Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/163/632.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:24:37+00:00

Document:
[163 U.S. 632, 633] Wiborg, the captain, and Petersen and Johansen, the mates, of the steamer Horsa, were indicted in the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, under section 5286 of the Revised Statutes. The indictment charged that defendants, 'mariners, at the district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to wit, at the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, within the district aforesaid, begin, set on foot, and provide and prepare the means for a certain military expedition and enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory and dominions of a foreign prince, to wit, against the Island of Cuba, the said Island of Cuba being then and there the territory and dominions of the king of Spain, the said United States being then and there at peace with the king of Spain, contrary to the form of the act of congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.' They were tried before Judge Butler and a jury, and convicted. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were severally made and overruled, and defendants were sentenced to pay fines and to serve terms in the state penitentiary. This writ of error was thereupon sued out, and defendants admitted to bail.
The Horsa was a Danish steamer, sailing under the Danish flag, and defendant Wiborg, its captain, was a subject of the king of Denmark, as were also his co-defendants, as claimed by their counsel. [163 U.S. 632, 634] The Horsa was engaged in the fruit business for John D. Hart & Co., of Philadelphia, and on November 9, 1895, cleared from Philadelphia for Port Antonio, Jamaica. She had on board but little cargo, consisting of two lifeboats, a lot of empty boxes and barrels, two horses, some horse feed, bales of hay, and boxes of corm, all of which were entered on her manifest. Just before sailing, Capt. Wiborg received a message (in writing, but not produced), which, he said, was: 'After I passed the Breakwater, to proceed north near Barnegat, and await further orders.' The Horsa sailed between 6 and 7 p. m., and, after passing the Delaware Breakwater, her proper course would be southward. She turned, however, to the northward, went up the Jersey coast to Barnegat Light, and anchored on the high seas, between three and four miles off the shore. Between 10 and 11 the same evening, the steam lighter J. S. T. Stranahan sailed from Brooklyn, carrying some cases of goods and two lifeboats, which had been put on board by the crew of the lighter during the evening. On the lower bay of New York, below Staten Island, during the night, she took on board between 30 and 40 passengers, mostly dark-complexioned men, speaking a foreign language, apparently Cubans or Spaniards. The lighter then ran down to Barnegat, where she saw the Horsa under a white flag. She also ran up a white flag, went alongside, and put aboard her passengers, with the cases of goods and the lifeboats. They brought authority in writing from John D. Hart & Co., which was not produced. Capt. Wiborg saw the transfer made, and assented to it. His firemen complaining, he answered: 'I told them, if anybody had to hang for this, I would be the man to hang for it.' He testified that the man on the lighter brought him a message from John D. Hart & Co. 'He told me to take those men and lug age and whatever they had aboard the Horsa, and let them off whenever they called for it to be let off. I shipped two boats at the same time, and the order of my message was to deliver those two boats to those men, and the two boats that I had shipped here in Philadelphia. ... The only order was they had a colored man there that they [163 U.S. 632, 635] called the 'pilot,' and, whenever he called for them to be let off, I should let them off, and give them the boats.' As to the boats taken on at Philadelphia and those taken on off Barnegat, he was 'to deliver them to these men as soon as they called for them. ... The pilot did not tell me where he was going. I did talk to him, but he could talk very little English.' The captain testified that the writing from J. D. Hart & Co. 'to take whatever was in the tug, the men and their luggage and boxes, and let them off whenever they called for it to be let off,' did not strike him as an unusual thing. It did not strike him as unusual 'that these men were to be taken on board, and turned out on the sea with the boats.' It appeared and was admitted that there was an insurrection in Cuba. The captain was informed that the party was going to Cuba, and believed the men were going to fight for Cuba, but was careful to ask no questions, and testified that he considered his own part in the affair to be lawful. The charter party was not produced.
'(4) That the laws of the United States and the section under which the defendants are indicted do not prohibit transporting of arms or of military equipments to a foreign country, or forbid one or more individuals, singly or in unarmed association, from leaving the United States for the purpose of joining in any military operations which are being carried on between other countries, or between different parties in the same country.
'(5) That, before the jury can find the defendants guilty under this indictment, they must first find that there was a 'military expedition or enterprise' against the territory of the king of Spain. A military expedition or enterprise does not exist unless there is a military organization of some kind, designated as infantry, cavalry, or artillery, and officered and equipped for active hostile operations.
