The Sarah Starr.

Eddy by the Munros in March, 1859, and was sold and transferred by them to C. Gravely on the 1st of July, 1861. The cargo was put on board of her during the same month, to be shipped to Liverpool. The vessel entered the port of Wilmington in March, 1861, and remained there till she sailed on her present voyage, about the 26th of July. The port of Wilmington was not in a state of actual blockade at the time of the egress of the vessel from that port.

The vessel and cargo were condemned as enemy property, and acquitted upon the charge of violating the blockade.

I concur in the condemnation of the vessel, for, although Gravely is a British subject, yet he is a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, and engaged in business there, and, for aught that appears, continued in business there since the breaking out of the war.

But the portion of the cargo belonging to G. C. & W. J. Munro stands on a different footing, and, in my judgment, is not liable to condemnation. The test oaths of those persons show the following facts, which are not in any way contradicted or unimpaired: They are, both of them, natives of Newport, Rhode Island-one born in the year 1812, the time of the other's birth not being stated. They have always resided in that State. They, both of them, have families residing there, and they own the residences in which they live. Since the commencement of their business as partners, which was about 1830, they have been in the habit, during each winter, of going, one of them, to Georgetown, South Carolina, and the other to Wilmington, North Carolina, and elsewhere in the south, making sales of goods, and reinvesting the proceeds, and returning, at the end of each business season, to their homes at Newport. During their visits south on business their families remain and reside at their homes. The cargo in question was bought from time to time in the months of May, June, and July, 1861, with the proceeds of goods sold by the firm, and with collections; and the purpose of the investment was to enable them to transfer the funds from the south to New York, or some northern State. The test oaths also detail the difficulties they encountered by opposition from the authorities at Wilmington in their endeavors to ship the goods north, and the necessity they were under of adopting the expedient of selling the vessel to C. Gravely, with a condition that he should carry the cargo to Liverpool, in order to get the goods out of the country. It does not appear, from the proofs, that these parties did not leave the south after the breaking out of the disturbances. Indeed, it appears affirmatively that they did leave the country as

The Ouachita.

soon after the disturbances as they could convert their property into funds which could conveniently be carried with them.

Under these circumstances I am of opinion that the decree against the portion of the cargo which belongs to the Munros is erroneous, and should be reversed. The domiciles of the owners were in Newport, Rhode Island, and they were entitled to a reasonable time to withdraw from their business connections in the enemy's country after the breaking out of the war. (The San José Indiano and cargo, 2 Gall., 268, 288, 289.)

The barrels of turpentine belonging to Evans, a resident and citizen of North Carolina, were enemy property.

The decree below is affirmed as to the vessel and the cargo belonging to Evans, and is reversed as to the cargo belonging to the Munros.

THE STEAMER OUACHITA AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: The steamer Ouachita was captured, as prize, by the steamship Memphis, on the 14th of October, 1862, off the southern coast, north of Charleston, S. C., in latitude 33° north, and longitude 77° 26' west. At the time of her capture she was some one hundred and fifty miles from land. When she was first discovered by the Memphis, she was only fifty or sixty miles from land. The Ouachita is owned by T. S. Begbie, a British subject, who is her claimant, and was commanded by T. S. Gilpin, also a British subject. She is a screw steamer, of about fifty tons burden. Her voyage was from London to Havana. She left in ballast, in August, 1862, and stopped at St. George's, Bermuda, where she took in a cargo of arms and ammunition for Nassau, consigned to a resident there, named Hart. The master had verbal directions from the owner, upon his arrival at Nassau, to deliver the vessel to Hart, together with whatever she had on board. Among the papers is a letter from Hart to the master, received by him while at Bermuda, in which the writer, after saying that he had been advised by the owner, Begbie, that the vessel would touch at that place, points out to the master the difficulties of escaping the United States vessels-of-war, in the passage to Nassau, and in

The Ouachita.

structs him how to avoid them. When the master left London, some letters were delivered to him by the owner, which, on opening, he found to be instructions to report to a person by the name of Bowne, at Bermuda, who would supply him with whatever was needful. Another letter was an introduction to Hart, of Nassau, and was of like purport with the one to Bowne. Bowne was shipper of the arms and ammunition on board of the vessel, at Bermuda, for Nassau. There were no bills of lading or invoice or other papers usual in case of a bona fide shipment; the only papers being the register, the shipping articles of the crew, and the clearance. Verbal instructions were given by Bowne to the master to follow the directions of Hart at Nassau, both as to the vessel and the cargo. There were some thirty-five tons of arms and ammunition on board. Soon after the discovery of the Memphis, on the morning of the 14th of October, the day of the capture, the Ouachita changed her course to the eastward, and, some hours after, finding that the Memphis gained on her, the master gave orders to throw the whole of the cargo overboard, which was done, with the hope of escaping, but she was overtaken and captured about four o'clock p. m. The master further states that he was chased by vessels under the command of Commodore Wilkes, when he left Bermuda, and escaped by running his vessel among the reefs. One of the crew, E. Young, first a cook on board, and afterwards a hand before the mast, testifies that the Ouachita was bound from Bermuda to Charleston, S. C.; that the cargo consisted of Enfield cartridges, rifles, and gun caps; and that the master applied to him and others of the crew to sign a paper by which to agree to run the blockade at Charleston, and offered £8 sterling if the vessel ran clear, and if not, three months' pay after capture.

