See DAMAGES, 1.
ENEMY, 16, 27, 28, 30, 35 to 37.
EVIDENCE, 1 to 3, 5, 15.
FURTHER PROOF, 4, 5,
JURISDICTION, 5 to 10, 12.
NEUTRAL, 17, 18.
PRACTICE, 5, 11, 19 to 21, 42.
PRIZE COMMISSIONER, 8.
RESTORATION, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15 to 17, 20,
1. The marshal is not authorized to appoint
an auctioneer to conduct a judicial sale,
at the expense of the government or of
a private party, without the consent of
the party for whose benefit the service
is performed. The Tubal Cain, 347.
2. Any custom or usage to that effect rests
only on the direct consent of the party
using the process of sale. Id.
3. An auctioneer cannot have costs or dis-
bursements taxed in his favor by the
court, in invitum, against the libellants
or claimants personally, or against the
res, nor can the auctioneer's charges be
taxed to the marshal as a part of his dis-
bursements. Id.
1. The cargo having been delivered to the
claimants on bail before hearing, it after-
wards appeared that it had been ap-
praised at less than its real value, and
that the security was in too small an
amount. A motion was made that the
cargo be restored to the custody of the
court, but it appearing that it was no
longer in the possession of the claimants
or the bail, but had passed to bona fide
purchasers, the court awarded monitions
against the claimants to pay into court
the difference in amount between the pro-
ceeds or value of the cargo delivered to
them and the amount of the bail. The
Lynchburg, 57.
2. Property seized as prize may be pursued
in rem into the hands of all persons who
become possessed of it, or by monition
against such persons, if its proceeds have
been brought into court. Id.
3. It matters not whether the prize goods re-
main in kind or have been dispored of
bona fide by sale. The holder of the thing
or of its proceeds may be compelled, by
monition, to deliver the same into court,
to be there disposed of according to the
rights of the captors.
Id.
4. And this may be done as against persons
having the proceeds of prize property in
their hands, when an insufficient stipu-
lation has been taken, on a delivery on
bail. Id.
See APPRAISER, 1, 2.
COSTS, 14, 15.
PRACTICE, 46.
PRACTICE, 58.
SEARCH, 1.
UNITED STATES.
1. Defective character of the bills of lading
and manifest of the cargo. The Spring-
bok, 434.
See CARGO, 1, 2.
CONDEMNATION, 4.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 12.
ENEMY, 3.
EVIDENCE, 13.
FREIGHT, 2.
PAPERS, 19.
PRACTICE, 56.
TITLE.
See CONDEMNATION, 52.
ENEMY, 10, 24.
1. The act of July 13, 1861, (12 U. S. Statutes
at Large, 255,) "further to provide for
the collection of duties on imports, and for
other purposes," did not rescind the prior
proceedings of the President in authoriz
ing acts of war by the United States or in
establishing blockades of the enemy's
ports, or make void captures previously
made for violations of such blockades.
The Hiawatha, 1.
2. A blockade of the enemy's ports is as law.
ful a means of war, in civil warfare, as it
is in a war between nations foreign to
each other. Id.
3. Under the proclamation of blockade of
April 19, 1861, it is not necessary to the
lawfulness of the capture of a vessel
seized for violating the blockade, that a
warning should have been previously in-
dorsed on her register, where, at the
time of capture, she had entered into or
escaped from the blockaded port, or pos
sessed knowledge or notice of the block-
ade. Id.
4. A notice of a blockade to the officials of a
neutral goverument is a sufficient notice
of it to the subjects of such govern-
ment. Id.
5. The act of egress is as culpable as the act
of ingress, when done in fraud of a
blockade. Id.
6. On notice of a blockade, a neutral vessel
has a right to withdraw from the block-
aded port, with all the cargo honestly
laden on board before the commence-
ment of the blockade. Id.
7. The acts of a master in breach of a block-
ade affect the cargo equally with the ves
sel, if the cargo is laden on board after
the blockade has become effective as to
the vessel. Id
8. A warning on the register of a vessel is
not necessary to establish notice of a
blockade where actual notice of it to the
master or owner is satisfactorily made
out otherwise. Id.
9. Vessel condemned for violating the block.
ade after notice of its existence to her
master. The Crenshaw, 2.
10. A portion of the cargo condemned, because
laden on board after the blockade and
notice thereof to the claimants. Id.
11. A part of the cargo restored, being the
property of neutrals who had no notice
of the blockade, but no costs allowed
against the captors, Id.
