A neutral leaving a belligerent country, in which he was
domiciled at the commencement of the war, is entitled to the rights
of a neutral in his person and property as soon as he sails from
the hostile port.
The property he takes with him is not liable to condemnation for
a breach of blockade by the vessel in which he embarks, when
entering or departing from the port, unless he knew of the
intention of the vessel to break it in going out.
Baptiste Guillem, a French citizen, was domiciled in Mexico and
had resided there about three years before the war with the United
States was declared. His occupation was that of cook in a hotel,
and he was engaged in it in Vera Cruz when hostilities with this
country commenced. He was not naturalized, and had taken no steps
to become a citizen of Mexico. He continued in Vera Cruz, pursuing
his ordinary business, until he learned that an attack was about to
be made on the city, by sea and land, by the forces of the United
States. He immediately prepared to leave the country and return to
France with his family, carrying with him all the money he had
saved. He intended to embark in the British steamer, which was
expected to arrive at Vera Cruz early in March, 1847, and obtained
a passport from the French consul for that purpose. But the
steamship was wrecked on the Island of Cuba, and did not reach Vera
Cruz, and Guillem was still in that city when General Scott landed
and closely besieged it.
The port of Vera Cruz had been blockaded by the naval
Page 52 U. S. 48
forces of the United States from the commencement of the war.
When the land forces arrived, and the siege was about to commence,
General Scott and Commodore Perry who commanded the blockading
squadron agreed to leave the blockade open to the consuls and other
neutrals, to pass out to their respective ships of war, until 22
March, after which all communication with the besieged city was
interdicted.
On 13 March, a French vessel called La Jeune Nelly came into the
port, having run the blockade. She came in in the daytime, with her
colors flying, nor is there any evidence in the record to show that
it was known in Vera Cruz that she had come into port without
permission from the blockading ships. She sailed again on 19 March,
bound for Havre in open day and without manifesting any desire for
concealment, but yet in breach of the blockade. But there was no
evidence that Guillem knew she came in or was sailing out in breach
of the blockade. Guillem took passage on board of this vessel with
his family, and took with him in gold and silver two thousand eight
hundred and sixty dollars -- the whole amount of his three years'
earnings in Mexico. The
Jeune Nelly had no cargo, and
sailed in ballast. The money of Guillem was not shipped as cargo,
nor invoiced, but was taken with him as a part of his personal
effects. The money was chiefly in two bags, which were kept in his
stateroom, but a part of it was in a belt about his person.
The
Jeune Nelly was captured by the blockading squadron
a few hours after she sailed, and on the night following was
wrecked and totally lost on one of the islands near the port, but
the passengers, crew, and all the money and property on board, were
saved. The passengers and crew were immediately released, and the
money of Guillem and other property on board were taken possession
of by the orders of Commodore Perry, and sent to New Orleans for
adjudication. It was libeled in the district court, and condemned
as lawfully seized. Guillem appealed from this decree to the
circuit court, where it was reversed, and the money in question
directed to be restored and refunded to him. The captors appealed
from this last-mentioned decree to the supreme court.
Page 52 U. S. 60
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
There is no dispute about the material facts in this case. The
claimant was a citizen of France who had been domiciled in Mexico
about three years, following the occupation of a cook in a hotel,
and was returning with his family to reside in his own country when
the capture was made. They sailed from Vera Cruz in a French vessel
bound to Havre. The money he had with him, and which is now in
question, was not shipped as cargo, or for the purposes of trade.
It amounted to only two thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars,
and was the earnings of his industry in Mexico, and taken with him
for the support of himself and his family upon their return to
France. The hostile character which his domicile in Mexico had
impressed upon him and his property had therefore been thrown off,
and as soon as he sailed from Vera Cruz, he resumed the character
of a French citizen, and as such was entitled to the rights and
privileges of a neutral, in regard to his property, as well as in
his person. The rights of the neutral in this respect have always
been recognized in the prize courts of England, and were sanctioned
by this Court in the case of
The Venus,
8 Cranch 280,
12 U. S. 281.
Indeed, we do not understand that the appellants claim to have this
money condemned upon the ground that it was liable to be treated as
the property of an enemy, on account of the previous domicile of
Guillem. But it is insisted that if it is regarded as the property
of a neutral, it was shipped in violation of the blockade, and that
the character of the vessel in which it was found also subjects it
to condemnation.
