1. Neither an enemy nor a neutral acting the part of an enemy
can demand restitution on the sole ground of capture in neutral
waters.
The Sir W.
Peel, 5 Wall. 535, affirmed.
2. A vessel condemned for intended breach of the blockade
established by the United States of her southern coast during the
late rebellion, the vessel having been found near Great Abaco
Island with no destination sufficiently proved, without sufficient
documents, with a cargo of which much the largest part consisted of
contraband of war, and with many letters addressed to one of the
blockaded ports, for which the chief officer stated distinctly that
she meant to run.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Southern
District of Florida condemning the
Adela and her cargo
Page 73 U. S. 267
as prize to the
Quaker City, a war steamer of the
United States during the blockade established by the federal
government of its southern coast during the late rebellion. The
ship and cargo were apparently neutral property. The condemnation
was for attempted breach of blockade.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is claimed that the capture took place in British waters. It
was made, in fact, near Great Abaco Island, which belongs to Great
Britain, but the evidence is by no means convincing that it was
made within three miles from the land. On the contrary, while it is
not, perhaps, certain that the
Adela was without the line
of neutral jurisdiction when first required to lay to by the
Quaker City, it cannot be doubted that she had passed
beyond it when she was actually captured. If, however, the capture
had been actually made in neutral waters, that circumstance would
not, of itself, prevent condemnation, especially, in a case of
capture made in good faith, without intent to violate neutral
jurisdiction, or knowledge that any neutral jurisdiction was in
fact infringed, and in the absence of all intervention or claim on
the part of the neutral government. [
Footnote 1] "It might," as was observed in the case of
The Sir William Peel, [
Footnote 2]
"constitute a ground of claim by the neutral power whose
territory had suffered trespass, for apology or indemnity. But
neither an enemy nor a neutral acting the part of an enemy, can
demand restitution on the sole ground of capture in neutral
waters."
We come, then, to the grounds of condemnation in the district
court.
The evidence of neutral destination in the preparatory proof was
contradictory. The master and several other witnesses declared that
her destination was Nassau, and that they knew of no ulterior
destination. The credibility of
Page 73 U. S. 268
their statements was much impaired by their evasive character.
The master, particularly, professed himself entirely ignorant of
the nature of ownership of the cargo; declared that he had no bill
of lading, or any other document relating to the merchandise on
board, and knew nothing of the ownership of the vessel except what
he derived from the ship's register. He was appointed master by one
Burns, of Liverpool, who shipped the goods, whether for himself or
as agent for other parties, and on whose real account, risk, and
profit, he did not know.
On the other hand, the chief officer stated distinctly that the
Adela was intended to run the blockade, and would have
entered Nassau as her first port, and, as he believed, Charleston
as her next.
The character of her cargo, of which much the largest part
consisted of Enfield rifles and other goods clearly contraband of
war, and the destination of the letters found on board, many of
which were directed to Charleston, Savannah, and neighboring
places, strongly confirm the testimony of the chief officer.
Upon the whole evidence we are satisfied that the
Adela
and her cargo were, in fact, destined for a blockaded port, and
that the decree of the district court was correct. It is
therefore.
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
The Etrusco, 3 Robinson 31;
Vrow Anna
Catharina, 5
id. 144.
[
Footnote 2]
72 U. S. 5
Wall. 535.
