Court Opinion

ID: 8140351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 20:02:48.963346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:31.610360
License: Public Domain

The CHIEF JUSTICE
delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal question in this case is, was the brig lawful prize? She was a neutral vessel, and the answer to the question must depend on her employment at the time of capture.
The actual establishment of the effective blockade of the *773ports of North Carolina, in pursuance of the President’s proclamation of the 27th of April, 1861, was notified hy Commodore Prendergast on the 30th April; and it is a matter of history that the notification, as well as the proclamation, became at once well known throughout the country. It is impossible to believe that the master of the Herald, at Boston, on the 22d May, could have been ignorant of facts so notorious. His conduct on arrival near Beaufort strongly indicates-his apprehension of capture. The lights at the entrance of the harbor had been destroyed by the insurgents, and yet, though arriving in the morning of the 9th, he lay off and on, some twenty miles south, all that day, and went in during the succeeding night.
"We know of no case of prize in which a captured vessel has been restored under such circumstances; but we need not rest the decision of this case upon this evidence of attempt to enter a blockaded port.
The vessel, when once within the harbor, proceeded to take in a cargo. Some difficulties were encountered from the action of the rebel military authorities, and from the disturbed condition of the country; but the lading was at length completed, and the vessel sailed, as already stated.
During the month which elapsed from arrival till departure, the effectiveness and stringency of the blockade were materially increased. The master, it is true, asserts that he still remained ignorant of its existence; but the evidence Bhows that it was the common topic of conversation in Beaufort and Morehead City; and he says himself that, while he was taking in cargo, about three weeks before sailing, he saw from the tops of the buildings, with a glass, a man-of-war off the harbor. It remained there, for he saw the same vessel about one week before sailing. Another witness, a hand on the brig, says, during the time the vessel was lying at Beaufort, he saw three different men-of-war ofi the harbor; and during the last two weeks he saw a man-of-war as often as once in three days. A letter from one of the shippers of the cargo, found on the brig, informs his correspondent that “ a smoke had been seen off in the *774offing at one time, and it was thought to he one of the blockading squadron.”
It would be difficult to make more conclusive proof of the existence of the blockade, or of notice of the fact to the master of the captured vessel.
The cargo was shipped to be conveyed from the port by' this brig, and was in the same offence.
The facts of the case supply other grounds of condemnation. The shares of the vessel owned in New York, and’ the portions of the cargo belonging to Williams, of New York, might be condemned for trading with the enemy; and other portions of the cargo might be condemned as enemy’s property; but it is enough that vessel and cargo were equally involved in the attempt to violate the blockade. Both were rightfully captured..
Decree aeeirmed.