12. A vessel approaching a blockaded port,
with intent to violate the blockade, is not
entitled to be warned off. The Hallie
Jackson, 2.
13. In the absence of notice of a blockade, an
inquiry at a blockaded port excused.
The Forest King, 2.
14. An entry into a blockaded port to obtain
necessary supplies excused. Id.
15. To constitute a blockade of a port, an ade-
quate force must be stationed to render
the entrance or departure of vessels into
or from the port dangerous. The Sarah
Starr, 69.
16. In order to affect a neutral with the penal
consequences of a violation of a block-
ade, it is necessary for him to have been
sufficiently informed of its existence.
The Louisa Agnes, 107.
17. An attempt by à neutral vessel to enter or
evade a blockaded port, with knowledge
or notice of the blockade, is a culpable
violation of it, although no warning in
writing is given to such vessel. Id.
18. If a vessel approaches a blockaded port
with knowledge of the blockade, and
with the intention of violating it, her
subsequent departure under the compul-
sory direction of a blockading cruiser
does not reintegrate her to the state of
an innocent trader, and she may still be
arrested for the offence. Id.
19. An attempt, on the part of a neutral owner,
to mislead a blockading force by a de-
ceptive representation on his vessel's
papers, amounts to fraudulent miscon
duct, which justifies the confiscation of
the vessel. Id.
20. Every dissemblance in the papers will, in
the judgment of a prize court, be regard-
ed as intended to conceal what could not
be safely disclosed, and as affording evi-
dence that the destination of the ves-
sel was falsified with a design to de-
fraud. Id.
21. A fraudulent attempt to violate a blockade
warrants a condemnation, although the
claimant may be able to show that the
captors have been guilty of irregularities
and wrongs towards the prize or its ship's
company subsequent to capture. Id.
22. The true destination of the vessel in this
case was not disclosed upon her papers.
The defence set up that the vessel made
inquiry at a neutral port as to the block-
ade, and was informed that it had been
raised, and then directed her course
towards a blockaded port in order to
make inquiry there as to the existence
of the blockade before attempting to
enter, shown to be groundless. The
Delta, 133.
23. A contingent destination to a blockaded
port, if it in fact existed, must appear on
the ship's papers. Id.
24. Where knowledge of a blockade exists at
the commencement of the voyage of a
vessel, she cannot lawfully approach a
blockaded port, even for the bona fide
purpose of inquiring as to the continu-
ance of the blockade; and, if she does,
she is liable to capture. Id.
25. A contingent destination to a blockaded
port must appear on the ship's papers;
otherwise it will be presumed that there
was a dishonest purpose in approaching
such port. The Cheshire, 151.
26. In this case there was positive evidence
of such dishonest purpose. The alleged
purpose of making inquiry as to the
raising of the blockade was a mere pre-
tence. Id.
27. A neutral vessel, with knowledge of the
existence of a blockade, has no right to
proceed to a blockaded port with the
purpose of inquiring there as to the con-
tinuance of the blockade. The inquiry
must be made elsewhere than at the
mouth of the port itself. Id.
28. A clear necessity will justify an entrance
into a blockaded port, but satisfactory
evidence will be required of the reality
and urgency of the necessity. The Major
Barbour, 167.
29. Formerly, the act of sailing for a blockaded
port, with knowledge of the blockade,
was itself evidence of an attempt to
evade the blockade; but now the law is
that some overt act, denoting the forbid-
den attempt, must be shown in addition
to the intention. The Empress, 175.
30. Sailing purposely for a blockaded port,
with the intention properly notified on
the ship's papers or otherwise fairly dis-
closed, may be excused in a neutral ves-
sel, if the object is honestly to inquire
elsewhere whether the blockade still
continues, and, if so, to avoid the block-
aded port and complete the voyage at a
lawful one. Id.
31. The inquiry cannot lawfully be made at
the blockaded port if it can be made
elsewhere. Id.
32. Under the President's proclamation of
April 19, 1861, establishing a blockade
pursuant to the law of nations," a neu-
tral vessel, knowing a port to be under
blockade and sailing towards it with in-
tent to evade such blockade, is subject to
capture without being warned off by the
blockading vessels. Id.
33. In this case the vessel, with knowledge of
the blockade and of its continuance, en-
tered within the line of the blockading
vessels with intent to pursue her voyage
towards the blockaded port until she
should be warned off. Id.
34. The court will take judicial notice of the
notorious course of trade between the
neutral port of Nassau and the block.
aded ports of the enemy. The Mer-
scy, 187.