I concur with the court below in the condemnation. It is impossible to doubt, upon the proofs, that the cargo was put on board the Ouachita with the intention of running the blockade of the southern coast of the Confederate States, and, especially, the blockade of the port of Charleston. The voyage from Bermuda to Havana was but a pretext. The vessel was, when captured, some six degrees north of Bermuda, and, when first chased, was within fifty or sixty miles of the coast. It is quite apparent that she was not in a course which would convey her to Nassau or Havana. The proofs also show that Begbie, the owner, was privy to, and, doubtless, originated the adventure. Decree below affirmed.

The General Green and The Delta.

THE BARK GENERAL GREENE AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, condemning the vessel as enemy property, and restoring the cargo as belonging to neutral owners, affirmed.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: This vessel was captured by the Quaker City, off Cape Henry, June 4, 1861. The vessel belonged to H. Oppenheim, a citizen of South Carolina and a resident of Charleston. The cargo belonged to neutral owners. The vessel was condemned and the cargo restored.

The decree below is affirmed.

THE BRIG DELTA AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade affirmed.

Under the proclamation of blockade of the President of April, 1861, as oonstrued by the Supreme Court, a neutral vessel is not entitled to a warning at the blockaded port, if her owner or master had previous knowledge or notice of the existence of the blockade; but, in the absence of such knowledge or notice, the master is entitled to make inquiry and receive the warning before condemation can take place.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured, on the 27th of October, 1861, off the port of Galveston, Texas, by the United States ship Santee. At the time of her capture she was steering for that port, to make inquiry if it was under blockade, intending, if it was so found, to sail for Matamoras. She had on board a cargo of salt, and had left Liverpool about the 1st of September, bound for Matamoras, Mexico, the cargo to be delivered at the port of Minatitlan. J. A. Marsh, of Liverpool, a British subject, is owner of the vessel, and Charles W. Adams, of Boston, an American citizen, is owner of the cargo. The latter sold the vessel to the former at Liverpool, a few days before the commencement of the voyage, and took a mortgage back to secure the purchase money, and took also a charter of the vessel for the period of eighteen months.

It is urged, on behalf of the owners of the vessel and the cargo, that, at the time of sailing from Liverpool, in the fore part of September, 1861, neither the master nor the owners had any knowledge or notice of the actual blockade of the port of Galveston; that they only

The Delta.

knew of the existence of the war, and of an intention to blockade the confederate ports, by the proclamation of the President, in the April preceding; and that the change of course from Matamoras or Minatitlan to Galveston, was with a view to make inquiry and ascertain whether an actual blockade had been established at the latter port. I agree, that, upon the construction given by a majority of the Supreme Court to the terms and effect of the President's proclamation, the neutral ship is not entitled to a warning at the blockaded port, if the owner or master had previous knowledge or notice of the existence of the blockade; but, in the absence of such knowledge or notice, the master, as I understand the construction, is entitled to make inquiry, and receive the warning, before condemnation can take place. If it appears, in this case, that the owners or the master were not in possession of that knowledge at the time of the sailing of the Delta from Liverpool, I should be inclined to sustain the right of the master to steer for the port of Galveston, for the purpose and with the intention stated by him. But, as I understand the deposition in preparatorio of Taylor, who was the supercargo employed by Adams, the owner, at Liverpool, he expressly states that he knew that the port of Galveston was under blockade before the vessel left England. Kent, the steward, also testifies to substantially the same effect, in respect to his information. It also appears, from the deposition of the mate, Davidson, that, after the vessel reached the Gulf of Mexico, the captain changed his mind as to the course of the vessel, and called into consultation Taylor, the supercargo, and the mate, and then resolved to proceed to Galveston, instead of Matamoras or Minatitlan, and inquire if that port was blockaded, and had an entry to that effect made in the master's log-book, but not in the vessel's log-book, kept by the mate. As I have already stated, two of the persons engaged in the consultation admit that they knew, at the time they left Liverpool, that the port of Galveston was blockaded, and it is difficult to believe that the master was not also aware of the fact.

It is suggested that the master learned on the voyage that negotiations for peace had taken place and were pending, but the suggestion is feebly sustained by the proofs in the case.

I may add, that the circumstances attending the sale and mortgage of the vessel are calculated to excite suspicion in respect to the bona fides of the voyage.

Upon the whole, after some hesitation, I am inclined to concur in the decree below, both as to vessel and cargo.