So far as concerns the breach of blockade, the attempt to pass
out of the port with this money was not of itself an offense, apart
from the vessel in which he sailed. The blockade had been opened
for the purpose of enabling consuls and other neutrals to pass out
to their respective ships of war, soon after General Scott landed
and invested the town. And it continued open for that purpose until
22 March. It is
Page 52 U. S. 61
true that the permission was confined to ships of war. But the
reason is obvious. They were the only vessels that could be safely
allowed to communicate with the town then closely besieged. And the
permission was restricted to them, because it was believed that
commanders of national vessels would not suffer a privilege granted
to neutrals from motives of humanity to be used for improper
purposes.
But the object and intention of this order were evidently, not
merely to enable the neutral to avoid the hazards of the
approaching bombardment, but to afford him an opportunity to leave
the enemy's country, and return to his own, if he desired to do so.
The neutral was not required or expected to remain on board the
ship of war. The permission opened to him a path by which he might
escape altogether from a country about to be visited with the
calamities of war. It therefore necessarily carried with it the
permission to take with him the means of supporting himself and his
family, on their voyage home and after their return. The order
contains no restriction upon this subject, and to imply any would
be inconsistent with the motive by which it was evidently dictated.
The
Jeune Nelly, in which the claimant embarked, sailed on
19 March, while the blockade was still open for the purposes above
mentioned. It was no breach of the blockade, therefore, for the
claimant to pass out of the town at that time on his voyage home,
and to take with him the sum of money his industry had accumulated,
and which was necessary for the support of himself and his family
on their arrival in their own country. The port was not then closed
against the egress of neutrals from the hostile country, nor were
they forbidden to take with them the money necessary for their
support. And if Guillem had gone on board a French ship of war for
the purpose of returning home, and taken with him this small sum of
money, his right to do so could not be questioned.
But it is supposed that the character of the vessel in which he
embarked subjects his property to forfeiture.
La Jeune
Nelly had entered the port in violation of the blockade, and
endeavored to break it a second time by leaving the port without
permission. She was undoubtedly liable to capture and condemnation.
But it does not by any means follow that the property of the
claimant is implicated in the guilt of the vessel, or must share in
the punishment. There is no evidence to show that he had knowledge
of the previous breach of blockade, or of the intention to break it
again in going out. She was a neutral vessel belonging to his own
country, and had come into the port in open day under the French
flag, and she sailed again in a manner equally open, and without
any
Page 52 U. S. 62
apparent design of concealing her movements from the blockading
squadron. The permission granted by the American commanders had as
a matter of course been made public in Vera Cruz, and Guillem must
without doubt have seen citizens of neutral nations daily leaving
the city for the ships of war, and taking with them the necessary
means of support for themselves and their families. He appears to
have done nothing more than avail himself of the most convenient
opportunity that offered in order to accomplish the same object;
and if he did not participate in the design of breaking the
blockade, his property is not affected by the misconduct of the
vessel in which it was shipped. Even in the case of cargo shipped
as a mercantile adventure, and found on board of a vessel liable to
condemnation for a breach of blockade, although it is
prima
facie involved in the offense of the vessel, yet, if the owner
can show that he did not participate in the offense, his property
is not liable to forfeiture. This is the rule as stated by Sir
William Scott in the case of
The Alexander, 4 Rob. 93, and
in the case of
The Exchange, 1 Edwards 39, and recognized
in 1 Kent's Com. 151. And yet, in the case of a cargo shipped for
the purposes of commerce, the breach of blockade is almost always
committed by the vessel for the benefit of the cargo, and to carry
out some mercantile speculation injurious to the rights of the
belligerent nation whose ships are blockading the port. The case
before us is a stronger one in favor of the claimant than that of
the innocent owner of a cargo. The money in question was not
shipped as cargo or as a mercantile adventure. Guillem was a
passenger on board, with his whole family, and the money was a part
of his personal effects necessary for their support and comfort.
The shipment of the money could give no aid or comfort to the
enemy. And in taking his passage in the
Jeune Nelly, his
intention, as far as it can be ascertained from the testimony, was
merely to return to his own country, in a mode better suited to his
humble circumstances and more convenient to his family, than by
passing through the ships of war. In the opinion of the court, the
money he took with him was not liable to condemnation on account of
the guilt of the vessel, and the decree of the circuit court is
therefore
Affirmed.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Louisiana and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is
now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court that the
decree of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is
hereby affirmed.