35. Suspicions circumstances as to the des-
tination of the vessel commented on. Id.
36. A settled course of trade in violating the
blockade, and the employment of the
vessel before in such trade, and the fact
that her claimant had before been en-
gaged in such trade, taken into consid-
eration in deciding this case. The William
H. Northrop, 235.
37. A seizure of a vessel for the violation of a
blockade is lawful, if made by a national
vessel, though not made by a vessel
forming a part of the blockading force.
The Memphis, 260.
38. Purchase of vessel from an enemy during
the war by a resident in a neutral coun-
try with intent to employ her in violating
the blockade. The Albert, 282.
39. The vessel came out of a blockaded port
clandestinely on the voyage next pre-
ceding the one on which she was cap-
tured. The Maria, 283.
40. She knowingly attempted to violate the
blockade on the voyage on which she
was captured. Id.
41. The vessel was captured while attempting
to violate the blockade. The Ella War-
ley, 288.
42. She violated the blockade on the voyage
next preceding the one on which she
was captured. Id.
43. The offence of attempting to violate a
legal blockade is not consummated
merely by the existence of a purpose to
commit the act, but the vessel must be
intercepted while endeavoring to carry
out the guilty design. The John Gil-
pin, 291.
44. However earnestly the criminal intent
may have been entertained and pro-
ceeded upon for a time, if it be really
given up before the arrest the property
is not liable to confiscation because of the
previous wrongful purpose. Id.
45. A vessel setting out with the object of
evading a legal blockade will be relieved
from the penalty following her detection
in seemingly adhering to that purpose in
her doings, only upon clear evidence
that at the time of capture the fraudu
lent and guilty intention had been wholly
relinquished. Id.
46. It is not the mere mental design which the
law punishes, but the overt act in start-
ing for or proceeding towards the pro-
hibited port with the knowledge that it
is blockaded, and continuing on that
course up to the arrest. Id.
47. In this case the vessel and cargo were not
in the act of attempting to violate the
blockade when captured. Id.
48. The vessel, on her voyage next preceding
the one on which she was captured, had
violated the blockade. The Belle, 294.
49. She was laden and virtually owned by
parties notoriously actively concerned
during the war in carrying on an illicit
trade with the blockaded ports of the
enemy. Id.
50. Where it is claimed that a vessel was com-
pelled to attempt to enter a blockaded
port by an overwhelming necessity,
arising from injuries received at sea, and
the loss of fuel, water, and provisions,
the burden lies upon her to establish the
necessity. The Sunbeam, 316.
51. Violation of the blockade by the vessel on
previous voyages. The Granite City, 355.
52. In the case of a vessel seized as prize by
reason of her having violated a block-
ade, or been used by the enemy for war-
like purposes, it is of no consequence
that she was so employed without the
knowledge or approbation of her owner.
The Napoleon, 357.
53. In time of war, a neutral vessel is subject
to forfeiture if run into a blockaded port
by her commander, independently of
proof of instructions by or actual inten-
tion on the part of her owner to evade
the blockade, he having previous due
notice of its existence and efficiency. Id.
54. The court overruled the defences set up by
the claimants, namely, that the blockade
of the port of Wilmington, N. C., was
not efficient, and that a vessel-of-war of
the United States, not stationed in guard
of a blockaded port, had no right to
seize a vessel violating such blockade.
The Douro, 362.
55. This vessel was seized as prize and taken to
Key West, and released by the prize
court there on bonds, and permitted to
proceed on her voyage. She was after-
wards arrested again as prize, for an
alleged attempt to violate the blockade
after leaving Key West: Held, that her
release at Key West did not absolve
her from her obligation not to violate
the blockade afterwards. The Rising
Dawn, 368.
56. Approaching a blockaded coast from neces-
sity. Id.
57. In this case the neutral consignee, at a neu-
tral port, of a cargo delivered there by a
vessel which had brought it from a block-
aded port of the enemy, in violation of
the blockade, acquired a perfect title to
it, as against persons who captured it as
prize on its subsequent transportation
on a neutral vessel, from such neutral
port to another neutral port. The Isa-
bella Thompson, 377.
58. Acting on the persuasion that the cargo
had been unlawfully brought from a
blockaded port, and had been directly
laden from the first vessel into the second
vessel, the captors acted properly in
bringing in the latter vessel and her
cargo for adjudication. Id.
