The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-03-24
the CASE OF tine METE(
.>->>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~-->
IMPORTANT DECISION OF JUDGE (
-~~>-~>>~~~~--~~
Strict Observance Of Our
trality Laws.
~>->>>~
THE VESSEL MOTTO BE BO|
&s. &s. ID

In the United States District Court YESTERDAY
case OF the United States va the steamship Nd
tackle, &C., Judge Belts pronounced the fold
portant decision:-
On the 23d day OF January, 1885, the United
torney for this district filed In this court IND
formation against the above named vessel, chat
the said vessel had been fitted out to commit I
against the government Of Spain, in
Of the neutrality act OF Congress Of 1918. ID
ceeding day the attorney filed an amended libel
nation, in the same cause, charging and dets
misdemeanors imputed TO the said ship speci4
minutsly. On the filing Of the original libel Il
issued out Of the clerks Office Of this court, d
sealof the court, addressed 70 the marshal Of ID
q monition and warrant OF attachment retu|
court on the 18th Of February next Their
which day the said process was duly returned
served by the marshai. On the 18th day of Nj
counsel for the claimants Of the said vessel mi
cation, by summary and non-enumerated mo-
court, for an order 70 appoint appraisers in d
cause, 10 appraise the said ship; and upon the |
bond or stipulation for the amount OF such
value, TO deliver possession OF the vessel TO !
claimants. On looking at the papers on file the |
motion now pressed TO hearing by tho claiman v
under the circumstances OF the case, accord |
strict rules of practice, TO be premature In poin
exceptive allegations having been previously
the United States Attorney to the competent
claimants to intervene In this matter. But I
for the claimants, urging the immediate hear
special motion, and the United states Attorn4
all objection to such immediate hearing,
proceeded to discuss the questions raised I
plication made by the claimants to have
ers appointed to value the steamship and TO h
stored to the claimants on bail, according u
course of procedure in courts of admiralty
time jurisdiction in seizure cases. The caus
scented TO the court In maintenance OF the PROF
law insisted upon by the counsel for the cla
recognized or established by statutory law
standing rules and adjudications of the COZ
perceive no ground 10 question at
that 1t Is within the ordinary usage
United States courts, authorized and sanctio
tutory enactments and by the standing rules
raj courts of the United States in the exerci
several functions in banco, or by the judges
out OF court, to bail personal property seized
ccsses in rem, issued out Of courts of civil
rally jurisdiction, and deliver the res into the
OF the proper claimant, on security apX
the judicial authority having cognizanc
subject matter. Tho attributes inherent
civil and admiralty court Of Engl3
they have fallen into disuse, probably undel
Swallowing influence of the courts of comm
Brownies Civil and Adm. Law, 1851 II see
then, that the sole question Of difficulty Id
subsisting In this case Is whether the couI
by positive law, on final course of practice
established by authority OF the Judiciary eq}
force TO direct enactment Of Congress, TO
ship TO the claimants on bail, or whether u
on bail y subject 70 the judicial discretion Of
I feel persuaded that tho sound constructiof
regulations In this behalf prescribed by thu
Court Of the United States or by the Circuit
Court within this district, and oil the doctrir
By those courts on that branch q pra
the power and trust 70 bail property held
ure In q court OF civil and admiralty ]
In an acton OF tort or one Of contract VII
ton Is made thereto, lies exclusively within
discretion Of the court Dunlap Adm,
dsl. The brig Struggle ! Gall q. ~ 81, 1ao
March 8, 1s47, a y. 8. Statutes at Large,
can act for the reduction Of the costs and
proceedings In Admiralty against ships and v
cited by the counsel for the claimants as impd
court the imperative duty OF delivering up u
bail. But the Court h Of opinion that that
its express terms limited In It's operation to
miralty In which the llbeliant seeks TO rccov
demand, and has no application 70 cases II
before the court. 1.-THE whole question as TO I
OF tho vessel on bail In the present case was
OF judicial discretion should have great hesl
ceding 10 tho application Of the claimants at
information The importance Of . due and
forcement Of the neutrality laws Of the Unit
30 great that no course Of procedure ought to
by the court which would afford an opport
repetition OF the offences charged against
vessel, at least until tho public authorities hs
forded reasonable time TO Substantial
q judicial trial, their allegations ag
vessel But, aside from the correctn
correctness OF the views thus exI
am persuaded that the direct legislation OF
the act upon which the libel OF Information
sent case rs founded (Act OF April 20, Is
Stats. q; Large, AL, covers the subject ma
present application, and Is conclusive upon
that the vessel, while held under seizure by
favor Of the United States for the violation OF
cannot be discharged on bail by order Of "
United States under the authority of the col
and practice OF the court The third section
enarts that ''if any person shall, within the II
United States, 1T out and arm, or attempt TO
arm or procure TO be fitted out and armed, or
ingly be concerned In the furnishing, atting
Ing OF any ship or vessel, with intent that 81
vessel shall be employed In the service Of
prince or state, or Of any colony, district
cruise or commit hostilities against the subj
or property OF any foreign prince or Stat
colony, district or people with whom the Vi
are at pcace," &c, &c, every such ship or
her tackle, apparel and furniture, together wi
rails, arms, ammunition and stores which ma
procured Tor the building and equipment Their
forfeited. The amended libel AYERS as
forfeiture various violations OF the third seq
set Tho eighth section Of the act provid
every case IN which o vessel shall be htr
armed, or attempted 10 be fitted out and arn
trary N the provisions and prohibitions Of ~
shall be lawful for tho President Of the Unite
such other person a. he shall have empowe1
purpose, 70 employ such part Of the land and
purpose oftaking possession OF and OBTAINING a
or vessel, F" ''in order TO the execution OF the
and penalties OF this actn The clear purpor
OF those provisions OF tho eighth section
vessel whose forfeiture Is claimed, through
ceedings, for an offence against the third
herself be detained, so that the forfeiture,
penalty imposed by the third section, may
against her specifically In case Of her coz
Such detention must continue, nj least until
ment has had reasonable opportunity 70 br
TO trial To the suggestion OF the hardship
10 the claimants IN case OF an acquittl oil
trial, the answer II that II n not improba
policy adopted by Congress Of holding the
tody 10 secure the rigid Observance OF tn
laws would DO considered by the government
ing ground for making compensation for
damage caused by an unwarranted prosec'
application Is overruled-
william NJ Evars and Joseph H. Choate 10
Samuel @. Courtney for United states.
The Late Murder In Roxbury,
FUNERAL OF THE DECEASED.
IRON the Boston Post March -