Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/186/1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:43:38+00:00

Document:
The Styria, an Austrian steamship sailing from Trieste via Sicilian ports to New York, took on board at Port Empedocle, Sicily, a quantity of sulphur for New York. Before sailing, the master learned that war had broken out between Spain and the United States, and as sulphur was an article contraband of war, he had the sulphur all unloaded and warehoused at Port Empedocle before sailing. This Court holds that the master of the Styria was justified in relanding and warehousing the contraband portion of the cargo, and that in so doing, he had reasonable regard for the interests of both ship and cargo.
This Court does not think that, in the subsequent circumstances, it was the master's duty to reship that cargo, and resume his voyage with the sulphur on board.
The Styria was an Austrian steamship, owned by the Austro-Americana Steamship Company, and Burrill & Sons of Glasgow were her managing agents. She sailed April 16, 1898, with some cargo, from Trieste via Sicilian ports for New York, and on April 21 reached Port Empedocle, Sicily, her second loading port. Her master began at once to load on board the sulphur in question, and by April 24 it was all on board, bills of lading therefor (containing the provisions copied in the margin *) had been signed, and the vessel cleared from the custom-house, and ready to proceed on her voyage to Messina and Palermo for a cargo of fruit, and thence to New York.
minister at Madrid was informed that the diplomatic relations between the two governments were broken off, and he left that same day. On April 22, the first overt act of war, the capture of the Spanish merchant steamship, The Buena Ventura, was committed. The Buena Ventura, 175 U. S. 384. On April 25, Congress passed an act declaring that war had existed since April 21. 30 Stat. 364, c. 189. On April 23, the Queen Regent of Spain issued a decree announcing the existence of war with the United States; authorizing the Royal Navy, "in order to capture the enemy's ships, to confiscate the enemy's merchandise under their own flag, and contraband of war under any flag," to exercise the right of search on the high seas and in the territorial waters of the enemy, including, under the denomination of contraband, "powder, sulphur, saltpetre, dynamite, and every kind of explosive," and charging the Minister of state and the Minister of Marine with the fulfillment of this decree.
warehouses of Mr. Zenobia Urso here, and, if these are not sufficient, in the warehouses of the British consulate, faculty which I have in force in the bills of lading."
"and sulphur being declared contraband of war, war actually existing between Spain and the United States of America, in behalf of the present laws, I deem it in the interest of all whom it might concern to discharge the whole sulphur here on receiving the necessary permit from the customs;"
"in discharging the goods, acted as was his right, and in the best interest of the goods, which is confirmed by the fact, published in the papers, and discussed in the Italian Parliament, that sulphur had been declared contraband of war by one of the belligerent powers."
And at the conclusion of the unloading, on May 7, the master gave notice to the shippers that, as soon as they paid the expense incurred on their account, the sulphur would be delivered to them, and to the consignees that the sulphur was lying in the warehouses at Port Empedocle at the risk and expense of whom it might concern.
"Although the official advice has not yet arrived, I assure you absolutely that the Spanish government has determined to exclude sulphur from the list of contraband of war. The Popolo Romano, confirming my information, says that the relative decree is imminent which has been provoked by the insistence of our ambassador in Madrid, who obtained from Sagasta that he should unite the Council of Ministers, in which, notwithstanding the opposition of the Minister of Marine, the opinion prevailed to exclude sulphur from contraband. . . . The Official Gazette will publish the decision regarding sulphur. Meantime, the Spanish government has already ordered the commanders of its ships to allow sulphur to pass free."
"The Department of Foreign Affairs decided not to publish in the Official Gazette the Spanish government's decision regarding the exclusion of sulphur from contraband of war. But the Minister of the Interior sent a circular to all the prefects in Sicily informing them of the orders relative to the free navigation of cargoes of sulphur."
"From the Minister of Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce, the following telegram has been sent:"
"Chamber of Commerce, Palermo: I inform the Chamber of Commerce, for the useful information of merchants, that, by the decree of April 23d of the Spanish government are considered, as contraband of war, arms, projectiles, fuses, powder, sulphur, nitre, dynamite, explosives, uniforms, ornaments, saddles, engines for ships, derricks, screws, boilers, and all that is necessary for the construction, repair, and armament of men of war. I would also state that, in consequence of our request, the Spanish government has given notice to the commanders of its vessels to let sulphur pass free. The Minister, Coeco Ortu."
