The John Gilpin. quiry, although, at the same time, he had good reason for the belief that the port was in a state of actual blockade. This interpretation of the proclamation was overruled by a majority of the Supreme Court in the case of the Hiawatha, and must be regarded, therefore, as affording no justification to either vessel or cargo. But, although the terms of the proclamation furnish no justification for the act, yet, I think they are entitled to consideration when we are inquiring into the intent with which the master was sailing for the blockaded port. These terms may have honestly misled him; and the fact that the vessel was found at a place which would, under other circumstances, be suspicious, may, in view of those terms, be consistent with her entire innocence. There was no official notice of the blockade of the port of New Orleans given by this government to the British or the Brazilian government. There is no evidence in this case at what time it was established. The case must stand upon a blockade de facto, as it respects foreign neutral traders at the belligerent port. No doubt a general notoriety prevailed at Rio Janeiro, at the time of the sailing of the vessel from that place, that the mouths of the Mississippi were blockaded; and the master of the vessel was advised, in the course of the voyage, by, a vessel which he hailed, that he would be stopped at the Balize. There are, undoubtedly, cases which hold, as a general rule, that, even in the case of a blockade de facto, the inquiry must not be made at the blockaded port, if it be reasonably practicable to ascertain the fact by inquiry at a neutral port. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, and, under all the circumstances and proofs in the case, I am inclined to think that the present is one of them. The decree of the court below is reversed. THE SCHOONER JOHN GILPIN AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning the cargo, reversed. A citizen temporarily residing in the enemy's country at the breaking out of the war is entitled to a reasonable time to collect his effects, and convert them into available and manageable funds, so as to enable him to withdraw them from the country. The transaction in this case was an honest and bona fide effort for that purpose. (Before NELSON, J., November 7, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This vessel, with her cargo, consisting of cotton and staves, was captured about the 25th of April, 1862, in the port of New The John Gilpin. Orleans, by gunboat No. 8, of Captain Farragut's fleet, after the taking of the city of New Orleans. The proceedings against the vessel were suspended in the court below, and a decree of condemnation was rendered against the cargo as enemy property. The claimants are the Weymouth Iron Company, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts. It appears from the test oaths that, in the latter part of 1860, this company shipped large quantities of nails manufactured by them, which were consigned to a house in New Orleans for sale on commission. The shipment was at their risk; the sale was to be made on their account, and the proceeds were to be remitted. At the breaking out of the war, a large stock of these nails, unsold, remained in the hands of the agent. After the disturbances of the war, the article being unsalable, the agent, Mr. Baldwin, exchanged the nails for cotton, which was put on board of the schooner with the intent to ship the same, as the proceeds of the nails, to the owners in Massachusetts. The original design was to get access to the blockading squadron and obtain permission to send the proceeds home; but, access for that purpose not having been obtained previous to the capture of the city, the vessel remained at her wharf, and was there found under the circumstances stated, where she was seized, as already mentioned, as prize of war. It further appears from the test oaths that the agent had much difficulty in preventing the property from being seized by the enemy, and had to resort to various devices to conceal and preserve it for the owners. The precise time when the exchange of the nails for the cotton took place in New Orleans does not appear. It is, however, fairly to be inferred from the proofs, that it was as early as June, 1861, and prior to the proclamation of the President prohibiting commercial intercourse with the enemy, in pursuance of the act of July 13, 1861, which proclamation was issued on the 16th of August following. I have had before me heretofore the question involved in this case, and came to the conclusion that a citizen temporarily residing in the enemy's country at the breaking out of the war was entitled to a reasonable time to collect his effects and convert them into available and manageable funds, so as to enable him to withdraw them from the country. The whole transaction in this case seems to have been an honest and bona fide effort for this purpose. The case, as it stands upon the proofs, is a meagre one. But one witness on board of the vessel, the mate, was examined in preparatorio, and none of the The Albert. ship's papers are produced. Their absence and also the absence of the other hands on the vessel are sought to be accounted for by the confusion and disorder that reigned in the city at and after the capture. The only question is, whether or not the cotton, under the facts and circumstances stated, was enemy property. There is no question of blockade. The vessel and cargo were, at the time of capture, waiting at the wharf with a view to obtain permission for a lawful voyage, that the proceeds of the nails might be sent home. I cannot think that they should be regarded as enemy property, and must, therefore, reverse the decree below, and direct one to be entered for the claimants dismissing the libel. THE SCHOONER ALBERT AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed. The excuse set up, that the vessel sought the blockaded port under stress of weather, overruled. (Before NELSON, J., November 11, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured off Rattlesnake Shoals, near the mouth of Charleston harbor, South Carolina, about fifteen or twenty miles from Charleston. The vessel was, at the time, steering a straight course into the harbor. The capture was made on the 1st of May, 1862. The vessel, with part of her cargo, sailed from Matamoras, Cuba, stopped at Nassau, and took in the rest, and started, according to her papers, for the port of New York. The cargo consisted chiefly of coffee, sweet oil, fruits, and salt. The captain admits that he was wide of his regular course to New York at the time of the capture; and also that he was steering, at the time, square into the coast, which, as explained by one of the officers on board of the gunboat Huron, which made the capture, was sailing square into the harbor of Charleston. The excuse set up is, that the vessel encountered great stress of weather and head winds. But it does not appear that she was in any way disabled or crippled, or that any reason existed for seeking to enter the port of Charleston. The whole of the proofs satisfy me that the excuse set up is without any meritorious foundation, and does not reasonably explain the suspicious position of the vessel. She had been previously warned not to enter the port, as it was in a state of blockade, and the warning is noted on her papers. The court below con The Ezilda.-The Patras. demned the vessel and cargo. I think that the decree was right and should be affirmed. The vessel and cargo have been sold under an interlocutory order, and the fund remains for distribution. THE SCHOONER EZILDA AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., November 11, 1863.) NELSON, J.: The vessel and cargo in this case were captured about the 1st of October, 1861, by the United States steamer South Carolina, while attempting to break the blockade off New Orleans. The proof is full on this point. The vessel was taken into the service of the government, as also some arms found on board of her. The vessel and cargo were condemned in the court below. On appeal by the claimant the case was submitted, on briefs, at the last April term, but no copies of apostles were delivered to the court. I have taken the original papers on file and looked into them. There does not appear to have been any claim for the cargo. I agree that the vessel and cargo were rightfully condemned, and affirm the decree below. THE STEAMER PATRAS AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., November 14, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This steamer, with a cargo consisting of powder, arms, ammunition, coffee, and quinine, was captured off Charleston harbor, South Carolina, May 27, 1862, by the United States steamer Bienville. The proofs are full that she was captured while attempting to break the blockade of the port of Charleston, and that she attempted to escape, but was pursued and captured. The vessel was from Hull, England, and was ostensibly bound, on the voyage on which she was taken, from Havana to St. John's, N. B. The court below condemned the vessel and cargo. Most of the cargo has heretofore been sold or appraised and delivered to the gov ernment. The decree of the court below is affirmed. The Stettin.-The Nassau. THE STEAMER STETTIN AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., November 14, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This steamer, with a cargo consisting of tea, coffee, brandies, lead, shoes, &c, was captured on the 24th of May, 1862, while attempting to break the blockade of the port of Charleston, South Carolina, by the United States steamer Bienville. The proofs are full, that the vessel was not only near the mouth of the harbor of Charleston at the time of her capture, but that she was intending to enter it, with full knowledge of the blockade. The vessel has been appraised and delivered to the government, and most of the cargo has been sold. The court below decrees a condemnation of the vessel and cargo. The decree of the court below is affirmed. THE STEAMER NASSAU AND CARGO. Property seized as prize of war under the law of nations is discharged from all latent liens or incumbrances, and in this respect is distinguishable from property seized as forfeited under the municipal laws of a State. Vessels and cargoes seized for a violation of the laws of blockade, or as enemy property, are prize of war under the law of nations, and not under municipal authority. Decree of the district court, refusing to recognize a lien upon the vessel for repairs made and materials furnished prior to the war, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., November 18, 1863.) NELSON, J.: The Nassau was captured on the 28th of May, 1862, by the steamer State of Georgia, while attempting to break the blockade of the port of Wilmington, North Carolina. The vessel has been sold, and a great portion of the cargo, consisting of arms and military equipments, has been appraised and turned over to the government. Harlan and others intervened in the court below, and claimed a lien upon the vessel as material men, and for repairs made upon her at their yard in Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, in the summer of 1860. The amount claimed is some $10,000 and upwards. It is admitted that property seized as prize of war, under the law of nations, is discharged from all latent liens or incumbrances, and, in this respect, is distinguishable from property seized as forfeited under the municipal laws of a State. The learned counsel for the claimants has, with great industry and ability, sought to bring the case of the seizure of the |