Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

CASES IN PRIZE

IN THE

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

THE BARK HIAWATHA AND CARGO.

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 Presi dent in authorizing 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 act of August 6, 1861, (12 U. S. Statutes at Large, 319,) "to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," is not to be regarded as a legislative determination that a vessel belonging to a citizen of a State in insurrection was not, before the passage of that act, confiscable merely as the property of an insurrectionist or rebel, without an enactment of Congress to that end.

The pleadings in prize cases should be simple, direct, and free from technicalities.

The district courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction in prize cases, without restriction to cases of seizures within their territorial dimensions or on the high seas.

The existing war between the United States and the rebels is a defensive war on the part of the former. No formal declaration of war by the President was necessary to render lawful the means adopted by him to repel the warlike measures of the enemy.

A blockade of the enemy's ports is as lawful a means of war, in civil warfare, as it is in a war between nations foreign to each other.

Under the law of nations, the rights incident to a war waged by a government to subdue an insurrection or revolt of its own subjects or citizens are the same, in regard to neutral powers, as if the hostilities were carried on between independent nations.

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 indorsed on her register, where, at the time of capture, she had entered into or escaped from the blockaded port, or possessed knowledge or notice of the blockade. Citizens of the United States levying war against the government of the United States are enemies, and their property captured at sea is subject to confiscation. Persons abiding within

the anthority of such enemies become enemies because of their residence, without regard to their private sentiments or the locality of the place of their property.

A notice of a blockade to the officials of a neutral government is a sufficient notice of it to the subjects of such government.

The act of egress is as culpable as the act of ingress, when done in fraud of a blockade. On notice of a blockade, a neutral vessel has a right to withdraw from the blockaded port, with all the cargo honestly laden on board before the commencement of the blockade. The acts of a master in breach of a blockade affect the cargo equally with the vessel, if the cargo is laden on board after the blockade has become effective as to the vessel.

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.

The Hiawatha and others.

THE BARK PIONEER AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned, as enemy property, because belonging to resident citizens of the enemy's country.

THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW AND CARGO.

Vessel and part of cargo condemned, as enemy property, because belonging to resident citizens of the enemy's country.

Citizens and subjects of the capturing nation are interdicted all trade with the enemy in time of war, and property purchased by them in the enemy's country during the war is, when taken at sea in an enemy vessel, lawful prize.

Vessel condemned, also, for violating the blockade, after notice of its existence to her master. A portion of the cargo condemned, because laden on board after the blockade and notice thereof to the claimants.

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.

THE BARK WINIFRED AND CARGO.

Vessel condemned, as enemy property.

A part of her cargo condemned, as enemy property, although under hypothecation to a neutral merchant for advances on the invoice and bill of lading.

The title of the absolute owner prevails, in a prize court, over the interest of a lien-holder, whatever the equities between those parties may be.

THE SCHOONER HANNAH M. JOHNSON AND CARGO.

Mode of pleading in an answer and claim commented on.

The prize law regards property which was enemy property when shipped as continuing to be such, although consigned by a bill of lading to other parties, unless clear evidence is given of a change of title.

Vessel released as not being enemy property, and restored on payment of costs, there having been reasonable cause for her seizure.

Cargo condemned as enemy property, unless further proof be furnished within ten days as to ownership of cargo.

THE BARK GENERAL GREEN AND CARGO.

Vessel condemned as enemy property.

Cargo restored, but without costs or damages, there being probable cause for the capture, it being laden in an enemy bottom during the war.

THE BRIG HALLIE JACKSON AND CARGO.

A vessel is clothed with the character of the flag she wears.

Vessel condemned as enemy property, and for an attempt to violate the blockade.

A vessel approaching a blockaded port, with intent to violate the blockade, is not entitled to be warned off.

Cargo condemned as enemy property. It was also shipped for an enemy port, with intent to violate the blockade.

THE SHIP NORTH CAROLINA.

Vessel condemned as enemy property.

THE SCHOONER FOREST KING AND CARGO.

Cargo restored, being neutral property, and there having been no attempt to violate the block. ade; but no costs or damages awarded, as the vessel was confiscable in part.

In the absence of notice of a blockade, an inquiry at a blockaded port excused.

An entry into a blockaded port to obtain necessary supplies excused.

A part of the vessel condemned as enemy property: the rest of the vessel restored.

The Hiawatha and others.

THE SCHOONER LYNCHBURG AND CARGO.

What statements are necessary in an answer and claim.

Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property.

What is necessary to be proved by parties claiming a lien for advances on enemy property cap. tured as prize in an enemy vessel.

In prize law, a bill of lading transmitted to a party to cover his advances on cargo shipped, does not pass the title to the cargo.

(Before BETTS, J., August 8 and 29, 1861.)

BETTS, J.: The bark Hiawatha, the bark Pioneer, the schooner Crenshaw, the bark Winifred, the schooner Hannah M. Johnson, the bark General Green, the brig Hallie Jackson, the ship North Carolina, the schooner Forest King, and the schooner Lynchburg, were all captured as prizes of war by various public armed vessels of the United States, and sent into this port in charge of prize crews, consigned to the district judge, to be proceeded against under such captures.

They were accordingly committed by the judge to the possession of the prize commissioners of this district, when severally brought before him, and were afterwards libelled by the United States Attorney, and were attached by the marshal on process issued on each several libel, and thereupon brought into court.

Appearances were entered in court in each suit, and answers and claims were interposed by various claimants, conformably to the practice of the court, and the causes were then placed upon the docket for hearing, and promptly brought to trial in their order at a public sitting of the court.

A vital part of the defences in each of the several suits, interposed by the claimants, consisted of propositions of law and fact common to all the actions, although, beyond these general defences, there were presented points of claim and exception more or less special to each particular suit.

To secure a satisfactory discussion of those points common to all the suits, and avoid the labor and procrastination arising from reiterating the debates on the same issues in each individual action, an understanding was adopted by the counsel conducting the causes, and approved by the court, that the arguments covering those common grounds of defence should be virtually limited to the issues made in three cases, the bark Hiawatha, the bark Pioneer, and the schooner Crenshaw, with the reservation of the right to parties in the other suits pending to be heard upon the facts and law peculiar to the suits in which they were specially concerned.

« AnteriorContinuar »