The Levi Rowe.

attorney, who moved the consideration and judgment of the court upon the same.

The vessel's documents are a certificate of British registry issued to Joseph Eneas, of New York, as owner, dated at Nassau, New Providence, September 21, 1861; a shipping agreement made at the same place November 10, 1862, for a voyage to Beaufort, North Carolina, and back to Nassau; a clearance at the same place the same day for Beaufort aforesaid, with a cargo of ten barrels of oranges and two thousand four hundred bushels of salt; also a log-book. The President's proclamation of May 12, 1862, and the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury thereunder of the same date, and a license granted to the vessel at Nassau November 11, 1862, legalized the above-mentioned voyage, and exempted the vessel from liability to seizure for trading with or entering the port of Beaufort, North Carolina. A charter-party, executed by Sawyer & Menendez, as owners of the vessel, to James M. Taylor, was found on board of her, dated at Nassau November 11, 1862, for a voyage to Beaufort, North Carolina, thence to New York and back to Nassau. The master of the vessel and all persons concerned in the voyage knew that the ports of North Carolina, except Beaufort, were under blockade. The master testifies that the vessel was thirty-five miles south of Beaufort and ten miles from land on the North Carolina coast, when captured. Taylor, the supercargo, the only other witness, gives about the same testimony as to the time and place of capture. Both of them fix the distance to be about thirty-five miles from Beaufort, but neither of them names the place nearest which she was captured. They both assert she was steering for Beaufort, and not sailing towards the land and away from the Mount VerThe prize-master testifies, in his deposition verifying the arrest and the papers taken from the prize, that the vessel was, when captured, standing directly into Topsail inlet, about six miles off shore. The log-book makes no mention of the capture or of the position of the vessel at the time of her arrest, nor does it enter the proceedings of the vessel on the 28th of November, the day of her seizure. The master testifies that the arrest was made about noon of that day.

non.

The testimony of both of the witnesses shows that the vessel and the lading were considered by them to be the property of Sawyer & Menendez. No proof exists on the papers that a title to the vessel ever passed to them from her American owner; but whether she was owned by them or by Eneas, the American proprietor, any attempt

858 Bales of Cotton, &c.

to evade the blockade at Topsail inlet would be illegal, and would subject her to condemnation. There is a palpable reserve in the log and in the statements of the witnesses examined in preparatorio which, connected with the circumstances surrounding the voyage, affords probable cause for the belief that the vessel was engaged in an illicit adventure, and this is so strongly made out that I shall suspend a final decision in the case, with leave to the libellants to put in further proofs as to the point or place at which the capture was made, and also as to the purpose of the voyage at any time within one year after the entry of the decree on this decision.

EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-EIGHT BALES OF COTTON AND

OTHER PROPERTY.

Property captured as prize at Newbern, North Carolina, having been shipped to New York by the captor on board of a merchant vessel on freight under a bill of lading signed at the time, conditioned for its delivery at New York on payment of the freight therein stipulated, the court ordered the freight to be paid by the marshal out of the proceeds of the property in court.

On general principles, property captured as prize belongs in law to the government, and is chargeable with the same liabilities as if it had been owned by individuals and had been benefited under contracts direct or implied.

The United States, in relation to the proprietorship of property, have in their public capacity like authority and remedies and are subject to like liabilities in dealing with it through legal agencies or otherwise as natural persons, except, perhaps, in respect to the operation of laws of limitation or rules resting upon usages under the law merchant.

(Before BETTS, J., January, 1863.)

The United States and Captors v. Eight hundred and fifty-eight bales of cotton, brought on freight from Newbern, North Carolina, to the port of New York, as prize property, on board the schooner Clifton; The same v. One hundred and twenty-one barrels of oil, one thousand three hundred and thirty-one barrels of resin, pitch, and turpentine, and two hundred and fifty-seven casks of resin, transported as aforesaid on board the schooner Palmer. It being satisfactorily proved in each of the above-entitled causes that the vessels therein named were not at the time of the lading and affreightment on board them of the merchandise above mentioned, in the employment of or under control of char ter-party with the libellants, and bound to receive and transport the said merchandise from Newbern, North Carolina, to the port of New York or any other port or place for the libellants, except by virtue of the bills of lading and affreightment executed to the shipper of the goods at the time and set forth in these proceedings, and it appearing to the court that the said ladings were shipped under bills of lading signed

858 Bales of Cotton. &c.

at the time, conditioned for their delivery in this port on payment of the freight therein stipulated, it is, therefore, considered that the said cargoes, notwithstanding the same were prize goods remitted to this port for the benefit of the libellants and for the purpose of adjudication in the prize court of this district, are legally and justly subject to the payment of freight according to the terms of the said bills of lading. Wherefore it is ordered by the court that a true computation of said freight be made and stated, and that thereupon the marshal pay the same to the claimants out of the proceeds of said goods in court, as part of the expenses and charges to which the same are legally and justly liable and subject.

