PEIZE. 



769 



number of sets of artillery harness, with their 

 accompaniments, and a large quantity of horse- 

 shoes of a large size, together with anvils and 

 blacksmith's bellows, tin, zinc, iron, steel, ar- 

 tillery-boots, waist-belts, and ball-bags. The 

 conclusion of the court upon the evidence was, 

 that the vessel, when captured, although osten- 

 sibly upon a voyage from London to neutral 

 waters at the mouth of the Bio Grande, was 

 laden with a cargo composed largely of ar- 

 ticles contraband of war, which were not de- 

 signed, on their departure from England, to be 

 sold or disposed of in the neutral market of 

 Matamoras, but were designed to be delivered, 

 either directly, or indirectly by transshipment, 

 in the country of the enemy, and for the use of 

 the enemy. The material points of the evi- 

 dence, leading to this conclusion, were : that the 

 cargo, in the character and quantity of the arti- 

 cles composing it, had very little adaptation to 

 the Mexican market, or to the small port of Ma- 

 tamoras, so far as any legitimate use or sale or 

 consumption of it in Mexico, was concerned ; 

 that it was admirably adapted, in every partic- 

 ular, to the market of the enemy ; that large 

 quantities of the articles composing it were 

 those for which there was a very urgent de- 

 mand, to supply the present wants of the enemy ; 

 that the master of the vessel, when she was 

 boarded, twice refused to go with his papers on 

 board of the capturing cruiser ; that papers on 

 board of the vessel were destroyed by orders 

 of her master, at the time of her capture, some 

 by being burned and some by being thrown 

 overboard ; that the master, on his first exam- 

 ination, denied that any papers were destroyed, 

 and then, after other witnesses had testified to 

 such destruction, invented a false story as to 

 the contents of the package which was thrown 

 overboard ; that the manifest of the cargo did 

 not disclose its contents, except in a few un- 

 important instances; that the invoices found 

 on board were in the possession of the passen- 

 gers and not of the master ; that there were no 

 invoices of the artillery harness or its accom- 

 paniments, or of the drugs forming a portion 

 of the packages addressed to the firm at Mata- 

 moras ; and that the bills of lading failed to dis- 

 close the truth as to the contraband articles on 

 board of the vessel. The conviction of the court, 

 upon the entire evidence, was, that notwith- 

 standing the ostensible destination of the ves- 

 sel to neutral waters at the mouth of the Bio 

 Grande, the actual hostile destination of the car- 

 go was established. The evidence showed, that 

 it was intended that the vessel should bring 

 home a cargo of cotton from the Bio Grande, 

 and, among the articles on board were two hun- 

 dred pairs of "negro brogans" so called in the 

 invoice of them. As all the claimants of the 

 vessel and cargo had on board contraband ar- 

 ticles which were destined to be delivered either 

 directly, or indirectly by transshipment, into the 

 enemy's country, for the use of the enemy, and 

 not for sale or disposition in the neutral market 

 of Mexico, and as all the cargo was under the 

 VOL. in 49 A 



control of the master and the three passengers, 

 the court held, that not only were the contra- 

 band articles subject to capture, but that the 

 other articles represented by the master and the 

 claimants of the vessel and cargo, embracing 

 the entire cargo, and also the vessel herself, were 

 subject to capture, notwithstanding the osten- 

 tible destination of the vessel. 



The cases above mentioned as having arisen 

 in the court in Florida, were those of the steam- 

 er Dolphin and the steamer Pearl. These vessels 

 were both of them, when captured, ostensibly 

 bound from Liverpool to Nassau. The former 

 had on board some rifles and some cavalry 

 swords, all of them classed in the freight list as 

 hardware. The principles laid down by the court 

 in those cases were : that a vessel bound on a 

 voyage from Liverpool to Nassau, with an inten- 

 tion of touching only at the latter port, and pro- 

 ceeding thence to a blockaded port of the enemy, 

 was engaged in an attempt to violate the block- 

 ade, which subjected her to capture before ar- 

 riving at Nassau, as well as after having left 

 that port ; and that, if an owner sends his ves- 

 sel to a neutral port, with a settled intention to 

 commence from such a port a series of voyages 

 to a blockaded port, he thereby commences to 

 violate the blockade, and subjects his vessel to 

 capture, notwithstanding he may also intend to * 

 unlade the vessel at the neutral part, discharge 

 the crew, and give all other external manifesta- 

 tions of an intention to end the voyage at such 

 port. The court held, in both of the cases, that 

 the testimony was clear, that an intention ex- 

 isted, at the time of the capture of the vessels, 

 that they should proceed to a blockaded port of 

 the enemy of the United States. 



An interesting question of prize law has been 

 decided by the vice-admiralty court at Halifax 

 in Nova Scotia, in the case of the steamer Chesa- 

 peake, during the present war. The Chesa- 

 peake was a steamer plying between New York 

 and Portland, in Maine. She left New York, 

 bound for Portland, with a cargo, in December, 

 1863. During the voyage, some of the passen- 

 gers rose against the officers and crew, and took 

 possession of the vessel, and navigated her into 

 a port in Nova Scotia. The persons who seized 

 the vessel claimed that they acted under the an- 

 thority of the rebel States. Proceedings were 

 instituted in the name of the Queen against the 

 vessel and cargo, in the vice-admiralty court at 

 Halifax, and the vessel and cargo were arrested 

 as having been piratically taken on the high 

 seas from their lawful owners. The parties 

 who made the seizure did not appear in the 

 proceedings, but suffered judgment by default. 

 The owners of the vessel and cargo appeared 

 and claimed their restoration. The court de- 

 creed such restoration, on the ground that the 

 bringing of the vessel and her cargo into a port 

 of Nova Scotia was an offence against Great 

 Britain, subjecting them to forfeiture; and that 

 their restoration to their original owners was 

 an act of justice to the offended dignity of the 

 crown of Great Britain. 