'(6) That if the jury find that there were transported on board of the 'Horsa' arms and men, but the same were not a 'military organization as infantry, cavalry, or artillery, and [163 U.S. 632, 638] officered and equipped, or in readiness to be officered and equipped,' then the jury must find the defendants not guilty.
'(7) That it is not an offense against the laws of the United States for a shipper to ship arms to a foreign country, or for volunteers to go to a foreign country for the purpose of joining in military operations which are being carried on between other countries, or between different parties in the same country. In such cases the shipper and volunteer would run the risk, the one, of capture of his property, and the other, of the capture of his person by the foreign power; but the master of the ship transporting such arms and volunteers, not being a military expedition or enterprise, would not commit any offense against the laws of the United States, and would not be liable under this indictment.
'(8) That if the jury find from the evidence in this case that the officers of the steamship Horsa took on board, off the coast of New Jersey, on the high seas, a number of men, all dressed as citizens, without arms and equipments on their persons, and at the same time took on board certain boxes of arms nd ammunition and munitions of war, but that the said men were not organized as infantry, cavalry, or artillery, or ready for such organization, the jury are instructed that they must find the defendants not guilty, even if the jury believe that the passengers on board intended to enlist, on arrival in Cuba, in the Cuban army.
'The evidence heard would not justify a conviction of anything more than providing the means for or aiding such military expedition by furnishing transportation for the men, their arms, baggage, etc. To convict them, you must be fully satisfied by the evidence that a military expedition was organized in this country, to be carried out as and with the object charged in the indictment, and that the defendants, with knowledge of this, provided means for its assistance, and assisted it, as before stated.
'Thus, you observe the case presents two questions: First. Was such military expedition organized here in the United States? Secondly. Did the defendants render the assistance stated here with knowledge of the facts?
'in passing on the first question, it is necessary to understand what constitutes a military expedition, within the meaning of the statute. For the purposes of this case, it is sufficient to say that any combination of men organized here to go to Cuba to make war upon its government, provided with arms and ammunition, we being at peace with Cuba, constitutes a military expedition. It is not necessary that the men shall be drilled, put in uniforms, or prepared for efficient service, nor that they shall have been organized as, or accord- [163 U.S. 632, 640] ing to the tactics or rules which relate to, what is known as infantry, artillery, or cavalry. It is sufficient that they shall have combined and organized here to go there and make war on the foreign government, and have provided themselves with the means of doing so. I say 'provided themselves with the means of doing so,' because the evidence here shows that the men were so provided. Whether such provision, as by arming, etc., is necessary need not be decided in this case. I will say, however, to counsel, that, were that question required to be decided, I should hold that it is not necessary.
'As a general proposition, this is true, and the point is affirmed.
'This is true, provided the persons referred to herein had not combined and organized themselves in this country to go to Cuba, and there make war on the government. If they had so combined and organized, and yet intended when they reached Cuba to join the insurgent army, and thus enlist in its service, and the arms were taken along for their use, they would constitute a military expedition, as before described, and the transportation of such body of persons from this country for such a purpose would be an offense against the statute.
'The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth points are fully answered by what has been said.
'As before stated, to justify conviction of the defendants, the jury must be fully satisfied that the defendants knew that the men constituted a military expedition, such as I have described.
'The eleventh point has been fully answered by what the court has said.
'This point raises the question whether the defendants committed an offense against the statute, if the only aid which they furnished the xpedition was furnished out at sea, beyond the jurisdiction of this country; and I instruct you that if the only aid furnished the vessel, being a foreign vessel, was so beyond our jurisdiction, they did not commit an offense, and must consequently be acquitted. They allege that the point off Barnegat where the men were taken on board was not within three miles of our shore. If this is true, and the defendants did not start from our shore under an agreement to provide the means for transporting and to transport the men, but were ignorant of the object of going to Barnegat until they reached there, they cannot be convicted.
'If, however, they entered into an arrangement here to furnish and provide the means of transportation, and provided it, they are guilty, if this was a military expedition, although the men were not taken aboard and the transportation did not commence until the ship anchored off Barnegat.
