1. Bounty was not allowed by the Act of Congress of June 30,
1864, c. 174, where vessels of the enemy were, during the
rebellion, destroyed by the combined action of the sea and land
forces of the United States.
2. Property seized upon any waters of the United States, other
than bays or harbors on the seacoast, was not maritime prize, nor
was any bounty paid by the United States for the destruction
thereof.
This was a proceeding termed a libel of information filed in the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of David D.
Porter and others, officers and men of the North Atlantic Squadron,
to recover the bounty provided by the Act of Congress of June 30,
1864, c. 174, regulating prize proceedings and the distribution of
prize money.
The eleventh section of that act declares
"That a bounty shall be paid by the United States for each
person on board any ship or vessel of war belonging to an enemy at
the commencement of an engagement which shall be sunk or otherwise
destroyed in such engagement by any ship or vessel belonging to the
United States or which it may be necessary to destroy in
consequence of injuries sustained in action, of one hundred
dollars, if the enemy's vessel was of inferior force, and of two
hundred dollars, if of equal or superior force, to be divided among
the officers and crew in the same manner as prize money, and when
the actual number of men on board any such vessel cannot be
satisfactorily ascertained, it shall be estimated according to the
complement allowed to vessels of its class in the Navy of the
United States, and there shall be paid as bounty to the captors of
any vessel of war captured from an enemy, which they may be
instructed to destroy, or which shall be immediately destroyed for
the public interest, but not in consequence of injuries received in
action, fifty dollars for every person who shall be on board at the
time of such capture."
The libel in substance alleges that between the 8th of October,
1864, and the 28th of April, 1865, the North Atlantic Squadron,
consisting of eleven ships of war -- which are mentioned --
Page 106 U. S. 608
was under the command of David D. Porter, now admiral of the
navy; that by orders of the President of the United States and of
the Secretary of the Navy, he ascended the James and York Rivers,
in Virginia, with the vessels composing his squadron for the
purpose of expelling the naval and military forces of the
Confederate States from those waters and to assist in the capture
of Richmond; that previously to April 1, 1865, the Confederates, in
order to obstruct the passage of the vessels, had erected along
those rivers batteries and other means of defense; had caused boats
to be sunk in the streams and trees to be filled in and across
them, and had placed in the James River, in support of the defenses
of Richmond, many armed steam batteries, steam rams, iron-clad
ships of war, and armed steamers, of which eleven are mentioned by
name; that the fleet removed the obstructions from the river,
attacked the naval forces of the Confederates, destroyed some of
the vessels, and caused the enemy to destroy others to prevent them
from falling into the possession of the United States, and that
nine vessels, which are named, were thus destroyed.
The libel further alleges that the vessels of the enemies, aided
by the guns of the batteries and the obstructions in the river,
constituted a superior force to that under the command of Admiral
Porter, and claims that by the Act of Congress of June 30, 1864,
cited above, the officers and men of the squadron were entitled to
a bounty of $200 a head for each man on the enemy's vessels at the
commencement of the engagement. It therefore prays that such bounty
may be allowed to them and that, in estimating the numerical
strength of the enemy, the court will take into consideration and
adjudge that all persons engaged on land, as well as those on the
water, in resisting the United States naval forces in that
engagement may be held to have been on board of the enemy's vessels
and treated as adjuncts to them, and furthermore, as it will be
difficult, and in some instances impossible, by reason of the lapse
of time and from other causes, to show the number of men that were
on and about the enemy's vessels when the engagement commenced, the
libel prays that such forces may be estimated according to the
complement of men allowed to vessels of the same capacity in the
navy of the United States.
Page 106 U. S. 609
Upon this libel, process was ordered to be issued to the
Secretary of the Navy notifying him of the commencement of the
suit, and subsequently testimony in the case was taken and such
proceedings were had as resulted in a decree in favor of the
libellants, by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,
sitting in admiralty, and held by a single justice. The case being
subsequently carried before the full court, the decree was reversed
and the libel dismissed.
From the decree of dismissal, the case is brought by appeal to
this Court.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after
stating the case as above, proceeded as follows:
Two objections are made to the recovery of the bounty claimed by
the libellants: one, that the destruction of the Confederate
vessels was effected by the joint action of the army and navy; the
other that it took place on the inland waters of the United
States.
For the determination of the first of these objections, it will
be necessary to consider the movements of the fleet under command
of Admiral Porter immediately preceding the capture of Richmond.
The record enables us to do this, although officers present on the
vessels differ in their recollection of dates.
On the morning of April 2, 1865, General Lee, commanding the
enemy's forces around Richmond, informed the Confederate
authorities that he should immediately withdraw his lines and
evacuate the city. The withdrawal and evacuation took place on the
evening of that day. Information of his purpose was undoubtedly
communicated to Admiral Porter soon after it was generally known in
Richmond, which was before noon. At that time, there were in James
River, for some miles below Richmond, obstructions which the
Confederates had placed to prevent the ascent of the Union fleet.
Vessels filled with stone had been sunk and numerous torpedoes
planted in the stream. Batteries had also been erected along the
river. Some of the obstructions were just above the lower end of
what was known as Dutch Gap Canal, about sixteen miles by the river
from
Page 106 U. S. 610
Richmond, which were originally placed there by the
Confederates, and afterwards maintained by the forces of the United
States. Two miles above them was Howlett's Confederate battery.
