Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-10-09
NUMBER l6s

4
time came up the port with a earvo .aved from
rreck nsar saith Point IN the chesapeake, and Left
EsEe ABOUT me tenth Of Nay to fulfil said contract
so made WITH the agent Of the underWriters. That
NY VEN ~ nrss 20 New Inlet for = harbor, and
reaeaed the wreck OF the AIbioD sbo,,t tie 1sk of
June, and found it in a most 5000 ;.,; lie
PIE 70 De oioWn to pieces in the first storm That
they proceeded to taks iron from her. and bad sue
ceeded IN getting q tons on board ,vbs1 tb- veTa
SApSure9. mat they intended to land said iron las
last IS they could get it out, At New Iplet hein0
the nearest land which they could .afaI ds0osir
lt, until It could be removed 70 Baltimore n vbieh
port they intended 70 bring e. as is WAS imDortant
from the exposed condition Of the vessel 10 o,avs
the iron from il as fast possible. That aNew In
let s an uninhabited part Of the coast one az tboaa
smsu lniets between the ocean and PGmlco Sound.
ana ABOUT twenty miles from the main land ard
seSenty miles from the nearest port Of entry Elan
Ton IN North Carolina These distances learn from
a examination Of the map Of that State. Itisst
sns Aortn END OF The ChickponseomO bank, that
long raage Oh sand thrown up BY the Atlantic, and
Whleh separates it from PamlieO Sound. On Kap
SAhlOited - court during the trial, the water in
new Inlet was uaFkedFtWl ard a half feet deep
through which there s no passage for VessslS into
ne Soohd' and suppose il Is gradually closing up
~ the sand Washed up from the ocean, a. I find,
oaexamlnatlon Of the zap Of North CsrOlina. that
Two lnlet1 North OF New Inlet" eCurrituck Inlet"
and Roanoke lnlet' are nov closed
NOW it s perfectly clear from 81 the evidence
IN me case that there was intention TO violate
me bloekaae BY any party connected with the +.
". johnson. They went there il good faith to ave
me wrecked property Of loyal citizens and every
Eaueas examined negatived the idea, that there
aaa any intention to carry this iron or any part Of
sc Aorth Cerollna- Now, the purpose Of block
sac Is q prevent all commercial i1tercoruas with
the iRterdiets@ port. Says PhillemOre 81 vol mage
~; me Oh eetO of the blockade is 70 prevent ex-
poris as well az fRROrts and to cut of az coHmaugi-
egsson eolHznees 9Th the blockaded place"
NOW 90 me faets Of ttis eaIae show any breach Of
blockade, Is thus eCafuRd2 Certainly IL would
not have been eontsnded kat any breach of the
blockade had been committed Il ths rsstsr aad sea
men Of the bark Albion had &C tha5r bels9 wreck
ed, with their small bOGts made tie effort b avs
az cargo and 70 enable thess to Do 30, bad carried
itts the nearest place Of safety ikb the Intention
Of Ua7lovsg il TO the port Of destnaisa. kaitmors
R0E. how is this case altered when iugtead OF
the shiGs crew the effort to ssTe the cargo n asis
By professional WrecksPs employed by the owners
Ia IS not sEeh case OF necessity a. excuses the
national offence Says PhilleEore, Sd VOL page 6I,
speaking Of SAci4iOn Of Lord StogelI This Law
Of cases Of Aeeessity." he Observes els not likely
70 be furnished With precise rules, and Whatever
is reasonable and jass IN such cases Is likewise legal
Is Is not TO be considered as matter Of surprise,
therefore If such instituted rule Is 20. to he found
on the subject A clear necessity is sufleieRt
justification for everything thst Is done fairly and
with good faith under it,
Now, tested by this standard is L So EeasonSbls
an6 ust that the owner Of goods, csst Ep94 The
shores q block2dsd country By & storm 81 de
ocean, skOpld be permitted to make every exsrtiOn
70 save theC for the purpose Of carrying them to
the destined psse'
The principle q excuse from necessity will be
found 70 have Feeecsed sanction Of the Supreme
Court IN the esse Of IKE Mary" (9 Cranch, 1851
Chief Justice Marshall, (GpG / can name no higher
authority,) in delivering the eplRiOa Of the court
says: "The Mary was forced into Waterford by ir-
resishble necessity, and was detiRed there BY the
operations Of causes ebe could not control. Hal
her departure been fFop sqeutrsl port, and abe
bad baeR thus forced during tbs voyage, into
hostile pert would it be alleged that she bad in
CURED tbs liabilities Of vessel sailing fro2 port
Of the eneRY' IL is believed that this EllsgItiop
could not be sEatsiGed, and that it would not Be
made"
The same PrineiPIs Eas sNstSiEad By Sir ". Scott
N the case OF ChanOtts;S Edwards, 4d. Rep, page
- That WaE 5e ease Of an American ship on
royage from BOstSE 70 St Petersburg. puting into
he Texel in distress SD for repairs Texel then be
ng Ender blockade. That lesEnsd Admiralty Judge,
IN beizg satisfied that there vas ReceSsty for her
,Oing iRtO the Texel restored the ship and cargo
Ie also ksintained the SAME principle IN the ease
Il HThe Fortunes G. Robinson, q. I think that
rineiple covers this case, and viii sign . decree
estOring the vessel and cargo 70 the eaimsnEz upon
ne payment Of de costs Of the case charge them
Nth the costs, boeEZse the enrolment which Waa
he only evidence ks boarding officer had at the
me, recited that he schooner belonged 70 eitZen
Virginia, aud justified Ser capture and her being
aat fzcO prize court far adjudication.