Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-03-07
-=rN-@-11---
IMPORTANT LAW DECISION,
Rrize-BlNcEkade-Pras Rase.f O;
Destruction Of Ships Paper.
Ham II
IfrOm the n. 7. Times. 7
l q T.iiHnR AtnLnn r-s Tihn NnLn...... L

L.
The United States VS.. The Schooner Josephiae cargo
and clGimGnt.--Ihe schooner Josephine, laden with
322 bales of cotton and quantity Of stores was cap
tured off Ship Saoal Lighthouse. on the coast of
Louisiana July cS. 1862, and was brought into the
port of philadelphia. and vas there lbeled and rs
to the ship condemned without claimant. The
cargo was subsequently condemned on trial, it ao-
pearing that the master caused the destruction Of
the ships papers upon her capture, which was ad-
and 1t also appearing that the cargo had run the
blockade Of the coast, although it claimed to have
sailed from New Orleans, and some time after that
port in the possession of the United States forces
and the blockade raised.
Paul Queyrouze claimed, on behalf of the real
owner, alleged to be subject of the Emperor of
France, and to be resident of that country and al
legged that the ship was loaded in New Orleans by
him as agent OF the owner one Lap ante, and that
she awaited the opening of the port by the Govern
ment to sail for Bordeaux; that while so awaiting
and about four days before the capture of that port
the rebel Governor gave orders for the destruction Of
all the shipping in the harbor to keep it from falling
into the hands of the United States forces and that
the Josephine was then run into BayOn Chene, and
there lay concealed for some time. but was fnally
compelled to leave IN consequence Of rumor that
she about to be destroyed by rebel command;
that she then started toward tho mouth of the Mis-
sci and obtain saTTe to % s H. Tth Sa & had G
way she was captured The appeal to the Circuit re-
suited IN an atrmance Of the Judgment and the case
The grounds Of the appeal are, that there was
really no blockade existing at the time of the cap
ture that New Orleans fell into the possession of the
Government on the lst of May, and that the Presi-
dent proclamation opened the port from and after
the ISL OF June following, and that the capture was
not made until nearly two months later: that the
claimant represented owner who was a subject Of
and resided n France. and that hostile character
could therefore be impressed the cargo on account
Of the owners residence in the enemy's country that
the destruction OF the ships mail by h master could
not operate TO prejudice the rights of the owner Of
the cargo for the carrying of mere private mail
one which does not contain dispatches of the enemy
will not subject either vessel or cargo to confsca
ton and even if seized in consequence of such an
act the cargo will not share the tate of the ship where
its owners have not participated in the offence
The Government takes the ground that the destruc-
ton Of the ships papers is legal presumptive proof of
guilt and that is the best evidence that the state
ments of claimant as to ownership are not true The
theory of the Government is that the cargo belonged
to the owner or owners Of the vessel and that the
master of the vessel one of the owners 1t is also
submitted that the ship left New Orleans by the
admission of the claimant four days before the pos
session ofthe city by forces they had been strv
ing from that time forth until capture to escape from
all parties through the blockade, and that the block
ade OF the coast where the ship captured had not
ceased.
The court per opinion of the Chief Justice, affirmed
the decree of the Circuit.
Simon Gratz and T. Carroll Brewster for appellant;
James Speed. Attorney General. and Titan Cofey,
Esq or tnOyprnInant