Eight miles above the Dutch Gap Canal was Chaffin's Bluff, and one
mile above that on the opposite side of the river was Drury's
Bluff, seven miles below Richmond. General Lee's lines extended
across the river between the two Bluffs, and below them. Above the
obstructions near Dutch Gap Canal several Confederate vessels of
war were stationed. When General Lee was compelled to abandon his
lines, orders were given that the batteries on James River should
be withdrawn and the Confederate vessels destroyed.
As soon as Admiral Porter, on the 2d of April, was informed or
had reason to believe that General Lee intended to retreat from
Richmond, he gave orders for the removal of the obstructions in the
river and for his vessels to open fire on the Confederate batteries
within range and to push on through the obstructions as fast as
they were carried away, first sending boats ahead to remove the
torpedoes. These orders were carried out with great gallantry and
spirit; a heavy fire was opened on the batteries, and during the
following night a channel was cut through the obstructions. Soon
after the fleet opened fire, the enemy, to prevent the capture of
his vessels, commenced destroying them, setting fire to some of
them and blowing up others. On the next day, the 3d, the fleet
passed through the obstructions and moved up to Drury's Bluff,
capturing one of the enemy's vessels which had not been destroyed
-- the iron-clad ram
Texas. Another of the enemy's vessels
-- the
Beaufort -- was subsequently captured further up
the river. At Drury's Bluff, the vessels were detained by the
obstructions until the 4th. On that day, the admiral, accompanied
by President Lincoln, proceeded up to Richmond. Although in the
movements of the admiral's fleet in its ascent of James River and
in its attack on the batteries he was not assisted by the actual
presence of any portion of the army of the United States, so that
the capture of the two vessels -- the
Texas and the
Beaufort -- and the destruction of the other vessels may,
in that sense, be said to have been effected by his fleet alone,
yet without the aid of the army, the
Page 106 U. S. 611
result mentioned would not probably have been accomplished.
Certainly its movements contributed most essentially to the success
of the fleet. For several months it had been lying near Richmond
under the command of General Grant, with the avowed purpose of
capturing that city and of destroying the Confederate forces. The
result of the battle of Five Forks on the first of April satisfied
the Confederate commander that he could not hold his lines and
protect Richmond. The withdrawal of his troops and the evacuation
of Richmond followed. Had they not been thus forced to retire and
his lines had continued to cross James River between Chaffin's
Bluff and Drury's Bluff, it would have been almost if not quite
impossible for the fleet of Admiral Porter to ascend the river. The
fire of the shore batteries, with the assistance of the Confederate
troops nearby, would have checked any advance, supported as they
would have been by the Confederate vessels and the torpedoes in the
stream. It is plain, therefore, that whatever was accomplished by
the fleet of the admiral in James River on the second and third
days of April, 1865, must be considered as the result of the
cooperative action of both the army and the navy. It matters not
that the movements of the army were miles distant from the
operations of the fleet; they relieved that fleet from resistance
which might and probably would have defeated any attempt to ascend
the river above the shore batteries and destroy the armed vessels
of the enemy.
Prize money, or bounty in lieu of it, is not allowed by the laws
of Congress where vessels of the enemy are captured or destroyed by
the navy with the cooperation of the army. To win either, the navy
must achieve its success without the direct aid of the army, by
maritime force only. No pecuniary reward is conferred for anything
taken or destroyed by the navy when it acts in conjunction with the
army in the capture of a fortified position of the enemy, though
the meritorious service and gallant conduct of its officers and men
may justly entitle them to honorable mention in the history of the
country.
The Siren, 13
Wall. 389.
The second objection to a recovery, that the destruction of the
Confederate vessels was effected upon inland waters of the United
States, is equally clear if the term "property," used in
Page 106 U. S. 612
the seventh section of the act of 1864, can be construed -- as
counsel seem to take for granted -- to embrace public vessels of
the enemy. That act provides, among other things, for the
collection of captured and abandoned property, and is in addition
to the act on that subject of March 12, 1863, c. 320. The seventh
section declares:
"That no property seized or taken upon any of the inland waters
of the United States by the naval forces thereof shall be regarded
as maritime prize, but all property so seized or taken shall be
promptly delivered to the proper officers of the courts, or as
provided in this act and in the said Act approved March 12,
eighteen hundred and sixty-three."
The term "inland," as here used, was evidently intended to apply
to all waters of the United States upon which a naval force could
go, other than bays and harbors on the seacoast. In most instances,
property of the enemy on them could be taken, if at all, by an
armed force without the aid of vessels of war. These were seldom
required on such waters except when batteries or fortified places
near them were to be attacked in conjunction with the army. As
observed by the Court in the case of
The Cotton Plant,
Congress probably anticipated, in view of the state of the war when
the act was passed, that most of the captures on the rivers would
be made by the army.
77 U. S. 10 Wall.
577.
James River is an inland water in any sense which can be given
to the term "inland." It lies within the body of counties in
Virginia. For miles below Richmond and below the obstructions
mentioned, a person can see from one of its banks what is done on
the other. Rivers across which one can thus see are inland waters.
It matters not that the tide may ebb and flow miles above their
mouths; that fact does not make them any part of the sea or bay
into which they may flow, though they may be arms of both.
United States v. Grush, 5 Mason 290.
Decree affirmed.
