PRIZE. 



767 



the market there, and that the sole purpose of 

 stopping at the neutral port must merely have 

 been to have upon the papers of the vessel ail 

 ostensible neutral terminus for the voyage ; that 

 if, on the other hand, the object of stopping at 

 the neutral port was to transship the cargo to 

 another vessel, to be transported to a port of 

 the enemy, while the vessel in which it was 

 brought from England did not proceed to the 

 port of the enemy, there was equally an ab- 

 sence of all lawful neutral commerce at the 

 neutral port, and the only commerce carried on 

 in the case was that of the transportation of 

 the contraband cargo from the English port to 

 the port of the enemy, as was intended when 

 it left the English port ; that, in all such cases, 

 the transportation or voyage of the contraband 

 goods was to be considered as a unit, from 

 the port of lading to the port of delivery in the 

 enemy's country ; that if any part of such voy- 

 age or transportation was unlawful, it was un- 

 lawful throughout ; and that the vessel and her 

 cargo were subject to capture, as well before 

 their arrival at the first neutral port at which 

 the vessel touched after her departure from 

 England, as on the voyage or transportation by 

 sea from such neutral port to the port of the 

 enemy. These doctrines were enforced by the 

 court, by citations from recognized English au- 

 thorities on international law, including judg- 

 ments of Sir William Scott, the eminent Eng- 

 lish admiralty judge, in several cases. Apply- 

 ing these principles to the case of the Stephen 

 Hart upon the evidence disclosed in the case, 

 the court came to the conclusion that, beyond 

 any reasonable doubt, the cargo of the vessel 

 was intended, on its departure from England, 

 to be carried into the enemy's country, for the 

 use of the enemy, by a violation of the block- 

 ade of some one of the enemy's ports, either in 

 that vessel, or in another vessel into which the 

 cargo was to be transhipped for the purpose 

 of being transported by sea to the enemy's 

 country ; and that, being contraband of war, 

 the cargo must be condemned as lawful prize. 

 The vessel was also condemned. The material 

 points of the evidence, leading to the condem- 

 nation of the vessel and cargo, were, that the 

 mate of the vessel had been employed by rea- 

 son of his being a citizen of the United States, 

 familiar with the enemy's country, and quali- 

 fied to conduct the vessel into one of the block- 

 aded ports ; that the vessel was captured in a 

 position convenient for running the blockade ; 

 that the cargo was entirely of a military char- 

 acter ; that no manifest or bills of lading, or 

 invoices, or charter-party, were found on board 

 of the vessel ; that the master attempted to sup- 

 press a letter of instructions to himself from 

 the claimants of the cargo, and a letter from 

 one of those claimants to a person at Havana, 

 in Cuba, who was the agent of the enemy at 

 that place ; that the mate attempted to conceal 

 letters which showed that the design was that 

 the vessel should, under his guidance, enter a 

 blockaded port of the enemy, and which also 



contained specific directions for entering the 

 harbor of Charleston; that no instructions 

 were found from the claimant of the vessel to 

 her master ; and that the control of the ves- 

 sel had been surrendered entirely by her claim- 

 ant to the laders of the cargo and to the mas- 

 ter as their agent ; that the flag of the enemy 

 was found on board of the vessel, and was 

 thrown overboard at the time of the capture ; 

 that charts of many of the blockaded ports 

 of the enemy were found on board ; that the 

 consignee of the entire cargo was the agent of 

 the enemy in Cuba, and that the cargo was la- 

 den on board by the agent of the enemy in 

 London ; and that there was positive testimony 

 that the actual destination of the cargo was the 

 country of the enemy. These considerations 

 were held to outweigh the facts, that the clear- 

 ance of the vessel at London was for Cuba, and 

 that her log-book described her voyage as one 

 from London to Cardenas, Cuba. The doctrine 

 contended for by the claimants in the case was, 

 1st, that the transportation of all articles, in- 

 cluding arms and munitions of war, between 

 neutral ports, in a neutral vessel, was lawful in 

 time of war ; and, 2d, that if a neutral vessel/ 

 with a cargo belonging to neutrals, was, in 

 fact, on a voyage from one neutral port to an- 

 other, she could not be seized and condemned 

 as lawful prize, although she were laden with 

 contraband of war, unless it was determined 

 that she was actually destined to a port of the 

 enemy upon the voyage on which she was seiz- 

 ed, or unless she was taken in the act of vio- 

 lating a blockade. 



The next case which arose in New York was 

 that of the bark Springbok, captured on the 3d 

 of February, 1863, by a United States steamer, 

 from 150 to 200 miles east of the port of Nas- 

 sau, N. P. The claimants of this vessel and 

 cargo were all of them British subjects. Her 

 log-book, bills of lading, manifest, clearance, 

 and other official papers, spoke of her voyage 

 as one from London to Nassau. She cleared 

 from Londpn, December 8th, 1862. The court, 

 in its judgment in the case, reaffirmed the prin- 

 ciples decided in the case of the Stephen Hart. 

 There were on board of the Springbok some 

 goods contraband of war. The whole cargo was 

 claimed by the same owners. The court found, 

 from the evidence, that the contraband articles 

 were destined for the country of the enemy ; 

 that the cargo was intended to be delivered in 

 the enemy's country, by transshipment at Nas- 

 sau into a vessel in which it should be carried 

 through the blockade, and that such was the 

 intended destination of the cargo on its depart- 

 ure from England ; that the papers found on. 

 board of the vessel, so far as they represented 

 Nassau as the ultimate destination of the cargo, 

 were false and simulated ; that there was no 

 lona fide intention of landing the cargo at 

 Nassau, for sale or consumption there, so that 

 it might be incorporated at Nassau into the 

 common stock in that market, but that, if it 

 was to be landed there at all, it was only to be 