59. Had any solidarity of interests between
the two vessels, in the entire voyage
from the enemy port to the last neutral
port, been established by the proofs, or
any complicity between them in the
enterprise, the captors might well in-
voke the judgment of the court in con-
demnation of the enterprise. Id.
60. The course of trade during the present
war, in regard to running the blockade
from neutral ports in the vicinity of the
enemy's country, commented on. The
Stephen Hart, 387.
61. Held, on the evidence, that the cargo of
the vessel was intended, on its departure
from England, to be carried into the
enemy's country for the use of the ene-
my, by a violation of the blockade of
soine one of the enemy's ports, either in
that vessel or in another vessel into
which the cargo was to be trans-shipped,
for the purpose of being transported by
sea to the enemy's country. Id.
62. The cargo of the vessel was intended to
be delivered in the enemy's country, by
trans-shipment, at Nassau, into a vessel
in which it should be carried through the
blockade; and such was the intended
destination of the cargo on its departure
from England. The Springbok, 434.
63. A lawful blockade had been imposed by
this government, and put in force, at the
time of the arrest of the vessel in this
suit. The Mary Clinton, 556.
64. The proclamation of blockade is, of itself,
conclusive evidence that a state of war
existed which demanded and authorized
a recourse to a blockade, under the cir-
cumstances existing in the case. Id.
65. Where the owner of a vessel and her mas-
ter are aware of the existence of a block-
ade at the time the vessel sails on her
voyage, and have no reason to believe
that it has subsequently ceased, the ves
sel has no right to approach the block-
aded port for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the blockade is still in force.
The Cheshire, 643.
66. Under the proclamation of blockade of the
President of April, 1861, as construed
by the Supreme Court, a neutral vessel
is not entitled to a warning at the block-
aded port, if ber owner or master had
previous knowledge or notice of the ex-
istence of the blockade; but, in the ab-
sence of such knowledge or notice, the
master is entitled to make inquiry and
receive the warning before condemnation
can take place. The Delta, 654.
67. The pretence that the vessel sought the
blockaded port in distress overruled.
The Sunbeam, 656.
68. Part of the cargo was an innocent ship-
ment, and neither the owner of it nor any
of his agents were implicated in the fault
of the vessel. But, in case of a blockade,
the general rule is, that the deviation of
the vessel into the blockaded port is pre-
sumed to be in the service of the cargo,
and that the owner is bound by it, ex-
cept in the absence of notice of the
blockade at the time the vessel sailed.
In this case there was no such want of
notice. Id.
69. The purpose of the master in approach-
ing the blockaded port was to inquire
whether it was actually blockaded. The
Empress, 659.
70. Under the circumstances of this case, the
master was justified in making such in-
quiry. Id.
71. The master thought he would be entitled
to a warning from a blockading vessel
before a forfeiture would be enforced, and
acted on such a construction of the Pre-
sident's proclamation of blockade, and on
directions to that effect contained in the
charter-party for the voyage, and in the
instructions to him from the charterers,
although he had good reason to believe
that the port was in a state of actual
blockade. Id.
72. Although the terms of the proclamation
afford no justification for the act of the
master, they are entitled to consideration
on the question of the intent with which
the master was sailing for the blockaded
port. Id.
73. Although the general rule may be that,
even in the case of a blockade de facto,
such as the present was, the inquiry
must not be made at the blockaded port,
if it be reasonably practicable to ascer
tain the fact by inquiry at a neutral
port; yet there are exceptions to that
rule, and this case is one of them. Id.
74. The excuse set up, that the vessel sought
the blockaded port under stress of
weather, overruled. The Albert, 663.
CASES COMMENTED ON, 3.
CONDEMNATION, 7, 8, 18 to 21, 23 to 27, 30
to 33, 35 to 39, 41, 44 to 47, 49, 50, 52, 56 to
59, 61 to 68, 70 to 73, 76 to 86, 88, 93 to 96,
98 to 106, 108, 109 to 124, 126, 127, 129,
131, 132, 134, 135 to 139, 142, 143 to 154,
156 to 158, 160, 161, 163 to 165, 167 to 170.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.at/books/content?id=_HADAAAAQAAJ&hl=de&output=html_text&pg=RA2-PA699&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015063559812&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U29smAFFI2rF-N0PL21MQthvVGqPQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=472,192,390,579)
1. Where a combined action exists between
vessels-of-war and land forces in making
a capture, it is usually cast upon the
latter to prove that their co-operation
was direct and positive, to authorize
their sharing in the prize, and they are
not ordinarily recognized as joint captors
unless it is proved on their part that the
capture was produced by their active
interference. 282 Bales of Cotton, 302.
