New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-27
CIVIL COUR rs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURr-Noy' ee.-Before
Judge BR1Ta
rHR oHILIAN PRIvATEER-THR DUTIES OF NEuTHALs-
The DoCTRINEs OF THB UNITED STATES AND THE
yNGIIsH RULRRs-THR METEOR AND THR SHEEAE-


DoAH.
The United States ag, The Steamship Meteor
At last the long expected decision Of Judge Belts
in the case Of the Gillian priyatecr the has been de-
hvered whole opinion too lengthy Tor the columns oil
this paper but print below the most important portions IT
viii be mbere that the Meteor seized suspicion oil
having been purchased Of Chill forprvHeer
ing purposes in the manner which the Shenendoh was
W sc one or two cases OF fixed ammunition and the chief
evidence against the vessel was her Character rs spech
weke purposes and the character Of the agents OF ue
ehases The vessel was condemned last Spring ana then
bonded but the grounds of condemnation have not
formal rused by defense discusses the question as
to the necessity of first conyctg person OF the crime Oh
sary In an action IN for the condemnation oil e ns
citing Mr. Justice Sorys decision in the case Of .ne G
therein and declares, the authority OF icse 81, 80
that under the third section Of the act Of o under e
libel In this case is fled IL only necessary IN or9f 70
condemnation Of the vessel for the beats 70 O nc
vessel been fitted and armed or been sPu orUeg
with the intent the part Of any person hhg oul o
her attempting 70 fit out and arm her or Prpus g
be fitted ont and armed ngy concerned IN te FURNISH
ing fitting auning Of her tha sne snos s Oe e
Poyea in the service 0l any Eosss against the subjects
citizens or property Of any foreign 1nod States are
at peace that il not necessary for the hbeans TO prove te
individuality identity of such person any iuheI uan
prove that the prohibited acts done by that
Il NOT Mt ali necessary for the ban to show that theowner
Of the authorized agent w0s concerned IN inc COM
mission OF the prohibited but the law imposes upon the
owner the necessity Of Withholding his property from beng
made BY any person instrument of violating the law ana
that ifthe law been violated the vessel may be forfeited
the prohibited acts have been committed by any person
whether concerned IN the violation OF the Ia" VI
te conclusion OF the trial the lbeans asked to amend
their peadngs which the Court rulod as follows -
tho present Court Of opinion that the proposed
vi not nIos9sS any ss% rf e ~ the
require their allowance the imposition by the c9ut Of
any terms the The smeudueqts are sceodnsE,
the when 81 and the brlin are at liberty 10
On the merits. The sole question determination in this case T.
by the testimony whether oanse prohibited by ihe hrd
Of the act April 20 se was co@mied prior 70 inc IHs
Tie oenses set ou have been committed within
TSs hitting oct and si%ai By PeoH s.' with The
intent on the part ,, OF 'ss svios p'Of any foeea
state or n any people to cru.e commit hOlhe, sstin.!
sSy I pesps with whom he peace second the
attempting BY person to m SS' enc 1 TO be sted ont ard
armed .sy with the lie intent Forth The being 5GoM
nc me oisG T 81 a ISs Ss S9GSR S % o
Knowingly coneened by person IN the afmps Of any ye
SON Of eoHn.on within the territory jurisdiction he United
States. any hip vessel to !he intrni that she gy be
in respect 70 which committed Is with her tackle &C. be f
by the claimants oAens issue deliver commission
sEhin the United states Tor sry vsss. Hs u s VI &
bel departure United States aid would be 20 on nae
ooSpped 10 cruise or commit hosss and Intended sud
and was no, be armed within the United States although
could De shown Iha oleal lhg, ~, ~ sI hand
Ter Tho onea should beyond the Jurisdiction Of
the .iStue ePoda'ed by the Supreme
testimony is abundant that Of the Meteor both d.
