A capture made within the State of North Carolina on the Roanoke
River, 130 miles from its mouth, by a naval force detached from two
steamers that had proceeded up the river, one about 80 miles and
the other about 100, where they stopped in consequence of the
crookedness of the stream and apprehensions of low water, held to
be a capture upon "inland waters" of the United States as that
phrase is used in the Act of Congress of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. at
Large 377, and therefore not to be regarded as maritime prize.
An Act of Congress of July 2, 1864, passed during the late
rebellion, enacts 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," and directs that all property
so seized or taken shall be promptly delivered to the officers of
the courts, to be dealt with in a way which the act prescribes.
The capture which was the subject of this libel took place on
the 10th day of May, 1865, in North Carolina at the mouth of
Quankey Creek on the Roanoke River about half a mile
Page 77 U. S. 578
below Halifax and about 130 miles above Plymouth, which lies at
the mouth of the river, where the river falls into Albemarle Sound,
the river at that point being narrow and shallow. An expedition
consisting of the United States steamers
Ioscoe and
Valley City, with a picket launch, went up the Roanoke
River. The
Ioscoe proceeded to Hamilton, which was 50
miles from the place of capture, the
Valley City went up
the river to a point 32 miles from the place of capture, both
vessels stopping at the places where they did on account of the
winding course of the stream and from fear of getting aground. An
officer and six men were placed on the picket launch, attended by
an armed crew from the
Ioscoe. The launch, with these
crews, proceeded up the river to the place of capture, and there
seized the steamer with her cargo then on board, cotton chiefly,
and putting on her some other cotton that they brought from a barn
on land, recently landed from this same steamer and put in the barn
for temporary safekeeping until reladed, sent her to Philadelphia,
where she was libeled in the district court and condemned, as
already mentioned.
Her owners appealed to this Court. There was no allegation of
any breach of blockade.
Page 77 U. S. 580
MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Whether the steamer
Cotton Plant and her cargo of
cotton were subject to lawful capture when seized is a question
that need not now be considered, for if it be conceded that they
were, we are still of opinion that they were not liable to
condemnation as maritime prize. The capture was made within the
State of North Carolina on the Roanoke River and about one hundred
and thirty miles above its mouth. It was made by a naval force
detached from two steamers that had proceeded up the river from
Albemarle Sound, one about eighty and the other about one hundred
miles, where they stopped in consequence of the crookedness of the
stream and apprehensions of low water. A picket launch, with a crew
of six men, and two other boats' crews, were then sent forward, and
they effected the capture. It was therefore an inland capture,
though made upon a river which empties into an arm of the sea, and
it was at a point where ordinary vessels of war could not safely
go. There was nothing in the situation of the property that
required peculiarly a naval force or maritime service to effect its
capture. The seizure might as well have been made by a detachment
from the army as by one from the navy. It appears to us, therefore,
that in view of the legislation of Congress, the property cannot be
regarded as a maritime prize. By the seventh section of the Act of
July 2, 1864, [
Footnote 1]
Page 77 U. S. 581
it was enacted
"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 twelve,
eighteen hundred and sixty-three."
The language of this section is very comprehensive. It embraces
all property seized or taken by the naval forces upon
any of the inland waters of the United States. It would be
difficult to give any reason for holding that the part of the
Roanoke River upon which the Cotton Plant was seized is not
described by the phrase "any of the inland waters of the United
States" as understood by Congress. The river is wholly inland. It
is true that it discharges its waters into Albemarle Sound and that
it is accessible directly from the ocean. But in speaking of inland
waters, Congress must have intended waters within land indeed, yet
waters where a naval force can go and where naval captures could be
made. And it is obvious that other waters than those of the Great
Lakes were contemplated and designed to be included. The act was
passed during the war of the rebellion, and it was part of a system
devised for securing captured and abandoned property in states and
districts declared to be in insurrection by the President's
proclamation of July 1, 1862. There was no war upon the lakes, and
they were not within insurrectionary districts. If, therefore, the
act does not apply to rivers and to rivers accessible from the sea
upon which naval captures could be made, it could never have had
any practical effect. But if it applies to captures upon rivers,
what reason can there be for confining its operation to seizures by
the naval forces upon rivers that run directly into the sea? The
act speaks of captures upon
any of the inland waters of
the United States. It makes no distinction between rivers that run
directly into the sea and those that flow into others that
discharge into the sea. If any distinction exists, it is purely
arbitrary and judicial, rather than legislative. Both classes of
rivers are inland waters -- equally such. Maritime service
Page 77 U. S. 582
can be no more meritorious or efficient upon one than upon the
other. In the absence of express legislative enactment to that
effect, no satisfactory reason can be given why a vessel captured
on the Red River five miles above its junction with the Mississippi
should be turned over to the courts to be treated as captured and
abandoned property under the statutes of 1863 and 1864, which does
not apply to a capture made on the Mississippi itself, five hundred
miles farther from the Gulf of Mexico. Congress probably
anticipated, especially 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, and thought it unwise to continue two modes for
the disposition of the property taken.
Such being our opinion of the meaning of the seventh section of
the act of July 2, 1864, we must hold that the property captured
and condemned in this case ought not to have been regarded as
maritime prize and subject to condemnation as such.
The decree of the district court is therefore reversed and
the case is remanded, in accordance with the rule stated in United
States v. Weed, [Footnote 2]
for further proceedings if the government shall see fit to
institute them.
[
Footnote 1]
13 Stat. at Large 377.
[
Footnote 2]
72 U. S. 5 Wall.
62.