The master also testified that, on the evening of May 7, he saw a notice from the Austrian consul saying that there had been a communication from the prefect that it was agreed between Spain and Italy that the Spanish ships had instructions to let sulphur go free, but "it was not given officially, only a matter of verbal arrangement. Of course, the verbal arrangement you can't believe."
Early in the morning of May 8, the master sailed, without the sulphur, to Palermo, and thence to Messina, took on board at each place a cargo of fruit, and on June 3 arrived at New York. Soon after the arrival there, these libels were filed.
"The Prefettura also with its communication confirms to us that the exportation of sulphur, notwithstanding the Spanish-American war, may continue. Indeed, the Spanish government has officially declared, in the circular to the commandants of their ships, that sulphur is not to be considered as contraband of war. An official and public declaration is lacking, but there is no doubt that sulphur will pass freely."
as temporary measure, Naval Departments have been ordered not to treat sulphur as contraband of war. They lay stress on the fact that the measure is temporary only."
It appeared from inquiries made by the Foreign Office in London, and by the American Embassy in Italy, in June and July, 1898, that the actual state of facts was as follows: the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs verbally stated to the Italian ambassador at Madrid, on April 29, 1898, and to the British ambassador at Madrid, on May 6, 1898, that, while the decree of April 23 could not be altered, orders would be given to the Naval Departments, as a temporary measure, not to treat sulphur as contraband of war. On May 31, 1898, the Spanish Minister, in a note to the British ambassador at Madrid, stated that the treatment of sulphur as contraband of war would be temporarily suspended; that the orders which had been given to that effect would not be revoked without due notice, and that the eventual revocation of the orders would not in any case apply to vessels at sea in ignorance of it, while the necessary time would be given for the execution of pending contracts. It did not appear that Spain ever made any public announcement of the modification of her intentions in regard to the treatment of sulphur, or ever agreed to let sulphur go free permanently.
A vessel which lay alongside the Styria at Port Empedocle, loading sulphur, sailed before she did, and arrived at New York in safety on May 19. Two other vessels laden with sulphur came safely from the Sicilian port of Licata to the United States about the same time. And no sulphur ships were taken by Spain during the war.
storing the sulphur as was done, the company should have a lien upon the sulphur for the charges against it in Sicily, and that, if it was not so justified, the sulphur should be free from any charges except freight.
Under this stipulation, the steamship company paid the expenses of storage in Sicily, and reloaded the sulphur and brought it to New York in its steamship Abazzia, sailing September 4, and arriving September 30, and there delivered it to the consignees, who paid the freight as agreed, and sold the sulphur at the current market rates. And the company filed cross-libels for the charges in Sicily.
The district court found for the libellants, holding that the discharge of the cargo was too hasty and precipitate, and not justified by the facts of the case, and entered decrees for the libellants in small amounts and dismissed the cross-libels. 93 F. 474, 95 F. 698.
Both parties appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which held that the sulphur was rightly discharged, but should have been reloaded before the Styria left Port Empedocle, and entered decrees for the libellants for increased damages, and upon the cross-libels for the expenses of unloading, warehousing, and reloading in Sicily. 101 F. 728.
The cases were then brought to this Court by writs of certiorari, granted on petitions of both parties. 179 U.S. 683, 179 U.S. 685.
The master of a ship is the person who is entrusted with the care and management of it, and the great trust reposed in him by the owners and the great authority which the law has vested in him require on his part and for his own sake, no less than for the interest of his employers, the utmost fidelity and attention. Abbott, Shipping, 7th Am. ed. 167.
"though exceptions . . . noted in the bill of lading contemplate circumstances of war, and are therefore applicable in the extraordinary circumstances that arose, still the carrier is not thereby relieved from the duty of acting with reasonable prudence for the interests of all concerned. The master, as the agent of all concerned, is still bound to a prudent regard for the interests of the cargo, and 'must endeavor to hold the balance evenly' between ship and cargo when their interests conflict."
"All will agree that the master must act in good faith and exercise his best discretion for the benefit of all concerned." New England Insurance Company v. The Sarah, 13 Pet. 400; The Amelie, 6 Wall. 27.