See BAIL, 3, 4.
BLOCKADE, 21, 57 to 59, 13.
CAPTURE, 1, 9 to 11.
COSTS, 1, 3 to 6, 11 to 13.
DAMAGES, 1.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 9.
ENEMY, 5.
EVIDENCE, 1, 2, 5, 9, 23.
FREIGHT, 2 to 4.
FURTHER PROOF, 1, 2.
JURISDICTION, 3, 9.
PRACTICE, 7 to 9, 11 to 13, 15, 49.
PRIZE MONEY, 8, 12, 13.
RESTORATION, 4, 5, 8, 18.
4. If the vessel arrested as prize was acting
in violation of public law, she is amena-
ble to trial and condemnation therefor
in behalf of the United States, whether
the persons or means employed in ma-
king the seizure had authority to make
it or not. The Ouachita, 306.
5. It is enough that the government comes
into the national court demanding the
condemnation of an offender; and the
court never inquires whether the party
or thing proceeded against has been reg
ularly or irregularly brought under at-
tachment or complaint. Id.
6. The instructions of the Navy Department
of the United States to the naval com-
manders of the United States of August
18, 1862, that a vessel is not to be seized
"without a search carefully made, so
far as to render it reasonable to believe
that she is engaged in carrying contra-
band of war for or to the insurgents, and
to their ports directly, or indirectly by
trans-shipment, or otherwise violating the
blockade," are in accordance with set-
tled public law. The Stephen Hart, 387.
7. This vessel and cargo were captured at
sen by a vessel employed as a transport
in the service of the United States, but
not a commissioned vessel-of-war. The
Emma, 561.
8. The filing by the United States of a libel
against the vessel and cargo as prize is
an affirmance by the United States of
the capture, and such ratification is
equivalent to an original seizure by au-
thority of the government. Id.
9. The distinction stated between the effects
of a capture of property on land by a
belligerent and of a capture of prize prop-
erty at sea. The Peterhoff, 620.
10. In the former case the title passes as soon
as the capture is complete. In the lat
ter the right of property remains un-
changed until a final decree of condem-
nation by the courts of the country of
the captors. Id.
11. All captures made by public armed vessels
belong to the government and no title
exists in the captors, except to their dis-
tributive shares of the proceeds after
condemnation. The Aigburth, 635.
BLOCKADE, 1, 3, 21, 24, 32, 40 to 48, 54,
55, 57 to 59.
CONDEMNATION, 26, 28, 40, 52, 100, 113,
125 to 127, 140, 151.
CONFISCATION, 5.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 3, 14, 23, 27.
ENEMY, 1, 4, 5, 9, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 35 to
37.
EVIDENCE. 1, 2, 9 to 12, 15, 37, 38.
FURTHER PROOF, 4, 5, 12.
JURISDICTION, 2 to 4, 8 to 10, 12.
LIEN, 4.
CONDEMNATION, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14 to
16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 to 29, 31 to 34, 36 to
39, 41 to 73, 76 to 91, 93 to 96, 98 to 112,
114 to 130, 132 to 140, 142 to 170.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 1 to 14, 19 to 26.
DESTINATION,
ENEMY, 9, 15, 17, 22, 32, 35 to 37.
EVIDENCE, 13, 15, 16, 20, 26, 35.
FREIGHT, 1.
FURTHER PROOF, 11, 12.
INTERVENTION.
INVOICE.
LIEN, 3, 7.
MASTER, 2, 4, 6.
NEUTRAL, 10 to 18.
PAPERS, 7, 15, 16.
PLEADING, 4.
PRACTICE, 3, 19, 20, 32, 34 to 36, 51, 53, 56,
58 to 60.
PRIZE COMMISSIONER, 7, 8, 9.
RESTORATION, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17 to
25, 27 to 35.
SALE, 1, 2.
SALVAGE.
SEARCH, 1.
SPOLIATION, 2, 3, 6.
TITLE.
VESSEL, 3, 4.
1. The principles announced by this court in
the case of The Stephen Hart (ante p.
387) restated and applied. The Spring
bok, 434.
2. The principles announced by this court in
the cases of The Stephen Hart (ante p
387) and The Springbok (ante p. 434)
affirmed. The Peterhoff. 463.
3. The decision of the Supreme Court in The
Prize Cases (2 Black, 635) as to the
questions of war and blockade, applied
to this case. The D. Sargeant, 576.
|