'That this was a military expedition, designed to make was against the government of Spain, would seem to the court to be free from reasonable doubt. The question, however, is one for your determination alone, and I submit it to you as such, reminding you that the responsibility of deciding it rests upon you only. If you find that this was not a military expedition, or, rather, if you are not fully satisfied that it was, your verdict will be for the defendants, without going further. If, on the other hand, you find that it was a military expedition, intended to make war against the government of Cuba, then you must pass upon the second question stated, to wit: Did the defendants, with knowledge of the facts, aid in carrying out its purpose in going to Cuba? They transported the men with their arms, ammunition, and provisions. Did they enter upon this service here with the knowledge of the fact that the men constituted a military expedition, to fight against the government of Cuba? ... From this and any other testimony bearing on this subject, you must determine whether they understood what the expedition and its objects were, and had arranged and provided for its transportation, when they left Philadelphia or left our shores within the three-mile limit stated. If they were ignorant on this subject until they anchored off Barnegat Light, the point being, according to the testimony, beyond the jurisdictional limits of the United States, [163 U.S. 632, 644] no offense was committed, as I have before stated, against the laws of this country.
'The question, therefore, is: Did the defendants understand they were to carry this expedition, and had provided for it, and understand what the expedition was, before leaving here? As you have seen, they took on two extra boats before starting, nd cleared for Port Antonio, Jamaica, and turned off of their course at the Breakwater (the captain explaining this, to which explanation you will give whatever weight you deem it to be worth ). When the men came to the ship off of Barnegat, there is no evidence that the captain or any one of the defendants expressed or exhibited any surprise. It was then manifest that the service required was to carry men and arms to Cuba (the captain says he then so understood it), a most hazardous undertaking. Is it probable that the defendants would have risked themselves and their ship in this service if they had not been prepared for it by previous arrangement, and have done it without demurring or hesitating? Again, is it likely that those in charge of the expedition would have risked bringing the men and the property to that point on the mere chance that the defendants would take the risk of carrying them and the property to Cuba without arranging for it beforehand? If the defendants had refused, as it was their right to refuse (and it would seem certain or at least extremely probable, that they would refuse this most hazardous service if previous arrangement had not been made), what would have been the situation of the men and the property? The expedition would have failed. The men would have been subject to arrest, and the property to sacrifice. Is it probable that those in charge of such an enterprise would take the men and property to this point without having secured certain means of transportation for it in advance? The captain says he was ignorant of the service required of him until he reached the point near Barnegat. You must judge whether he should be believed or not, and, from all the evidence, must determine whether the defendants left here with knowledge of and provision for what they were about to do.
'I now submit the case to you, reminding you of its impor- [163 U.S. 632, 645] tance. If the evidence of the defendants' guilt is not entirely clear, they should be acquitted. If it is thus clear, they should certainly be convicted. No sympathy or prejudice must be allowed to influence your minds in passing on this case. We have nothing to do with the controversies between the people of Cuba and the government of that island. We are concerned only with the execution of the law in this case. We have only to consider whether the statute to which your attention has been called has been violated. It is our duty to see that the law is honestly and justly executed; that is all. The peace and safety of the community so manifestly depend upon the faithful and honest administration of the law that no man can fail to see it. We are suffering today, as probably no other people suffers, from lawlessness, from mobs, lynch law, murder, violation of trusts, as the result of want of faithfulness in executing the law.
No motion or request was made that the jury be instructed to find for defendants, or either of them.
The motion in arrest was based on the alleged want of jurisdiction of the court. Errors were assigned to the giving, refusing, and qualification of instructions; to the admission in evidence of declarations of some of the party, during the voyage, as to their destination; and to the overruling of defendants' motion in arrest of judgment, for want of jurisdiction.
W. Hallett Phillips and W. W. Kerr, for plaintiffs in error.
Atty. Gen. Harmon, Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
This section was originally section 5 of an act approved June 5, 1794 ( 1 Stat. 381, c. 50), carried forward as section 6 of an act of April 20, 1818 (3 Stat. 347, c. 88), and differs therefrom in no respect material here. The language of the section closely follows the recommendation of President Washington in his annual address December 3, 1793, when he said: 'Where individuals shall ... enter upon military expeditions or enterprises within the jurisdiction of the United States, ... these offenses cannot receive too early and close an attention, and require prompt and decisive remedies.' Annals Cong. 1793-95, p. 11. The legislation is historically considered in Dana's Wheat. Int. Law, 439, note. The statute was undoubtedly designed, in general, to secure neutrality in wars between two other nations, or between contending parties recognized as belligerents, but its operation is not necessarily dependent on the existence of such state of belligerency. 13 Ops. Attys. Gen. 177, 178. Section 5286 defines certain offenses against the United States, and denounces the punishment therefor; but, although a penal statute, it must be reasonably construed, and not so as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature. U.S. v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 625.