The good faith of the master and his reasonable exercise of discretion must be considered and determined in the light of the facts in each particular case. The term discretion implies the absence of a hard-and-fast rule. The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. "Discretion means the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances." Bouvier, Law Dict. "Discretion means the liberty or power of acting without other control than one's own judgment." Webster's Dict.
and considerate, judgment. Mere good faith will not excuse him if his decision turns out to have been wrong, but the result is not always a true criterion whether a man pursued a prudent course or not. Holladay v. Kennard, 12 Wall. 254.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, we have to inquire whether the conduct of the master of the Styria showed a reasonable exercise of judgment, having regard to the rights of the owners of the vessel and those of the several owners of cargo.
That the situation was a difficult one is obvious, and is shown by the fact that the learned judges of the courts below, though having the advantage of a full disclosure of the facts and of able discussion by counsel, disagreed on the critical question in the case -- whether the master was right in deciding that it was his duty to reland and store the contraband goods.
"and sulphur being declared contraband of war, war actually existing between Spain and the United States of America, in behalf of the present laws, I deem it in the interest of all whom it might concern to discharge the whole sulphur here on receiving the necessary permit from the customs,"
"in discharging the goods, acted as was his right, and in the best interest of the goods -- which is confirmed by the fact, published in the papers, and discussed in the Italian Parliament, that sulphur had been declared contraband of war by one of the belligerent powers."
As both the district court and the circuit court of appeals held that, within the provisions of the bills of lading, the master had the right to decide on the course to pursue, whether to discharge the sulphur, or to refuse to sail until there was some reasonable assurance of safety, or to immediately proceed on his voyage, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the meaning of the bills of lading in that regard, but only to determine whether the decision of the master to discharge charge and warehouse the goods was a reasonable exercise of the discretion vested in him.
"The sulphur being generally regarded as contraband of war, and also within the express terms of the Spanish proclamation, a voyage through the Mediterranean, past the coast of Spain and through the Straits of Gibraltar, would presumably be pecuniarily dangerous to the cargo, even though the vessel, as a neutral, might not be liable to condemnation as prize. In case of seizure, however, the shipowner would suffer from the considerable delay incident to the seizure, though she were ultimately released. Except, therefore, for the negotiations immediately entered on for procuring an exception of sulphur from contraband, I have no doubt that it would have been both the right and the duty of the master, for the interests of the cargo as well as of the ship, to refuse to sail with this cargo after clearing on April 24, until there was some reasonable assurance of safety. See The San Roman, L.R. 3 Adm. & Eccl. 583, when there was a delay of three months. The discharge and storage of the cargo, however, was an act necessarily involving considerable expense to the shipper or consignee, and before imposing such an expense upon the cargo, the master, in my judgment, was bound, in view of the daily reports of current negotiations and the expectations of the exception of sulphur, to wait a reasonable period for satisfactory assurances in that regard. . . . I must find, therefore, that the ship was not justified by clauses (a) and (b) of the bill of lading . . . in discharging and storing the cargo on account of the shippers, as she did, between April 27th and May 7th; that, by the 10th of May, there was reasonable assurance that it would be safe to go on with the voyage, and that this was not an unreasonable time for the ship to wait under the facts and circumstances currently known in Sicily at that time."
93 F. 474, 95 F. 698.
of such contraband cargo. The ship made no contract to carry contraband of war to the port of a belligerent, and should not be held to the obligations of a contract into which she has never entered. We understand that the district court reached this same conclusion, but found the ship in fault because she did not wait a reasonable period to see if there might not be some reasonable assurance of safety, and held that 'the commencement of the discharge on the 27th was too hasty and precipitate.' This brings us to the next branch of the case."
"When two nations formally proclaim the existence of a state of war between themselves with all the solemnity observed in this instance, it would seem to be going too far to say that parties whose contracts are affected thereby should wait some indefinite time, which a court shall find reasonable, in a vague expectation that the belligerents may think better of it and make peace. A situation is quite conceivable where delay might fairly be required. Thus, the minister of one power or the other might demand his passports, or the day named in an ultimatum might pass without compliance with its requirements, or a squadron of the war vessels of one power might impress seamen from the deck of the war vessel of another power, as the Carnaticand her consorts did with the Baltimore in 1798, or the war vessel of one power encountering the war vessel of another upon the high seas might pour broadside after broadside into her, as the Leopard did with the Chesapeake in 1807 -- any one of which acts would seem to import the imminence, if not the actual existence, of war, and yet might fall short of being such authoritative evidence of a state of belligerency as would justify a master in treating any part of his cargo as being thereby made contraband. But the situation shown here was a very different one. Both nations had united in proclaiming to the whole world that they were at war, and we know of no reason why the master of any vessel of a neutral nation was bound to wait twenty-four hours, or twenty-four days, or twenty-four weeks, to see if the two belligerents would not settle their differences."
