The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-07-04

piratical aggression, &c, shall have been
first attempted or made, shall be condemned.
Nor is there anything new in provision of
this sort. 1t is not an uncommon course in
the admiralty, acting under the law of nations,
TO treat the vessel in which or by which, or
by the master or crew thereof, a wrong or
offence has been done, as the offender, without
any regard whatsoever TO the personal mis-
conduct or responsibility Of the owner thereof.
And this is done from the necessity of the
case. as the only adequate means of suppress
ing the offence or wrong, or insuring an in
demnity TO the injured party. The doctrine,
also, is familiarly applied TO cases of snug
CLING and other misconduct under our reve-
nue. laws; and has been applied to other
kindred cases, such as cases arising on EN-
barge and nOn-intercourse acts. In short,
the acts of the master and crew, in cases of
this sort, bind the interest of the owner Of the
ship, whether he be innocent or guilty; and
he implicitly submits to whatever the law de-
nounces as a forfeiture attached to the ship by
reason of their unlawful or wanton wrong"
..Ths ship is also. by the general maritime law.
held responsible for the tOrs aud misconduct Of the
master and crew thereof whether arising from negli-
geuee or wilful disregard Of duty rs, for example.
in cases of collision and other wrongs done upon the
high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty aud ma
ritime Jurisdiction, upon the general policy Of that
law which looks TO the instrument ITSELF used the
means of the mischief as the best and Surest pied
for the eompen and indemnity to the injured
party "
The United States VS.. the schooner Little Charles,
l Brock. 34T s54.
The Palmyra, IL Wheat. l, Il.
The vrow Judith. Rob. 80.
The Adouis. Id. $50.
The Mars, Id. 81.
(2l Is the plea of tho Captains insanity good d!
The Court recognizes the doctrine that real insani
ty originating from excessive drinking places the
subject of it the footing in respect TO respOn
sibility for crime II ne had wsntOny Induced
it and relieves him from the rule qHi pseeat e5riR.
laat .oJriHs. In considering this point is be
borne in mind that this is civil proceeding IA
aud a criminal proceeding against the individual
that therefore il is not necessary TO find that the
act committed with legal malice, but that it is
question Of his knowledge. Upon a review of all the
testimony fail to find proof Of insanity. There is
abundant evidence of the folly the fool hardness OF
the man. but nothing which is not entirely explained
by his constant drinking. 1t was course of conduct
which bid fair, if continued, TO induce insanity but
up the time of his arrest he should be held re-
spOnsible any drinking drunken man is for his
acts. He procured his opium in Sau Francisco. and
during the voyage concealed it from every enc, Off
GERS and passengers. 1t is very justly remarked by
the Court who first beard the case. that offence
was already committed against the Hawaiian law:
when the opium taken on board at San Francis.
CO without being placed the manifest. There re-
manned indeed locus psHiisntis, and the Captain
could have retrieved hilnselC by making the proper
exhibit the Custom House. lie chose to adhere to
his illegal purpose. There is evidence that he spoke
TO several persons of the opium which he had, and
alluded to former speculaous in smuggling. In riaG
ueritIs. Here perhaps may be found the motive Of
the government in exercising its discretion apply
the extreme measure of the law. if the master of a
regular packet has made a, business of smuggling
opium but. that IMMUNITY and drink had made the
offender careless of some common preeaution, is not
i reason nor argument for treating him ir
responsible being. He knew enough to make tbt
entry of his ship without attracting the notice of the
Collector General of Customs enough to bring tbs
opium ashore eandestinely and to pat the disguised
package in the keeping of the Hotel Clerk charging
him to keep it safely as being worth $500.
Tae opIaous expressed by several witnesses who's,
afiisvits filed in Court subsequent to the frs
trial. that the Captain not of SQUAD mind. they
not being experts, would be excluded under ne rul,
of law as generally held. but it may be remarked
that had the Court considered them being adnis
sbe testimony, they would not control the opinion
derived from review of all the testimony their OWL
included, that this simply of long, con
tinued and excessive dIikking.
Decree of Condemnation is therefore affirmed.
Hon. A. :. Hartwell, Attorney General for libel
liant, J. NJ. Davidson and E. 7. 0Halloran for claim
ants, appellants.
Honolulu. June 25th. 1877.