The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-12-20

The hearing of this cause came o n before his
his Honor Judge Bsonson, OF the district court
of the United States on Monday last.
The case first taken up was for violation Of
the neutrality laws of the United States, and
was based upon the 81 section of the act of
1918, which reads AS follows:
SEC. 3. And BE- IL further enacted That if
any person shall, within the limits Of the United
States, fit out and arm, attempt to fit out and
arm, or procure to be fitted out aud armed, or
shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing.
fitting out, or armsg, Of any ship or vessel
with intent that such ship or vessel shall be
employed IN the service of any foreign prince
or State, or of any colony, district or people 10
cruise or commit no stilities against the subjects
citizens, or property of any foreign prince or
State, or Of any colony, district, or people will,
whom the United States are at peace, or shall
issue or deliver a commission within the terri
tory or jurisdiction of the United States for any
ship or vessel, To the intent that she may be en-
poyed as aforesaid, every person so Offending
shall be deemed guilty Of high msdeneanor.
and shall be fined not more than ten thousand
dollars, and imprisoned not more than three
years; and every such ship or vessel, wi h her
tackle, apparel and furniture, together with all
materials, arms ammunition and stores, WHICH
may have been procured for the building and
equipment thereof, shall be forfeited half
to the use of the informer and the other half
to the use Of the United States
The counsel for the United States, Geo. w.
Call, esq, opened the case for the government,
and claimed the forfeiture and condemnation of
the vessel, on the ground that she was fitted out
with intent to be employed in the service Of GER
tain dsloyal inhabitants or people of the Island
OF Cuba against the government of Spain, with
which the United States we're at peace; and relied
upon the evidence heretofore taken, showing
that the Pampero left New Orleans on the 81
August with General Lopez and his military
forces, and landed them in Cuba on the llth
August, with the intention to wage war with
the government Of Spain--that she subsequent.
" went to the ST. Johns river, and took on board
armed forces and arms for Cuba, to Cooperate
with Lopez &c.
That the facts indicated an intent AMI fur.
therance of that intent, and that she was for
felt 3D.
Messrs. Putnam and Mcintosh appeared on
behalf of the claimant, Mr.. l.. j. Sgur, and
made ingenious and able arguments in defence
of the vessel, and urged in opposition to the ar
gument of the U. s. attorney, that tle object
of the law of 1918 was to prevent one belize.
rent power making use Of our ports to fit out
and arm privateers an letters of maroue to
another power with whom we were at peace,
That il was not intended to refer to vessels EN-.
ployed in mere transport service.
They further commended that, rs the libel
charged that the Pampero was intended to be
employed in the service Of certain dslOval
Inhabitants of the Island of Cuba, it was incum
bent upon the United States to show that there
were dsloyal inhabitants there, of which there
was no evidence in the case, nor in point of fact,
that consequently, if no disoyal inhabitants ex-
listed, an intent could not be inferred
They further commended that the act required
that the employment should be in the service of
some "prince, state, colony, district, or people"
and that there was no prince, state, colony, dis
trict, or people in the Island of Cuba in whose
service she could be employed against the Queen
of Spain-that "peope," as used in the act, is
generic term, and means unity or body organ
lied, and not individuals Or persons.
They further contende1 that it was NOT
proved that the Pampero was in any sense of the
term an armed vessel, or in any manner fitted
out to cruise commit hostilities no ships, car
non ports, grenades, boarding pixies or other
similar munitions of naval warfare, having been
found, or proved to have been on board of her.
That her services or employment was mere
| transport service, &c. &C.; that no forfeiture
could acc'ue under such act
Mr.. Call, U. s. attorney, in repy-reviewed the
various points raised by the defence, and with
much force and tact pressed the condemnation
OF the vessel. The cause was submitted TO the
court on Wednesday, and we learn is still under
Amusement:
On Thursday, the of Fontane and Pent
against the Pampero for salvage she having, az
is alleged, run on the Florida KEYS on her way
to Jacksonville and having been got off by the
libelants. Parties not being prepared, the case
was postponed to Tuesday next. Mr. Fraser for
ibelants, and Messrs. Putnam and Mcintosh
for claimant Segur and Dir. Call, U. s. attorney,
for the United States.
On Friday the case of the United States
against one Cannon and sundry boxes ofammuni-
ton, saddles &c. seized on board the schooner of
Capt. Thompson, and charged as being NUM-
tons of war landed from the Pampero, came up.
Mr.. Call, u. s. attorney; for the u. s., and Gen.
Peden for the claimant, Col II. II. Titus. The
libelants failed to identify the property, and
the libel was dismissed