"As soon as he learned that war was declared, the master knew that the cargo he had taken on board at Port Empedocle was contraband. 'I knew,' says he, 'that sulphur is to make gunpowder.
Everybody knows that. . . . I thought it must be contraband.' We should have some doubts as to the efficiency of a master for international commerce who did not know that sulphur was contraband of war. It certainly should be a safe assumption for the master of a neutral vessel to make that he cannot carry such cargo to the ports of one belligerent without risking its seizure by the other, and, in the absence of special circumstances, there would seem to be no necessity to wait for further assurance in that regard. In the case at bar, however, there were special circumstances which will be next considered."
"The exportation of sulphur is one of the greatest industries of the island of Sicily, and the Italian government was naturally solicitous that the trade in sulphur with the United States should not be interfered with. It now appears in the record, by reports obtained from diplomatic sources, that, shortly after the proclamation of the Queen Regent, negotiations were opened by the Italian government to secure a modification of its provisions so that sulphur should not be considered contraband of war. The Spanish government declined to alter the decree, but on April 29 at Madrid, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs 'verbally' [sic: orally?] stated to the Italian ambassador that orders would be given to the Naval Departments, as a temporary measure, not to treat sulphur as contraband of war. The same statement was made by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs to the British ambassador on May 6. On May 31, the same Minister stated in an official note to both the Italian and the British ambassadors that the treatment by Spain of sulphur as contraband of war would be temporarily suspended, and that the order which had been given to that effect would not be revoked without due notice."
that war had been declared, and that his sulphur cargo was contraband; that he was therefore entitled to land and store it, thus leaving his ship free to carry out her obligations to the rest of the cargo. On April 25 the Giornale di Sicilia, a newspaper published at Palermo, and which the captain saw from day to day, stated that Messina merchants had asked their Parliamentary deputy to urge the government to cooperate to exclude brimstone from being considered contraband. From day to day thereafter, the paper was filled with reports and rumors as to the progress of this movement to secure exemption. But down to the 6th of May, not one of these reports bore the stamp of authority, and no one vouched for their accuracy. The statements in the clippings from the newspaper which have been printed in the record are merely the expression of the beliefs and expectations of its correspondents in Rome, or elsewhere, furnishing copy to a paper published in a community where an intense interest was felt in having sulphur exempted. There was no reason why it should be exempted. It is a variety of merchandise such as always has been contraband. Its exportation to the United States might well be considered an 'aid' to Spain's enemy. No one appears to have suggested that the United States concede the same exemption. On the one hand, it might be urged that it would please the government and people of Italy to grant the request, but, on the other hand, in the case of merchandise so highly contraband, neither the Italian government nor people could justly take offense if Spain should insist on exercising the rights which international law accords to every belligerent. Enlightened by the information now made known, we can see that the hopeful prognostications of the writers for the Journal of Sicily were well founded, but there was nothing to give any such assurance at the time they appeared. We should hesitate to hold that it was the duty of a master under similar circumstances to delay action on the expectation that a belligerent would voluntarily abandon one of its weapons, on no better assurance that such action would be taken than the statements of anonymous and irresponsible contributors to a newspaper published in a community which is extremely solicitous that such action be taken."
We concur in these views of the circuit court of appeals, and in the conclusion thereby reached, that the master of the Styria was justified in relanding and warehousing the contraband portion of his cargo, and that, in so doing, he had reasonable regard for the interests of both ship and cargo.
Several leading authorities are cited on this branch of the case in the brief for the Styria, and which we shall briefly notice.
"But it would be monstrous to say that in such case the parties must wait -- for the obligation must be mutual, till the restraint be taken off -- the shipper with cargo which might be perishable or its market value destroyed -- the shipowner with his ship lying idle, possibly rotting;"
"A State of war must be presumed to be likely to continue so long and so to disturb the commerce of merchants as to defeat and destroy the object of a commercial adventure like this."
