Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-09-10
vINDIcATIoN OF JUSTICE sToRY-No. II.

We now seek to show that there is no CONNECT
between the opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States read by Justice STORY in the CASE of
the Santissima Trinidad, and the opinion of the
same court read by Chief Justice MARSHALL in the
case Of the Gran Para.
Both cases were under statutes enacted to pre-
serve our neutrality, and these statutes make the
offence they prohibit to consist in equipping ves-
sells with "the intent" that they shall be employed
in cruising &c. against State with which we are
at peace; and of the "inteat" with which the
equipment is made the Supreme Court Of the
United States says:
1T is the material point which the legality or crim
nay OF the act turn and decides whether the ad
venture is of commercial warlike character 70 Pc
ters U. s. r. AS, U. s. v. Quincy)
In the case of the Santissima Trinidad restitu-
ton of the goods captured was claimed on two dis
tinct grounds: first, the original equipment OF the
Independence and Altrevida in our ports; and
secondly the augmentation Of the force of the In
dependencia in our ports.
AS to the first ground OF claim it was found that
the Independence was fitted out as war vessel in
Baltimore and sent for sale to Buenos Ayres, and
that she was actually sold there and the court
held that this was commercial transaction no WY
violating the laws of nations OF our own statutes
But as to the second grounl of claim it was found
that the augmentation of force of the Independent
Ella Gas we'll as the outf; of the Altrsvida) was
made with 'tMe intent" to cruise against Span,
and the court held that this brought the with
in our statutes, and decreetI restitution.
1t will be perceived thai in the former case the
moving cause of the equipu ent, its immediate "in
tent" was the sale and the profits of the sale, while
in the other case the moving cause and purpose of
the equipment was the cruise and the plumber to
be gotten by it. And thus, in the language of the
Supreme Court quoted from later case, the Gin
tent" decided "the legality or criminality Of the
act"
In the case of the Gran Para the capturing ship
was equipped in our ports and sailed thence "wih
the int,nt" to cruise against Spain. The Chief
Justice declares that this "ntent" is demonstrated
by the facts Of the case, which he states, and at
the same time he emphatically distinguishes the
case from commercial adventure. He says:
Thst the Irresistible purchased and that she sailed
of the port of Baltimore armed and manned a
sci of for the purpose of being employed cruiser
against nation with whom the United States peace
is clear for controversy That the and ammun
ton cleared out cannot vary the
s it thought to be material that the enlisted in
form for common mercantile voyage There nothing
resembling commercial adventure any Of the
The vessel constructed for and not for
commerce There cargo board but what
adapted to the purposes OF The too
for merchantmen and was sufficient for privateer
These circumstances demonstrate the with which the
Irresistible sailed out of the port of Baltimore"
On the case thus stated restitution was decreed.
L. 49, h. IT,, dad hat
the inttm 10 cruise +" brought case within the
statutes. The opinion read by Chief Justice MAR
SHALL repealed that decision. The former opinion
decided an equipping, &c. for sale bona fde-i.e.
. commercial adventure-dd not bring a with
in the statutes, but was lawful transaction, and
the latter opinion distinctly intimates the same
thing. In this surely there is no conflict between
those opinions
But it was shown at the trial that the Irresisti-
bic did not attempt to take prizes on her outward
voyage from Baltimore to La Plata and it was con-
tended that the /" intent" with which she sailed
from Baltimore could not be carried beyond that
outward voyage. In relation to this the Chief JUS
tice said
"As the Irresistible made prize her passage from
Baimr the river La Plata il is commended that her
offence was deposited there, and that the court cannot
connect her equent cruise with the transactions OF
Baltimore III this to be admitted in such case @
this laws for the OF our neutrality would
be completely eluded, far this enforcement depends
on the restitution OF prz made 10 violation OF them Yes
sells tey fitted in ports for military operations
need only sail bellgerent port and there, after obtain
ing commisson through the ceremony OF dcharging
ard re enisng their crew. to become perfectly legitimate
purified from every faint contracted at the place
where oil their real force and capacity for annoyance
acquired This would indeed be fraudulent neutrality,
diseraceui 10 Government, and of which
tion would be the dupe."
Now, the phrase fraudulent neutrality and
all these remarks Of the Chief Justice are applied
to cases like that before him, where the vessel is
"completely fitted in our port, for military opera
lions and sails thence with intent 10 cruise" &C.,
and they have DO reference whatever to vessel
fitted for war in our ports aud sent thence to bel
lgerent port for sale bona yfde and on CONNER
cial adventure and this the language OF the Chief
Justice makes manifest, for he proceeds TINS
at ia impossible for moment to disguise the facts that
the and ammunition taken board the Irresistible
at Baltimore taken for the purpose Of being used on
cruise and that the there enlisted, though engaged
IN for commercial voyage, not 80 engaged
in fact There commercial Doyngs, and ndtUi
DIAL of The could beliere that there one"
The language Of the Chief Justice precudes its
,nnI;cstion to the case of commercial transaction