Birmingham state herald., 1897-03-02
DAUNTLESS AGAIN ON TOP Judge Locke Decides In Favor of
 Her Owner WITH A BOND CONDITION Not to Violate the Navigation or Neutrality Law-The Ruling Ignored By Captain
 Psbury of the Vesuyius.

Jacksonville, Fla, March 1.-In the United States court today Judge Locke ] made an order modifying his previous or der in the Dauntless injunction case. The court had on Saturday made an order suspending the enforcement of the in- junction. restraining the collector of cus- toms and captain of the revenue cutter Boutwell, from interfering with the Dauntless, as the attorneys for the gov ernment held that their appeal from the decision of the court acted as super sedeas.
 The order of the court yesterday was 1 to the effect that the appeal did not act as supersedeas and that the injunction was in full force to restrain the defend- ants from interfering with the movements of the vessel The only condition re- | quired by the court was that the owner of the Dauntless should give bond in the
 sum of s15,OO0 that the boat would not violate the navig ation or neutrality laws. Some of the grounds for the courts de- cision are given: In considering the question the court cannot go outside the l facts as shown in the sworn bill and af- | fidavits of complainant and respondent. | Other circumstances referred to, or in- l timated, can have no weight with the court. Apprehensions that the cum | plainant may violate the law, or suspi- cions that he intends so to do, can fur nish no basis for legal action. The rights 1 of citizens to enjoy the use of their own 1 property In a lawful manner is incon- | testible and the provisions for preventing 1 violations of the neutrality laws are l plainly laid down in the statutes and can
 neither be extended by the courts nor by
 the executive officers. The law provides | (section 528D that when any military ex- l petition or enterprise is begun or set on | foot, the president or such other person as he shall have empowered for that pur- l pose may employ such part of the land or l naval forces of the United States, or the military thereof, for the purpose of talk l ing possession of and retaining any 1 such vessel. The president may use the | army, navy, etc, to take into possession 1 and detain such vessel, but find no pow CT or authority granted to or conferred | upon the secretary of the treasury whose duties and powers are declared by law, l to use the revenue, marin or custom of l to use the revenue, marine or custom of
 force, that freedom of locomotion which l is the right of every vessel which does not l transgress the law.
 l find no power conferred on the score 1 tary of the treasury by the statute to in- 1 sist upon the reception of treasury or l revenue officials on board a vessel to I watch and control her movements and l in default of such reception to prevent | by force or show of force. the legitimate l COnuuct or nIVlg9llOn ana maritime aI- | fairs. To acknowledge such a right is to 1 establish a precedent which could as we'll ] be applied to internal revenue affairs, to ! customs matters, and to all the walks of i life as to questions of neutrality. It | would apply to individuals as well as to | vessels, on shore as well as on the waters, 1 to buildings as we'll as to ships, and to ] the apprehended intention of violation of | each and any law on the statute books. | Tn this ase the facts are established by | affidavits that Defendant Kiigore, by in- | structions from c. R. Bisbee. emanating | as they say, from the secretary of the | treasury, refuses to permit the complain | ants vessel to depart unless "by permis- l sion of the collector of customs, c. R.
 Bisbee. and with revenue officer on l leges, under oath that he intends to vio- | late no law-that he only wishes to use his vessel in lawful occupation and that he had furnished the defendants, and
 their superior through them, with affida-
 wits to that effect. These facts appear in
 the record; it Is clearly esta blished that
 defendant is restricted in his lawful | rights without authority nor sanction of
 the law, and defendants should be re- ] strained and enjoined from such wrong | doing in the future.
 I think that that order should now be | so amended that preliminary injunction | restraining the defendants as prayed | should issue upon the complainant exe- ] cutting a bond in the sum of s1500O con- ditioned that during the existence of such preliminary injunction he will in no way
 ciolate any navigation or neutrality law 1 of the United States.
 1 1Signed) JAMES ". LOCKE, Judge.
 Lawyers here all agree that the decision is most important one and one that will