyage last preceding this one was made in evasion of the blockade of Charleston, and the present voyage was single and entire, from Matanzas, with the privilege of stopping at Nassau. From the latter port the voyage was directly and palpably for the purpose of violating the blockade of Charleston. All the witnesses concur in statements of the transaction which denote that intent unmistakably.

There is nothing in the case demanding a more detailed exposition of the reasons supporting the decree which the court feels constrained to pronounce. The adventure is flagrantly one of the many disclosed to the public by the incidents of this war, in which an exceedingly frail covering is paraded to screen a bold determination and effort to drive a criminal traffic with the rebels from neutral trading points situated in the vicinity of blockaded ports. That traffic is not dimin ishing in boldness and perseverance, but, though favored with manifold successes in the aggregate, yet the eyes of law and justice are not so completely purblind but that many efforts to violate the public law and the rights of the government are frustrated, and result in the discomfiture of pursuits which tend to the great wrong of this country, and to a disrupture of harmony between the United States and their neutral friends.

A decree of condemnation and forfeiture of the vessel and cargo will be entered.*

This decree was affirmed, on appeal, by the circuit court, November 11, 1863.

The Maria.

THE SCHOONER MARIA AND CARGO.

No legal transfer of the vessel shown from her enemy owner to her neutral claimant. She came out of a blockaded port clandestinely, on the voyage next preceding the one on which she was captured.

She knowingly attempted to violate the blockade.

Her papers were false as to her destination.

Her log-book was mutilated and altered.

Vessel and cargo condemned.

(Before BETTS, J., December 23, 1862.)

BETTS, J.: Many of the matters connected with this vessel and her cargo and voyage, and the prosecution and defence of this suit, are strikingly coincident with those occurring and considered in the preceding case of The United States v. The schooner Albert and cargo; and the proofs in the one case have, in several respects, been reciprocally invoked into the other, and made part of its proceedings.

The Maria was Charleston built, and proceeded from that port to Matanzas, in March, 1862, with a cargo of cotton. She took in a cargo at Matanzas and Nassau for New York, and a charter agreement was entered into between William Smith, her owner, and Messrs. Monet, Jemenez & Co., merchants at Matanzas, March 26, 1862, to add to and complete her cargo at the Bahama islands, for the port of New York. The cargo consisted chiefly of salt, especially adapted to the Charleston market. There was also a quantity of cotton cards, shipped by R. L. Sanchez. A provisional register of the vessel was taken ont in the name of William Smith, at Nassau, New Providence, April 16, 1862. A crew-list was executed by the master, at Matanzas, March 20, and by the mate and men, at Nassau, April 16 and 19, 1862, for a voyage to New York, and back to the port of Nassau. All the cargo was shipped in the name of the Charleston hirers, except one shipment by R. L. Sanchez. The vessel cleared at Nassau April 16, but the destination of the cargo was not named The log described her departure from Nassau, Sunday, April 20, 1862, towards New York, and her arrest by the United States steamer Santiago de Cuba at 1 p. m. on the 1st of May.

It is alleged in the libel that this seizure was made at sea, near the South Carolina coast, on or about the 30th of April. The master, intervening in the suit, and claiming and answering for the owner, admits the allegation in the libel to be correct, and as the log contains no other entry after the close of the last day of April than the mention of the capture, that undoubtedly occurred at sea-time, 1 a. m. instead of 1 p. m.