rey and through then recognized agent Cary were cav
lied represent Chn GOyenmeu aud who did IN fei pre
t5s sho between Cary wdsh carried dgns
Tie war between spain Chill aud st Wright dossd Cary
that biz Pngs' STs s ssS osh T mas, Of @
seized on ~ go o. % M her p,s,s md o. in evidence sei.
forth her cargo as being her being
iMSa a@ r, S1tS va, placed BY he soun G he
doTn by the Supreme IonI y NE 1e o. We ,s n
q Wheson 2sJl I9s, oos,de e. ~ ~ S N . y
allowed neutral furnish benseren wsie aieral'
ppep u the law Of nations eeoEIod which prohibit. neutral
territory from being used By either Seseree
brsereu rhi Of citizens q the neuira country TO sell 81
s I5 ,dV G., Gss ss I p b. Se.sa r ha
j. no osuee and vosion Of neutrality 70 eel vessel OF
there is the same light under se ports
or ammunition or any Other raw neri.L *
argument che eouS,. S,nsasd the PIo0os0 '9s 99 'P
Peaie9 en- m hs Inn 81 one bsnent teie Vas no
S%1 6ai .ss bsS bSt s cqppd
war complete and ready for action The Views thus pressed
the Coari hss in i' judgment 10 iSand.Ga ~ 5g9I S
The Cont then discusses the cases Of Trinidad
and the Grand Para, and concludes
Meteor although board Of her when
cannon hot testified 70 by sesse the ey
oe1se really ensgsd sny mon no i s s
20 BusnOs Ayes The Meteor although not completely fitted out
nerce ss Ia 10 msnDer been tered from vessel
70 s oa % $ s . i1S a reach D pon bsyod The
Jurisdiction United States and there have her armament and
Gillian Government against ih Government d spain To permit
would p the lsnsssss e M.r'hl !. as
The sale OF oly vessel the United States
bsseren government 'ubec. citizen Of such
2 5 ne statutory law Of The United States bot such vessel
, t ny sna " PSe bse d ~ M .adl S1
citizen with the intent on the part q those concerned IN PuHg he
cue commit hos,iie' against TIE sab.
, nd :. psscs wi Is. United stStes the neutrality y tie
limited s s: ySe f. S ~; With h S an intent s
proved the sale Of the vessel nothing has been done in viola
virtually letter The doctrine contended for would result
thsbst the and aiming Of the would be perfectly
lawful because building and mns her there was no intent TO
hsvs her sb neht od a The tine Of n, S beese no
existed when he was bl armed and no Interference
her aer the sale TO enable her TO cruise or
This consequence would GLOW not only respect TO vessel
fully armed su - R r 70 Sg D wS e'a 70 p ons % had
been ony partial fitted and armed The intent H. under the
intent does bo exist citizen Of Tie United States may Only
folly armed vessel in port Of The United state, 20 eessni
fully armed ys,'s .a t s T Avs Of s sd ss
have prohibited the sale Of vessel Of sr Of
out and sfnins OF attempting and the furnishing
81 hitting oo o. aTmns 81 0 ssi, S me % oea
The importance Of this not mercy p view Of The peenny
oper public lay involved IN H. have led The Cont to more
doubt
ness doctrines public law which has applied the present
case Those doctrines result Of the legislative executive and
Judicial Of the pubhc authorities and Of The United
states variety Of end the Court has nowhere found
more summary them than Wheston International
Law gth Edition. with notes by Dana 56l So 25:
As 10 preparing Of vessels within Jurisdiction for iubse
qpent hostile operations the test have applied has no! been
and character Of the Preparations bot the intent with
which done. does
omp do toward snb preparation with the intent that
Oq reference the completion q ,hs preparations the
which may gone and although his attempt may have
saied definite progress toward The completion q the prepa atom,
The procuring Of materials be used knowingly and with the intent
kc Accordingly II 10 70 show that the
armed time, before after
charged condition 20 commit Of hostility" "OUr
interfere with bona hde consbAnd
NJ, An Auuerf