Case ID: us_11/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marshall, Ch. J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRIG PENOBSCOT v. THE UNITED STATES.
    Msent....Todd, J,
    
    trnder the hpn-interveS, ItT* Ú 4Maych, i8it, tocomeInto the wate'm of fter'she ,te¿8 her car-
    THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of the district of Géorgia, which affirmed of the District Court, condemning the brig Penobscot, and her cárgo of salt, for a violation of the acts Congress, interdicting commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her dependencies, (via. the acts of March 1st, 1809, vol. 9, p. 243___May 1st, 1810, vol. 10, *86. — ,The President's proclamation of Nov. %d, 1810, and the act of Zd March, 1811, p. 346.J By the 4th section of the act of March 1st, 1809, it was not lawful to import into the United States, or the territories thereof, any good,1;, wares, or merchandize whatever, from any port or place situated in Great Britain, or Ireland, or in any of the colonies or dependencies of Great Britain, nor from any port or place in the actual possession of Great Britain ; nor to import into the United States, &c. from any foreign port or place whatever, any goods, wares, or merchandize of the growth, produce, or manufacture, of Great Britain, or Ireland, <§x.
    
    
      By the 5th section, such goods so imported, (or put on hoard any vessel, &c. with intent of importing, &c.) as well as all other articles on board, belonging to the same owner, are liable to forfeitur e : And by the ,6f/i section, the vessel is Subject to forfeiture, if the goods are laden on board With the knowledge of the owner or master of the vessel. i
    The act of May 1st, 1810, and the President’s proclamation of Nov. 2d, 1810, announcing that France bad so l’evoked the edicts of Berlin and Milein, as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of tire United States : — And the act of March 2d, 1811, are only referred to, as revising and enforcing against Great Britain, the provisions of the act of March 1st, 1809.
    The claim of the owners of the vessel and cargo, stated, that the vessel sailed from Antigua on the 12th #C February, 1811, and being crank and not sea-’Worthy, put into Turk’s Island, for ballast, whore she took in a load of salt, .beinginformed, by an American vessel, that there was no law to prohibit- it. • That she sailed fromTurk’s Island, for the port of Savannah, intending to ■ stand off and on, to get information to. know whether she might be permitted to come in or not. That.on her approach to the barbox*, a gale of wind prevented boats coming toiler, and forced her, for the safety of the live», of the crew and the vessel, to make a harbor at Cock-spur Island. That before tibe got a harbor, she was boarded by a revenue cutler, who took possession of her, and forcibly carried her into port. That the salt was not taken in with intent to violate the laws of the,. United States, but with the express intention and determination, if they found the importation into the United ■' States to be unlawful, to bear away to some, foreign port. She sailed from C<*stine, in the province of Maine, for Antigua, in December, 1810, and arrived off Savannah, on the 15th of March, 1811.
    There was evidence that the vessel might have called at Amelia Island, in the course of her voyage, where she might have got information of the non-intercourse law being in force. That she spoke a vessel of the U. S. just before she came in, but made no inquiry asto the law. That the agent of the owners wrote several letters to be delivered to the captain at sea, informing him of the law, and warning him to go to some foreign port, but they were not delivered. The evidence respecting the necessity óf coming in, by reason of stress of weather, did not seem to be sufficiently proved.
    The cause was argued by P. B. Kéy, for the Appellants,. and I. R. Ingersoee, for the U. S. 
    
    It was contended by Key, for the Appellants,
    
    1. That the cargo was not taken on board with intention of importing the same into the United States.
    2. That the vessel was forced into Gockspur Harbor, by stress of weather, to save the vessel and the lives of the crew,* and while so making the harbor, she was boarded by a revenue cutter, and seized, and forced into the port of Savannah.
    3. That she had a right to come into the waters of the U. S. to make inquiry whether she could be permitted to enter, and before a reasonable time had expired, she was forcibly seized and cjarried in.
    4. That coming into the waters of the U. States, under either of the above circumstances, does not constitute an importation, without other and further voluntary acts on the. part of the vessel.
    
      Feb. 23....
    
    
      
       The Reporter -was absent.
    
   Marshall, Ch. J.

stated the opinion of the Court to be, that the vessel came at her peril; that she was bound to get information; but was negligent in not calling at Amelia Island, and in not inquiring of the vessel which she spoke off the port of Savannah.

Sentence affirmed.