Intent to run a blockade may be inferred in part from delay of the vessel to sail after being completely laden, and from changing the ship's course in order to escape a ship-of-war cruising for blockade-runners. A vessel and cargo, though owned by neutrals, may be condemned as enemy property, because of the vessel being engaged in enemy trade, and because of an attempt to violate a blockade and to elude visitation and search. The Baigorry, ibid., 474. If a vessel is found without a proper license near a blockading squadron, under circumstances indicating intent to run the blockade, and in such a position that, if not prevented, she might pass the blockading force, she cannot thus, flagrante facto, set up as an excuse that she was seeking the squadron with a view of getting an authority to proceed on her desired voyage. The Josephine, 3 Wall., 83. A cargo taken from a port in violation of a blockade, with the intent to transship it at an intermediate port for its port of ultimate destination, remains liable to capture and condemnation after the transshipment. The Thompson, ibid., 155. Presumption of an intent to run a blockade by a vessel bound apparently to a lawful port may be inferred from a combination of circum stances. The Cornelius, ibid., 214. Destination alone justifies seizure and condemnation of ship and cargo in voyage to ports under blockade; and such destination justifies equally seizure of contraband in voyage to ports not under blockade; but in the latter case the ship, and cargo, not contraband, are free from seizure, except in cases of fraud or bad faith. The Bermuda, ibid., 514. For a criticism of this case see 3 Phill. Int. Law (3d ed.), 446. The approach of a vessel to the mouth of a blockaded port for inquiry-the blockade having been generally known-is itself a breach of the blockade, and subjects both vessel and cargo to condemnation. The Cheshire, ibid., 231. Where a clearance of a vessel expressed a neutral port to be her sole port of destination, but the facts showed that her primary purpose was to get cargoes into and out of a port under blockade, the outward cargo, if obtained, to go to the neutral port named as the one cleared for, the fact that the vessel's letter of instructions directed the master to call off the blockaded port and, if he should find the blockade still in force, to get the officer in command of the blockading ship to indorse on the vessel's register that she had been warned off (in accordance with what the owners of the vessel asserted to be their understanding of neutral rights under the President's proclamation of the 19th of April, 1861), and then to go to the port for which the clearance called, will not save the vessel from condemnation as prize, she having been captured close by the blockaded port, standing in for it, and without ever having made an inquiry anywhere whether the port was blockaded or not. The Admiral, ibid., 603. Mere sailing for a blockaded port is not an offense, but where the vessel has knowledge of the blockade, and sails with the intention of violating it, she is liable to capture. A vessel setting sail from England on the 9th of September, 1861, with actual knowledge of a proclamation which the President of the United States made on the 19th of the April preceding, blockading certain Southern ports, had no right, under an allegation of a purpose to see if the blockade existed, to sail to one of the ports actually blockaded. Ibid. Where the papers of a ship sailing under a charter-party are all genuine and regular, and show a voyage between neutral ports, where there has been no concealment or spoliation of papers; where the stipulations of the charter-party in favor of the owners are apparently in good faith, and the owners are neutrals, have no interest in the cargo, and have not previously in any way violated neutral obligations, and there is no sufficient proof that they have any knowledge of the unlawful destination of the cargo-in such case the vessel will not be condemned, because the neutral port to which it is sailing has been constantly and notoriously used as a port of call and transshipment by persons engaged in systematic violation of blockade and in the conveyance of contraband of war, and was meant by the owners of the cargo to be so used on this occasion. But the mere fact that the master declared himself ignorant as to what a part of his cargo, of which invoices were not on board (having been sent by mail to the port of destination), consisted, such part having been contraband; and also declared himself ignorant of the cause of capture, when his mate, boatswain, and steward all testified that they understood it to be the vessel's having contraband on board, was held not sufficient of itself to infer guilt to the owners of the vessel, who were in no way compromised with the cargo. The Springbok, 5 Wall., 1. A neutral vessel sailing under a charter-party from one neutral port to another was captured and libeled for intent to violate a blockade. The port to which she was sailing, though neutral, had been constantly and notoriously used as a port of call and transshipment by persons engaged in systematic violation of certain blockaded ports and in the conveyance of contraband of war. Her cargo consisted of 2,007 packages, of which the contents of 619 packages were disclosed by the bills of lading, the contents of the remaining 1,388 not being disclosed. Both the bills of lading and the manifest made the cargo deliverable to order, and the master was directed by his letter of instructions to report himself on arrival at his destination to H., who "would give him orders as to the delivery of his cargo." A certain fraction of that portion of the cargo whose contents were undisclosed was specially fitted for the enemy's military use, and a larger part capable of being adapted to it. On invoking the proofs in two other cases it was found that the owners of the cargo in question and the charterer of the vessel were the owners of certain vessels which, while sailing ostensibly for neutral ports, had been captured and shown to have been engaged in blockade-running; and that many packages on one of these vessels, being numbered in a broken series of numbers, had many of their complemental numbers on the vessel now under adjudication. No application was made to take further proof in explanation of these facts, and the claim to the cargo was not sworn to by either of the persons owning it and resident in England, but by an agent at New York, on "information and belief.” No guilty