"The main ground of defense was the exception in the bill of lading of 'restraint of princes, rulers, or people.' A large body of evidence was laid before me to show that if the vessel sailed with the goods on board, she would, in all probability, be stopped and searched. It was certain in that case that the goods would have been confiscated, and quite uncertain what course the captors would take with the ship and the rest of the cargo. I am satisfied that, if the master had continued the voyage with the goods on board, he would have been acting recklessly. It was argued for the plaintiffs that the clause did not apply unless there was a direct and specific action upon the goods by sovereign authority. It was said that the fear of seizure, however well founded, was not a restraint, and that something in the nature of a seizure was necessary. But this argument is disposed of by the cases of Geipel v. Smith, L.R. 7 Q.B. 404, and Rodoconachi v. Elliott, L.R. 9 C.P. 518. The goods were as effectually stopped at Hong Kong as if there had been an express order from the Chinese government that contraband of war should be landed. The analogy of a restraint by a blockade or embargo seems to me sufficiently close. The warships of the Chinese government were in such a position as to render the sailing of the steamer with contraband of war on board a matter of great danger, though she might have got away safely. The restraint was not temporary, as was contended by the plaintiff's counsel. There was no reason to expect that the obstacle in the way of the vessel could be removed in any reasonable time. I find that the captain, in refusing to carry the goods farther, acted reasonably and prudently, and that the delivery of the goods at Yokahama was prevented by restraint of princes and rulers within the meaning of the exception. . . . "
"But, apart from the terms of the bill of lading, it seems to me that the conduct of the captain would be justified by reference to the duty imposed upon him to take reasonable care of the goods entrusted to him. Whether he has discharged that duty must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and here, if the goods had been carried forward, there was every reason to believe that the ship would be detained and the goods of the plaintiffs confiscated. In the words of Willes, J., in Notara v. Henderson, L.R. 7 Q.B. 225, at p. 237,"
"a fair allowance ought to be made for the difficulties in which the master may be involved. . . . The place, the season, the opportunity and means at hand, the interests of other persons concerned in the adventure and whom it might be unfair to delay for the sake of the part of the cargo in peril -- in short, all circumstances affecting risk, trouble, delay, and inconvenience must be taken into account."
"I am of opinion that the course taken by the captain in landing the goods and landing them in safe custody was a proper discharge of his duty. It was said that the master was not an agent for the shippers, because they had protested against the discharge of the goods. But even if this information had reached the captain, it would not have divested him of his original authority and discretion as agent in any emergency for the owners of the ship and the other owners of the cargo."
bill of lading clause. Question. You have testified, haven't you, that all this you did by orders? Answer. No. The principal reason was because I was ordered; and, secondly, that I had the bill of lading clause that fully authorized me when I deemed it not safe to proceed with the cargo that was declared contraband of war."
Without transcribing all of the master's testimony, but having read and weighed it, we are of opinion that it clearly shows that, while he carried out the instructions of the agents, his judgment, on the facts confronting him, was that it was not safe for him to proceed with the contraband cargo, nor proper to await indefinitely for the uncertain results pending negotiations between Italy and Spain. His conduct, as we have already said, had due regard to the interests of all concerned in the ship and in the cargo, both that which was contraband and that which was not so. So far as the shipowners were concerned, he had the approval of the managing agents; so far as the shippers and consignees were concerned, he acted upon his own judgment, exercised, apparently in good faith, on their behalf. In the case of Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jenkins, just cited, the same facts appeared -- namely that the master consulted the owners of the ship before he acted, but also acted in reference to the duty imposed upon him to take reasonable care of the goods entrusted to him. The master, in either case, would have acted imprudently if he had not secured the approval of the shipowners, if it were possible to get it before the emergency was over, and that all that can be said is that there was a concurrence of judgment between the ship agents and the master as to what was the proper course to pursue.
"to delay action on the expectation that a belligerent would voluntarily abandon one of its weapons on no better assurance that such action would be taken than the statements of anonymous and irresponsible contributors to a newspaper published in a community which is extremely solicitous that such action be taken."
"Chamber of Commerce, Palermo: I inform the Chamber of Commerce, for the useful information of merchants that by the decree of April 23 of the Spanish government are considered as contraband of war arms, projectiles, fuses, powder, sulphur. . . . I could also state that, in consequence of our request, the Spanish government has given notice to the commanders of its vessels to let sulphur go free."
"The Prefettura, also, with its communication confirms to us that the exportation of sulphur, notwithstanding the Spanish-American war, may continue. Indeed, the Spanish government has officially declared in the circular to the commandants of their ships, that sulphur is not to be considered as contraband of war. An official and public declaration is lacking, but there is no doubt that sulphur will pass freely."