Defendants' counsel did not seek to compel an election, nor in any manner, by their motion in arrest or otherwise, to raise the question of duplicity, nor do they now make objections to the proceedings on this ground. The district judge instructed the jury that the evidence would not justify a conviction 'of anything more than providing the means for or aiding such military expedition by furnishing transportation for their men, their arms, baggage,' etc. Under these circumstances, the verdict cannot be disturbed on the ground that more than one offense was included in the same count of the indictment, but it must be applied to the offense to which the jury were confined by the court. Crain v. U.S., 162 U.S. --, 16 Sup. Ct. 952.
We think that it does not admit of serious question that providing or preparing the means of transportation for such a military expedition or enterprise as is referred to in the statute is one of the forms of provision or preparation therein denounced. Nor can there be any doubt that a hostile expedition dispatched from our ports is within the words 'carried on from thence.' The officers of the Horsa were concerned in providing the means of transportation.
1. The first and the main question in the present case is whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury in respect of what constitutes a 'military expedition or enterprise' under the statute. The question is one of municipal law, and the writers on international law afford no controlling aid in its solution. They deal principally with the status of belligerents, and the rights and obligations of neutral nations when the existence of such a status is formally recognized or accepted as existing de facto.
Boyd, in his edition of Wheat. Int. Law, 439aa, says: 'It is impossible to lay down any hard and fast line separating commercial transactions in munitions of war, and the organizing of hostile expeditions. International law is necessarily incapable of being defined and laid down with the precision attainable by municipal law. The question is one of intent, and it is the duty of a neutral government to exercise due diligence in ascertaining what the real character of the transaction may be. The elements of a hostil expedition are thus described by Professor Bernard: 'If, at the time of its departure, there be the means of doing any act of war,-if those means, or any of them, have been procured and put together in the neutral port,-and if there be the intention to use them (which may always be taken for granted when they are in the hands of the belligerents), the neutral port may be justly said to serve as a base or point of departure for a hostile expedition,' Montague Bernard, Neutrality of Great Britain, p. 399.' [163 U.S. 632, 650] But this statute is to be construed as other domestic legislation is, and its meaning is to be found in the ordinary meaning of the terms used. The definitions of the lexicographers substantially agree that a military expedition is a journey or voyage by a company or body of persons, having the position or character of soldiers, for a specific warlike purpose; also the body and its outfit; and that a military enterprise is a martial undertaking, involving the idea of a bold, arduous, and hazardous attempt. The word 'enterprise' is somewhat broader than the word 'expedition'; and, although the words are synonymously used, it would seem that, under the rule that its every word should be presumed to have some force and effect, the word 'enterprise' was employed to give a slightly wider scope to the statute.
The phrase 'military expedition or enterprise' has been variously construed by the district courts, but apparent differences in expression may be largely attributable to the differences in the facts under consideration in the particular case.
In U.S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983, Judge Wales, and in U. S. v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724, not yet reported, Judge Brown, of the Southern district of New York, considered the statute as exacting a high degree of organization, but Judge Brown said: 'I do not say that in order to constitute a military expedition to be 'carried on from this country,' as the statute reads, it must be complete at the start, or possess all the elements of a military body. It is sufficient if there was a combination by the men for that purpose, with the agreement and [163 U.S. 632, 652] the intention of the body that embarks that it should become a military body before reaching the scene of action. Such a combination and agreement, if means for effecting it were provided, followed by embarkation in pursuance of the agreement, would show such a partial execution of the design on our soil as to bring the case within our statute, as 'a military enterprise begun and carried on from the United States."
'In passing on the first question, it is necessary to understand what constitutes a military expedition, within the meaning of this statute. For the purposes of this case, it is sufficient to say that any combination of men organized here to go to Cuba to make war upon its government, provided with arms and ammunition (we being at peace with Cuba), constitutes a military expedition. It is not necessary that the men shall be drilled, put in uniform, or prepared for efficient service; nor that they shall have been organized as or according to the tactics of rules which relate to what is known as infantry, artillery, or cavalry. It is sufficient that they shall have combined and organized here to go there and make war on a foreign government, and to have provided themselves with [163 U.S. 632, 654] the means of doing so. I say 'provided themselves with the means of doing so,' because the evidence here shows that the men were so provided. Whether such provision, as by arming, and so forth, is necessary, need not be decided in this case. I will say, however, to counsel, that, were that question required to be decided, I should hold that it is not necessary.