BETTS, J.: The above order is made in the before-named suits, upon facts entirely distinct from the case of The Undertaker's cargo, decided in the Massachusetts district, November 18, 1862, the vessels which transported the prize cargoes in that case being under demise to the United States, and compensated in sums in gross for the whole period of their service.

On general principles, property captured as prize belongs in law to the government, (The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat, 76; S. C., 10 Id., 306; 3 Phillimore's Internat. Law, 189, § 128; The Elsebe, 5 Ch. Rob., 173.) and is, accordingly, chargeable with the same liabilities as if it had been owned by individuals, and had been benefited under contracts, direct or implied. Commodore Rowan, of the United States navy, the captor of this prize, was a competent agent of the United States to bind them, as owners of the property, to a fulfilment of this contract for its carriage. The United States, in relation to the proprietorship of real or personal property, have, in their public capacity, like authority and remedies, and are subject to like liabilities in dealing with it through legal agencies, or otherwise, as natural persons, except, perhaps, in respect to the operation of laws of limitation, or rules resting upon usages under the law merchant. (The United States v. Tingey, 5 Peters, 115; The same v. Bradley, 10 Id., 343; The same v. The Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Id., 377; Dungan v. The United States, 3 Wheat., 172; Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How., 98; The United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat, 559; The same v. The Bank of the United States, 5 How., 382.)

The order to the marshal to pay the applicants the amount of freight due in the above suits will be entered as above indicated.

The Florida.

THE SCHOONER FLORIDA AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, and for an attempt to violate the blockade. A false destination and a false ownership of the vessel were alleged on her papers.

(Before BETTS, J., February 26, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: The libel charges that this vessel and cargo were captured, as prize, by the United States vessel-of-war Matthew Vassar, January 11, 1863, at sea, near Little River inlet, off the coast of South Carolina. The prize was arrested in this port, in the hands of the prize commissioners, by the marshal, on process of attachment and monition, February 2, 1863, and his return of the process, with certificate of due service and of public notice, was made and filed in court February 24, thereafter; whereupon, on motion of the district attorney, a decree of default was rendered against the prize and all persons interested therein.

The proofs returned by the prize commissioners consist of depositions in preparatorio, given by the master and the mate of the vessel, and also the ship's papers found on board of her at the time of her capture, identified by the testimony of the prize-master.

The vessel, when arrested, was carrying the British flag, and had a certificate of British registry, dated at Nassau, N. P., December 4, 1862, to R. N. Menendez, of that place, indorsed January 2, 1863, as transferred to H. R. Saunders, of that place, merchant. The clearance was for Beaufort, N. C., then an open port, and the vessel was arrested while running into Little River inlet, a blockaded port on the North Carolina coast. The master testifies that he was the owner of the vessel and of all the cargo; that he bought the vessel in Nassau from the firm of Sawyer & Menendez, in December, 1862, and she was delivered to him there by one of that firm; that he is a native of North Carolina, and resides in that State, from which he came to Nassau the same month; that he knew that the ports of North Carolina were under blockade, and that the one he was attempting to enter was so at the time of the capture; that his real voyage was from Nassau to any port of North Carolina he could get into, and thence back to Nassau; and that the vessel was American-built.

It is unnecessary to pursue the detail of testimony further. The adventure was a flagrant, undisguised effort to break the blockade and carry on an illicit trade with the enemy, with property belonging wholly

The Mercury.

to an enemy, and under papers representing a false destination and a false ownership of the vessel.

A decree of condemnation and forfeiture of the vessel and cargo is ordered to be entered.

THE SLOOP MERCURY AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned for a violation of the blockade, and as enemy property.

(Before BETTS, J., February 28, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: This vessel, with a cargo of spirits of turpentine, was captured as prize January 4, 1863, coming out of Charleston harbor, by the United States ship-of-war Quaker City. The cargo was sent to this port for adjudication, and regularly arrested here, by warrant of attachment, January 30 thereafter. The marshal duly returned the process February 17 thereafter. No one appearing on the return and proclamation to make defence, a judgment of default and condemnation was then duly entered, upon motion of the district attorney. No ship's papers were found on board of the vessel.

The owner of the vessel, her mate, and one passenger were examined as witnesses in preparatorio before the prize commissioners. The facts proved by the testimony are, that the vessel and her cargo of turpentine were both the entire property of the witness, the owner, who resided in Charleston, and avowed, on oath, his citizenship, and denied all allegiance to the United States government. He purchased the vessel and her cargo in Charleston immediately previous to her leaving port on this voyage. He knew of the blockade of the port. She had attempted to come out once unsuccessfully previous to her capture, and was captured in or near the harbor of Charleston as she came out of it on a voyage destined to Nassau, New Providence, and back to Charleston. A mail on board, which she was carrying to Nassau, was thrown overboard. The owner avers that she raised no flag because she had none on board, but that he would have carried a confederate flag had he possessed one, and would have resisted the seizure by force had he been armed. The mate testifies that the capture was made in Charleston harbor, January 4, between two and three o'clock in the morning.

The vessel was on her arrest taken to Port Royal, and, under an appraisement and survey, by order of Admiral DuPont, was appro