Prizes made by armed vessels which have violated the statutes
for preserving the neutrality of the United States will be restored
if brought into our ports.
This Court has never decided that the offense adheres to the
vessel under whatever change of circumstances that may take place,
nor that it cannot be deposited at the termination of the cruise in
preparing for which it was committed, but if this termination be
merely colorable, and the vessel was originally equipped with the
intention of being employed on the cruise during which the capture
was made, the
delictum is not purged.
This was a libel filed in the District Court of Maryland by the
Consul General of Portugal, alleging that a large sum of money in
silver and gold coins had been, in the year 1818, taken out of the
Portuguese ship
Gran Para, then bound on a voyage from Rio
Janeiro to Lisbon, by a private armed vessel called the
Irresistible, which had been fitted out in the United
States in violation of the neutrality acts, that the said sum of
money had been brought within our territorial jurisdiction and
deposited in the Marine Bank of Baltimore, and praying that the
same might be restored to the original Portuguese owners. A claim
was filed by one Stansbury, as agent for John D. Daniels, master
and owner of the
Irresistible, stating him to be a citizen
of the Oriental Republic, which was at war with Portugal, and that
he was cruising under the flag
Page 20 U. S. 472
and commission of that republic at the time the capture was
made, as set forth in the libel, and insisting on his title to the
money as lawful prize of war. By the proofs taken in the cause, it
appeared that the capturing vessel was built in the port of
Baltimore in the year 1817, and was in all respects constructed for
the purposes of war. On 16 February, 1818, after being launched,
she was purchased by the claimant, Daniels, then a citizen of the
United States. A crew of about fifty men was enlisted in Baltimore,
and she cleared out for Teneriffe, having in her hold 12
eighteen-pound gunnades with their carriages, and a number of small
arms, and a quantity of ammunition, entered outwards as cargo. The
vessel proceeded directly for Buenos Ayres, where she remained a
few weeks, during which time the crew was discharged.
Having obtained a commission from the government at that place
to cruise against Spain, a crew was enlisted consisting chiefly of
the same persons who had come in the vessel from Baltimore, and she
sailed in June, 1818, on a cruise under the command of the
claimant. The next day after she left the port, a commission from
General Artigas, as Chief of the Oriental Republic, was produced
under which the claimant declared that he intended to cruise, and
that granted by the government of Buenos Ayres was sent back to
that place. During this cruise several Portuguese vessels were
captured, and the money the restitution of which was prayed for by
the libellant was taken out of them. In September, 1818, the
Irresistible returned to Baltimore,
Page 20 U. S. 473
and a large sum of money captured during the cruise was
deposited in the bank.
Decrees were entered in the district and circuit courts
restoring the property to the original owners, and the cause was
brought by appeal to this Court.
Page 20 U. S. 486
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court,
and after stating the facts, proceeded as follows:
The principle is now firmly settled that prizes made by vessels
which have violated the acts of Congress that have been enacted for
the preservation of the neutrality of the United States, if brought
within their territory, shall be restored. The only question
therefore is does this case come within the principle?
That the
Irresistible was purchased and that she sailed
out of the port of Baltimore armed and manned as a vessel of war
for the purpose of being employed as a cruiser against a nation
with whom the United States was at peace is too clear for
controversy. That the arms and ammunition were cleared out as cargo
cannot vary the case. Nor is it thought to be material that the men
were enlisted in form as for a common mercantile voyage. There is
nothing resembling a commercial adventure in any part of the
transaction. The vessel was constructed for war, and not for
commerce. There was no cargo on board but what was adapted to the
purposes of war. The crew was too numerous for a merchantman, and
was sufficient for a privateer. These circumstances demonstrate the
intent with which the
Irresistible sailed out of the port
of Baltimore.
Page 20 U. S. 487
But she was not commissioned as a privateer, nor did she attempt
to act as one, until she reached the River La Plata, when a
commission was obtained and the crew reenlisted. This Court has
never decided that the offense adheres to the vessel whatever
changes may have taken place, and cannot be deposited at the
termination of the cruise in preparing for which it was committed,
and as the
Irresistible made no prize on her passage from
Baltimore to the River La Plata, it is contended that her offense
was deposited there, and that the Court cannot connect her
subsequent cruise with the transactions of Baltimore.
If this were to be admitted in such a case as this, the laws for
the preservation of our neutrality would be completely eluded so
far as this enforcement depends on the restitution of prizes made
in violation of them. Vessels completely fitted in our ports for
military operations need only sail to a belligerent port, and
there, after obtaining a commission, go through the ceremony of
discharging and reenlisting their crew to become perfectly
legitimate cruisers, purified from every taint contracted at the
place where all their real force and capacity for annoyance was
acquired. This would indeed be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful
to our own government, and of which no nation would be the dupe. It
is impossible for a moment to disguise the facts, that the arms and
ammunition taken on board the
Irresistible at Baltimore
were taken for the purpose of being used on a cruise, and that the
men there enlisted, though engaged, in form, as for a
Page 20 U. S. 488
commercial voyage, were not so engaged in fact. There was no
commercial voyage, and no individual of the crew could believe that
there was one. Although there might be no express stipulation to
serve on board to
Irresistible after her reaching the La
Plata and obtaining a commission, it must be completely understood
that such was to be the fact. For what other purpose could they
have undertaken this voyage? Everything they saw, everything that
was done, spoke a language too plain to be misunderstood.
The Act of June, 1794, c. 296, declares, that
"If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of
the United States, . . . hire or retain another person to go beyond
the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be
enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince or state
as a soldier or as a mariner or seaman on board of any vessel of
war, letter of marque, or privateer, every person so offending
shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor,"
&c.
Now if the crew of the
Irresistible were not enlisted
in the port of Baltimore to cruise under the commission afterwards
obtained, it cannot, we think, be doubted but that they were "hired
or retained to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United
States with intent to be enlisted or entered" into that service.
For what other purpose were they hired in the port of Baltimore for
the voyage to La Plata?
The third section makes it penal for any person, within any of
the waters of the United States, to be
Page 20 U. S. 489
"knowingly concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming
of any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be
employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, to
cruise,"
&c.
It is too clear for controversy that the
Irresistible
comes within this section of the law also.
The act of 1817, c. 58, adapts the previous laws to the actual
situation of the world by adding to the words "of any foreign
prince or state" the words, "or of any colony, district, or
people," &c. The Act of April, 1818, c. 83, reenacts the acts
of 1794, 1797, and 1817, with some additional provisions.
It is therefore very clear that the
Irresistible was
armed and manned in Baltimore in violation of the laws and of the
neutral obligations of the United States. We do not think that any
circumstances took place in the River La Plata by force of which
this taint was removed. To the objection that there is no proof
that any part of the money was taken out of a vessel called the
Gran Para it need only be answered that the allegation of
the libel is that she was called the "
Gran Para or by some
other name."
Decree affirmed with costs.