It appears to us that these views of the district judge were correct as applied to the evidence before him. This body of men went on board a tug loaded with arms, were taken by it 30 or 40 miles, and out to sea, met a steamer outside the 3-mile limit by prior arrangement, boarded her with the arms, opened the boxes, and distributed the arms among themselves, drilled to some extent, were apparently officered, and then, as preconcerted, disembarked, to effect an armed landing on the coast of Cuba. The men and the arms and ammunition came together. The arms and ammunition were under the control of the men. The elements of the expedition were not only 'capable of proximate combination into an organized whole,' but were combined or in process of combination. There was concert of action. They had their own pilot to the common destination. They landed themselves and their munitions of war together by their own efforts. It may be that they intended to separate when they reached the insurgent headquarters, but the evidence tended to show that, until that time, they intended to stand together, and defend themselves if necessary. From that evidence the jury had a right to find that this was a military expedition or enterprise under the statute, and we think the court properly instructed them on the subject. This conclusion disposes of most of the errors assigned to the instructions given, qualified, or refused. Some of the points requested on defendants' behalf were incorrect; some were covered by the general charge; and others were properly qualified. [163 U.S. 632, 655] 2. The second material question is whether, if a military expedition or enterprise was made out, the court erred in its instructions in respect of defendants' knowledge or notice of the facts. And this involves the jurisdictional question which is raised by the exception to the qualification of the twelfth point. In that qualification and elsewhere, the district judge specifically and clearly instructed the jury that, alth ugh this was a military expedition or enterprise, nevertheless the defendants were not criminally responsible unless they were aware of its nature before they sailed from Philadelphia. 'To convict the defendants,' said the district judge, 'it is necessary that the government shall have satisfied your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a military enterprise, and that the defendants when they started knew it; otherwise, they are not guilty.' 'The question, therefore, is: Did the defendants understatnd that they were to carry this expedition, and had provided for it, and understand what the expedition was before leaving here [ Philadelphia]?' It is true that the expedition started in the Southern district of New York, and did not come into immediate contact with defendants at any point within the jurisdiction of the United States, as the Horsa was a foreign vessel; but the Horsa's preparation for sailing, and the taking aboard of the two boats at Philadelphia, constituted a preparation of means for the expedition or enterprise; and, if defendants knew of the enterprise, when they participated in such preparation, then they committed the statutory crime upon American soil, and in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, where they were indicted and tried.
We repeat that on the second material question, namely, whether the defendants aided the expedition with knowledge of the facts, the jury were instructed that they must acquit unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that defendants, when they left Philadelphia, had knowledge of the expedition and its objects, and had arranged and provided for its transporta- [163 U.S. 632, 656] tion. We hold that defendants have no adequate ground of complaint on this branch of the case.
3. An exception was taken to the statement of the court that the men were armed. The court said: 'They were armed, having rifles and cannon, and were provided with ammunition and other supplies.' This statement was based on uncontradicted testimony, and occurring, as it did, in a recapitulation of the evidence, no rule of law being incorrectly stated, and the matters of fact being specifically submitted to the determination of the jury, we do not regard the exception as tenable. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U.S. 568, 574 , 11 S. Sup. Ct. 185.
4. Objection is also made because the court expressed its opinion that this was a military expedition. But what the court said was that this 'would seem to the court to be free from reasonable doubt. The question, however, is one for your determination alone; and I submit it to you as such, reminding you that the responsibility of deciding it rests upon you only. If you find that this was not a military expedition, or, rather, if you are not fully satisfied that it was, your verdict will be for defendants, without going further.' Clearly, the observation of the court thus guarded did not so trespass on the province of the jury as to constitute reversible error. Simmons v. U. S., 142 U.S. 148, 155 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 171.
5. Again, it urged that the court erred, when referring to the captain's testimony that 'he was ignorant of the service required of him until he reached the point near Barnegat,' in saying: 'You must judge whether he should be believed or not, and from all the evidence must determine whether the defendants left here with the knowledge of, and provision for, what they were about to do.' No exception was taken to this part of the charge; but, if there had been, we cannot say that the trial judge was not justified in that remark, in view of all the facts and circumstances.
Nor was any exception taken to the closing observations by the court as to the importance of faithfulness in the execution of the law, although they are now assigned for error. We see [163 U.S. 632, 657] in them nothing which could properly be regarded as prejudicial to the defendants.
There was no objection to the second question, or to either answer, and no motion to strike out. It does not appear who made the statement, or how many persons were present, or that defendants were not present. These assignments are without merit.