intent, or complicity in any, on the part of the owners of the vessel having been shown, she was restored, but the cargo was condemned for intent to run the blockade. Ibid. A vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for herself, and none by sea for her cargo, to a blockaded place, violates no blockade. The Peterhoff, 5 Wall., 28. As to the case, see 3 Phill. Int. Law (3 ed.), 395 ff.; 479 ff. A neutral, professing to be engaged in trade with a neutral port situated so near to a blockaded port as to warrant close observation by the blockading squadron, must keep his vessel, while discharging or receiving cargo, so clearly on the neutral side of the blockading line as to repel, so far as position can repel, all imputation of intent to break the blockade. And neglect of that duty may well justify capture and sending in for adjudication; though it might not justify a condemnation in the absence of evidence that the neglect was willful. The Dashing Wave, 5 Wall., 170. Where a party, whose national character does not appear, gives his money to a neutral house, to be shipped with money of that house and in their name, and an attorney in fact, on capture of the money and libel of it as prize, states that such neutral house are the owners thereof, and that "no other persons are interested therein," the capture and sending in will be justified; though in the absence of proof of an enemy's character in the party shipping his money with the neutral's, a condemnation may not ensue. Where a vessel has been guilty of carelessness and a portion of her cargo is of a suspicious nature, the costs and expenses of the capture may be ratably apportioned between the vessel and the suspicious portion of the cargo, though both are restored. Ibid. A neutral vessel, completely laden with a neutral cargo, and at anchor on the neutral side of a river which washed a blockaded coast, drifted into hostile waters and was captured, while temporarily at anchor there, on suspicion of intent to break the blockade. It was held that temporary anchorage in waters occupied by the blockading vessels did not justify capture in the absence of other grounds. The Teresita, 5 Wall., 180. A vessel sailing through blockaded waters was seized on suspicion of Intent to break the blockade. Besides the fact that her manifest bore date as of a day when only a part of the cargo was laden, her bills of health and clearance pointed to one port as her port of destination, while the captain's letter of instructions required him to stop at another, not in a direct line, for instructions. The vessel's bills of health specified six men and no passengers, there being, in fact, one passenger; and the provisional certificate of registry represented as sole owner one person, and other papers another. It was held that these circumstances justified the seizure. It further appeared that the vessel's name had been changed, and that her master had ten months before commanded a blockade runner. Not only was her ownership in doubt, the ostensible ownership being apparently but a mere cover, but no claim was put in for her, except by the captain, who put in a claim for the ostensible owners, though without instructions from them and only in his capacity of master. The evidence, too, was very strong, that a portion of the cargo was enemy's property. Under these circumstances condemnation was decreed. The Jenny, ibid., 183. In proceedings against a ship and cargo as prize of war, the burden of proving neutral ownership is on the claimants; and when there is no proof of such ownership, and still more when the weight of evidence is on the side of enemy ownership, condemnation will be pronounced. Ibid. During the civil war a British vessel bound from England to Nassau, New Providence, was captured by an American war steamer, and was condemned as intending to run the blockade of the southern coast of the United States; the grounds being that Nassau, though a neutral port, was constantly and notoriously used as a port of call and transshipment by persons engaged in systematic violation of the blockade, and in the conveyance of contraband of war; the vessel and cargo were consigned to a house well known to the court, from previous suits, to be so engaged; the second officer of the vessel and several of the seamen, ex amined in preparatorio, testified strongly that the purpose of the vessel was to break the blockade; and the owner, who was heard, on leave given him to take further proof touching the use he intended to make of the vessel after arrival at Nassau, the trade or business he intended she should engage in, and the purpose for which she was going to that port, said and produced nothing. The Pearl, 5 Wall., 574. A permit to enter or depart from a blockaded port, issued by an officer who has no authority to grant it, is invalid, and will not save a vessel from condemnation on the charge of blockade-running. The Sea Lion, 5 Wall., 630; S. P., The Ouachita Cotton, 6 ibid., 521; S. P., The Where a neutral vessel, which had apparently set out on a lawful voyage, was captured, she was restored, the only evidence against her being that, when captured, she was out of the most direct and regular course, which was explained by the fact of there having been rough weather, which made it desirable for her to take the course she did. The Sea Witch, 6 Wall., 242. A cargo shipped from a neutral country by neutrals resident there, and destined ostensibly to a neutral port, was restored with costs after capture in a suspicious region, and where the vessel on its outward voyage had violated a blockade; there having been nothing to fix on the neutrals themselves any connection with the ownership or outward voyage of the vessel (which was itself condemned), nor anything to prove that their purposes were not lawful. But a certain portion of the cargo, which had been shipped like the rest, except that the shipper was a merchant residing and doing business in the enemy's country, was condemned. The Flying Scud, 6 Wall., 263. A vessel was condemned for intended breach of the blockade of the southern coast, 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 her chief officer declared that she meant to run. The Adela, ibid., 266. The liability of a vessel to capture and condemnation for breach of blockade ceases at the end of her return voyage. The Wren, ibid., 582. To justify a neutral vessel in attempting to enter a blockaded port she must be in such distress as to render her entry a matter of uncontrollable necessity. The Diana, 7 Wall., 354. |