The national Republican., 1867-04-17
TIRE COURTS.

| TuHsDAr, April 10, 1857.
esq, Of MARYLAND, was admitted an attornsy and
counsellor Of this court. - ~
On motion Of Mr. Hughes, David @. Barnitr.
esq, Of Pennsylvania, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor Of this court. ~. 10y
On motion Of Mr.. Reed, Benjsmin W, Harris,
ESQ, Of Massachusetts,, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor Of this court.
No. $40. William 7. 0'Noii, plaintiff In error
vs. John Kirkpatrick The argument OF this
cause was continued by Mr.. Dick Of counsel for
the defendants In error and concluded BY Mr.
Bolts Of counsel for plaintiff In error. CIV
No, 1853, The schooner Sea Lion, 4c., appel.
lants, W. The United States, The argument Of
this cause was commenced by Mr. Flanders Of
counsel for the appellants, and continued by Mr.
Ashton, assistant attorney general, and Mr.
Cushing Of counsel for the appelloes.
Adjourned till tomorrow til o'clock, q. m.
The Prize Lans-Co Trade PermitS-
Importation " Of Cotton from Within The Con-
federdto Lines-Mihtary Pocers-Schoonsr Sea
| Lion and Cargo u.s. United States The Sea
Lion was captured at midnight on the ninth Of
May, 1888, while running the blockade Of Mo-
bile, as alleged, with primary destination to
Havana. When captured she was few miles
southeast Of Fort Morgan, having evidently, as
claimed by Government, timed herself 80 as to
| pass that point at night. She was four times
fred upon by the capturing vessel before hauling
| to, and upon her capture was scnt to Key West,
where both vessel and cargo (272 balus Of cotton
and some turpontine) were libelled as prife-of-
war. The master and the alleged supercargo
joined In an informal action for vessel and cargo
as the property Of tho hrm Of Brott, Davis
| Shaw, Of New Orleans, alleging that the vessel
was bound In good faith to Now Orleans, there to
deliver her cargo in pursuance Of 4 license from
George g. Denison, special agent Of the Treasury
Department, This whsfollowed by an affidavit
Of two members Of the firm Of Brott, Davis 4
Shaw, reciting certain details as to the shipment
| Of the cargo under the license, but emitting any
aycrment Of ownership Of that firm Of the vessel
and cargo, as asserted in tho masters claim,
Tho cause was heard below on the preparatory
| proofs and papers, and certain private letters,
improperly admitted, as alleged, and decree Of
condemnation entered against vessel md cargo,
The claimants appeal and claim that the per.
NIT given by special agent Denison was ample to
protect the vessel and cargo everywhere within
tho waters and territory under the control Of
the authority Of the United States, civil or mill
tary The agent had authority to grant per-
init to bring cotton from the rebel lines to the
port of Now Orleans, derived from tho acts Of
Congress on the subject and Treasury regula-
tions. The right to grant such permit was In
cident to the Office and functions exercised by
the special agent at the time 1t was issued. The
terms Of the permit did not conflict with any Of
the regulations Of the Secretary Of tho Treasury
Department, or with any provisions Of the acts
Of Congress in force at Its date. Nor was II re-
voked or modified before the capture Of the Sea
Lion. II should be literally construed to sustain
the policy Of the Government.
It Is claimed that the capture was in violation
Of tho orders Of both Admiral Farragut and Gen
Banks, who had permitted cotton to be so re.
ceived from beyond the military lines Of the
United Stated, providing only that 1t should not
bo bought with specie.
Ths Government contends that the following
facts we're established in the court below
Tk.t L,NL a.,A tha nrnn
srty of enemies residing and trading in Mobile.
The claim Of ownership on behalf Of the New Or.
leans firm Is q mere fiction.
2. That the voyage in question was blockade
running voyage, conceived and prosecuted by
enemies of the United States, with enemy vessel
and enemy cargo, from Mobile to Havana.
3. That tho pretended permit in favor Of the
New Orleans agents Of the Mobile house was OBJ
tanned and employed for the purpose Of similat.
ing licensed voyage prosecuted in good faith to
New Orleans.
4. That the New Orleans agents colludod with
the public enemies for the conveyance Of hostile
property to a foreign market, In violation Of the
blockade and laws Of the United States. The
voyage In question, as contemplated by the orig.
inal design Of the Mobile parties and their New
Orleans confedorates, was from 4 rebel port to q
foreign port, under rebel nationality papers, and
hag.
As matter Of law, II is contended that neither
the acts Of Congress nor the regulations Of tho
Treasury Department contain any warrant for
the licensing Of persons but goods only. The
license having no validity under the laws and
regulations Of the Treasury Department, It ac'
quired none from any order Of the military com,
mander at New Orleans. General Banks could
neither empower the agent to license commercial
intercourse with Mobile, nor license such inter
course himself It was his duty, instead Of coun
teuancing such traffic as this to secure the ar.
rest and trial Of the parties engaged in 1t fol
high crimes against the laws Of tho country.
Nor had Admiral Farrsgut any authority TO
restrain the capture OF any vessel violating the
blockade Of Mobile, by virtue Of his station aS
commander Of the feet maintaining the block
ade His authority and duty were to maintain
the blockade, not to impair or destroy its eff
cheney.
II. Flanders and VIM. NJ Eyarts for appel
: lants, and Henry stanbery and ]. Hubley Ash
: ton for the United States.
|