There was other evidence of declarations of members of the party as to their purposes, and the district judge, in commenting thereon, said that, 'if these men were in combination to do an unlawful act, what was said by any of them at the time in carrying out their purpose was evidence against them all as to the nature of the expedition,' and to this an exception was taken. The general rule was stated in American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2 Pet. 358, 365, by Mr. Justice Washington, speaking for the court, that, 'where two or more persons are associated together for the same illegal purpose, any act or declaration of one of the parties, in reference to the common object, and forming a part of the res gestae, may be given in evidence against the others.' The declarations must be made in furtherance of the common object, or must constitute a part [163 U.S. 632, 658] of the res gestae of acts done in such furtherance. Assuming a secret combination between the party and the captain or officers of the Horsa had been proven, then, on the question whether such combination was lawful or not, the motive and intention, declarations of those engaged in it explanatory of acts done in furtherance of its object, came within the general rule, and were competent. St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U.S. 134 , 14 Sup. Ct. 1002; People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 102; Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132, 139; 1 Greenl. Ev. 111; Starkie, Ev. 466.
The extent to which evidence of this kind is admissible is much in the discretion of the trial court, and we do not consider that that discretion was abused in this instance. Clune v. U. S., 159 U.S. 590, 592 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 125.
7. No motion or request was made that the jury be instructed to find for defendants, or either of them. Where an exception to a denial of such a motion or request is duly saved, it is open to the court to consider whether there is any evidence to sustain the verdict, though not to pass upon its weight or sufficiency. And, although this question was not properly raised, yet if a plain error was committed in a matter so absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it.
The Horsa was bound for Jamaica, and her course carried her along the coast of Cuba for about six hours. She took on board at Philadelphia two boats entered on the monifest as for Port Antonio, but intended for, and ultimately devoted to the use of, the party sae transported. The captain received at the wharf written instructions, which he did not produce on the trial, and says he did not keep when he left the vessel, but in accordance with which he went north off Barnegat, anchored outside the three-mile limit, and awaited orders. The inference was not unjustifiable that he was thus and then informed that safety required that whatever was to take place off Barnegat should take place beyond the jurisd ction of the United States; in other words, that a transgression of the laws of the United States was contemplated. The Horsa was boarded on the high seas off Barnegat, as heretofore described, and the captain testified that he did not regard the occurrence, [163 U.S. 632, 659] as anything unusual or important. But the firemen said that they went to the chief engineer when these men came aboard, and told him they would not go along. 'We won't go down there and get shot.' 'We did not sign for that.' The chief engineer bade them keep quiet, and the captain 'told them, if anybody had to hang for this, I would be the man to hang for it. I told them they had better go below, and mind their own business.' The written instructions the captain there received were not produced, but he said he was to take the men and whatever they had, and let them off when told to do so, delivering the two boats shipped at Philadelphia, and the two shipped from the tug, to them as soon as called for; and that this did not strike him as singular. The evidence shows that the nature of the enterprise was apparent at this time, and the jury may not unreasonably have inferred that the captain received the men and their arms, entered upon the hazards of the voyage, and quieted the complaints of the firemen, with an equanimity springing from a mind previously made up on the subject. We deem it unnecessary to go over the evidence. We cannot say as matter of law that there was no evidence tending to sustain the verdict against the captain.
But we think the case as to Petersen and Johansen stands on different ground, and that we may properly take notice of what we believe to be a plain error, although it was not duly excepted. These men were the mates of the vessel, and they proceeded on the voyage under the captain's orders. This would not excuse them if there were proof of guilty knowledge or participation on their part in assisting a military expedition or enterprise when they left Philidelphia. We are of opinion that adequate proof to that effect is not shown by the record, and that, as the case stood, the jury should have been instructed to acquit them. The captain testified that the mates 'had nothing to do with this ship or with its business. They listened to my orders. They were under my orders. I was the master of that vessel. I am responsible for all that was done.' The order he received to go north and await orders beyond the three-mile limit does [163 U.S. 632, 660] not appear to have been communicated to them; and, whatever they must have known after the Horsa was boarded off Barnegat, there is nothing sufficiently justifying a presumption of knowledge when the vessel left the wharf.
It is not necessary to enlarge upon the public importance of the neutrality laws. This case is a criminal case, arising on an indictment under a section of the Revised Statutes; and we dispose of it on what we deem to be the proper construction of that section, and after subjecting the correctness of the rulings of the court below to that careful examination which the discharge of our duty requires.
The judgment against defendant Wiborg is affirmed; the judgment against defendants Petersen and Johansen is reversed; and the cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial as to them.
Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents from the affirmance.
[ Footnote 1 ] For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see 16 Sup. Ct. 1197.

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