"It was not given officially only a matter of verbal arrangement. Of course, the verbal arrangement you cannot believe. . . . On the 7th, in the evening, about eight o'clock, and I already had my clearances."
"Question. But the day before you sailed, on the 7th, you did read in the papers that the governments had come to an agreement -- to an understanding?"
"Answer. Yes -- not to an understanding, not to a safe understanding, but a temporary understanding, you know."
"Question. To the effect that sulphur temporarily would not be treated as contraband of war?"
"Question. In spite of the previous proclamation, was it not?"
"Answer. Yes, but the papers said, not officially confirmed, you see. That meant, of course, they could withdraw it at any moment."
"Question. The newspapers in which you read about these things, were what papers?"
"Answer. I could not tell you. I believe the Sicilian Courier; I don't know; something like that; the paper published in Palermo -- the largest paper published in Palermo."
From this it appears that, when the Styria sailed on the evening of May 7 the only information that the captain had was that the newspapers said that a temporary verbal arrangement had been made between Italy and Spain that sulphur might go free, but that the captain's opinion was that a mere verbal arrangement could not be relied on, and that the statements contained in the newspapers could be withdrawn at any moment.
that, within a reasonable period, any change in affairs was disclosed that would have made it safe beyond question to have sailed with the contraband cargo on board. It was not until May 10 that the British government, replying to Burrill & Sons' previous application for information, telegraphed that orders had been given not to treat sulphur for the present as contraband of war. And by telegram of that date it was further stated that the Spanish government states that "decree already issued cannot be altered," but that, as "temporary measure," naval departments have been ordered not to treat sulphur as contraband of war, "but they lay stress on the fact that the measure is temporary only."
Moreover, it does not appear when such orders were actually given, nor that they had been transmitted to war vessels which had sailed, under the directions of the proclamation of April 23, before such alleged orders were given. It was not until May 31 that the Spanish minister stated, in a note to the English ambassador at Madrid, that the treatment by Spain of sulphur as contraband of war would be temporarily suspended and that the order which had been given to that effect would not be revoked without due notice. It does not appear that any formal agreement was ever made between Spain and Italy, or any other government, that the proclamation of April 23 declaring sulphur contraband of war was withdrawn. And it is mere matter of conjecture whether, if the Styria had sailed even as late as May 10 with sulphur on board, and had been arrested by a Spanish war vessel which had not received orders countermanding the proclamation, the sulphur would not have been confiscated by a Spanish prize court. In any event, there was the liability of such an arrest and of the incident delay to both vessel and cargo.
Without protracting the discussion, we are of the opinion that the master was justified in landing and storing the cargo that had become contraband by reason of the outbreak of the war between Spain and the United States, and by the Spanish proclamation of April 23; that, having acted reasonably with due regard to the interest of all concerned in so doing, it was not made his duty, by the facts brought to his notice, to reship the sulphur on the Styria and further delay his voyage.
The sulphur was subsequently, in pursuance of an agreement in writing, after the signing of the peace protocol between the United States and Spain, forwarded on the steamship Abbazia, belonging to the owners of the Styria, to the port of New York. Several questions arose in the courts below under the terms of that agreement and chiefly having reference to the measure of damages in case that the vessel was held liable. But as, for the reasons given, we hold that the vessel was not liable, those questions do not call for our consideration.
The decrees of the district court and of the circuit court of appeals sustaining the libels of the respective libellants are hereby reversed, the decrees of the circuit court of appeals reversing the decrees of the district court dismissing the respective cross-libels are hereby affirmed, and the causes are remanded to the district court with directions to take further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court.
"excepted; with liberty (in event of steamer putting back to this, or into any other port, or otherwise being prevented from any cause from commencing or proceeding in the ordinary course of her voyage) to ship or transship the goods by any other steamer."
"In case of blockade or interdict of the port of discharge, or if, without such blockade or interdict, the master shall consider it unsafe, for any reason, to enter or discharge cargo there, he is to have option of landing the goods at any other port which he may consider safe at shipper's risk and expense, and on the goods being placed in charge of any mercantile agent or of British consul, and a letter being put into the post office, addressed to the shipper and consignee, if named, stating the landing and with whom deposited, the goods to be at the shipper's risk and expense, and the master and owners discharged from all responsibility."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.