The Bermuda, 70 U.S. 514 (1866)

70 U.S. 514
18 L.Ed. 200
3 Wall. 514

THE BERMUDA.
December Term, 1865
1

APPEAL from a decree made by the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, regarding the steamship Bermuda and her cargo, captured during
the rebellion by the government war-vessel Mercedita, and sent into Phila
delphia, and libelled there and proceeded on in prize.

2

The allegations of the captors were, that the vessel was enemy's property, and
with her cargo—largely composed of munitions of war—had been intending,
either directly or by transshipment, to break the blockade, then established by
our government, of the southern coast, and that both she and her cargo were, on
these and other grounds, subject to be captured and condemned.

3

The case was interesting, partly from the value, larger than common, of the
ship and cargo, but more particularly from the fact, that while many and strong
indications of a general sort pointed at once to the truth of the allegations of the
captors, blockade-running had been brought, by our adventurous English
kinsfolk, during the Southern rebellion, to so much of a science; true purposes,
by the aid of intermediate neutral ports of their own, had come to be so very
well disguised; the final general destination of the cargo in this particular
voyage was left so skilfully open, and the capture was so confessedly in neutral
neighborhoods, that it was not quite easy to prove, with that certainty which
American courts require, the intention, which it seemed plain must have really
existed. Thus to prove it, required that truth should be collated from a variety of
sources, darkened or disguised; from others opened as the cause advanced, and
by accident only; from coincidences undesigned, and facts that were
circumstantial. Collocations and comparisons, in short, brought largely their
collective force in aid of evidences that were more direct.

4

The history of things, as they appeared on one side and on the other
respectively, was in substance thus:

5

On the captor's side. The vessel herself had been built at Stockton-upon-Tees,
in 1861. In August of that year, a certain Edwin Haigh made the declaration of
ownership required by the British Merchants' Shipping Act of 1854. He
described himself as a 'natural born British subject,' of Liverpool, 'and entitled
to be registered as owner;' swearing, according to the usual form, that no other
person 'qualified to be owner of British ships is entitled as owner to any interest
whatever.'1 E. L. Tessier, a South Carolinian, was stated to be master of the
ship. It was not denied that Haigh was a British subject. On the day after her
registry, as appeared by a document from the Liverpool customs, entitled,
'Certified Copy, Transaction subsequent to registry,' Haigh executed a power of
attorney, or 'certificate,' as it was called, to Allan Stuart Hencle and George
Alfred Trenholm, both of Charleston, South Carolina, merchants, 'jointly or
severally to sell the ship, at any place out of the kingdom, for any sum he or
they may deem sufficient, within twelve months from the date of the certificate.'
There was no evidence that this power had ever been revoked or returned.

6

Thenholm was a member of the firm of Frazer, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool,
a firm which, with its branch house, John Frazer & Co., of Charleston, was one
of the firms most largely engaged in rendering aid to and sustaining the
rebellion, by fitting out blockade-runners, and corsairs to injure American
commerce. They were also the disbursing agents of the rebel confederation in
England, and they had several vessels, the Ella, Helen, Herald, Economist,
Albert, and others, forming a sort of 'line' between Liverpool and Charleston,
which carried on blockade-running, with the aid of agents at Bermuda and
Nassau, N. P., intermediate British neutral isles. The firm was composed of
Frazer & Trenholm, as also of a certain Prioleau, one Welsman, and a J. R.
Armstrong; the first four being South Carolinians; and the last, alone, a British
subject.

7

In Possession of the registry and power of sale already mentioned, the Bermuda
sailed for Charleston, then a port in rebellion and under blockade, in August,
1861. For some reason not stated, and inferable only, she ran into Savannah
instead—a port also in rebellion and under blockade—running out again and
back to Liverpool in the autumn of that year. Her master was now changed.
Captain Tessier was transferred to the Bahama, which afterwards became
notorious in the United States as having carried armament to the rebel corsair
Alabama, sunk off the coast of Normandy by the United States ship of war
Kearsarge. A certain Westendorff was put on the Bermuda. The British
statutes, however, requiring a recommendation to authorize a license to any one
as captain, Frazer, Trenholm & Co., in December, 1861, declared that they had
known Westendorff for ten years; that he served under an experienced ship
master, sailing out of Charleston, and that he had afterwards commanded one of
their ships. Among these was the Helen, a blockade-runner. Westendorff was,
accordingly, legally licensed by the British merchant authorities captain of the
Bermuda.

8

By the practice of the British ports, it is usual to indorse the address of the
captain licensed on the back of his certificate of license. This indorsement on
Captain Westendorff's ran thus:

9

'Address of bearer: Messrs. Frazer, Trenholm & Co., Liverpool.'

10

Being brought round from West Hartlepool, on the east coast of England, the
Bermuda now prepared for another voyage. Ostensibly it was to Bermuda. The
cargo consisted of various things, some of which would have been useful
enough at Bermuda, but which—cut off as the place had been by the blockade
from commerce—were supremely desired at Charleston; such as tea, coffee,
drugs, surgical instruments, shoes, boots, leather, saddlery, &c. Among the
dry-goods were five cases of lawns, each having a card upon it, representing a
youth gallantly mounting a parapet, and bearing onward the 'FLAG OF THE
CONFEDERATE STATES,' which in all its colors was spread to the breeze.

11

There were found, also, several cases of military decorations, &c.; epaulettes
for all grades; stars for the shoulder-straps of officers of rank; bugles, crossed
swords and cannons for different sorts of cap fronts; swords for staff and line
officers; chapeaux de bras; embroidered wreaths, 'without U. S. on;' 2 various
sizes of military buttons for coats and vests; some with the palmetto tree; belts
with the same designations; other buttons and belts with the letters S. C.; L;3
T.;4 &c., and with eagles surrounded by eleven stars; palmetto trees
embroidered on blue cloth, &c.; sash buckles, with the arms of Georgia, of
South Carolina, &c.

12

Among the cargo were several cases of cutlery, which was stamped as

13

'Manufactured expressly for John Treanor & Nephew, Savannah, Ga.'

14

It embraced a variety of articles, stamped with portraits and legends, thus:

15

'JEFF. DAVIS,

16

OUR FIRST PRESIDENT.
The right man in the right place.'

17

Others presented a military figure, emblazoned

18

'GENERAL BEAUREGARD.

19

He lives to conquer.'

20

Others represented a bull running after a man, with soldiers chasing; and over
the bull this motto:

21

'ON TO WASHINGTON! BULL RUN.'

22

The blades of these were stamped,
'Courtney & Tenant, Charleston, S. C.'

23

Several cases of double-barrelled guns were found, stamped as

24

'Manufactured for J. E. Adger, of Charleston.'

25

There was also a large amount of munitions of war; five finished Blakely
cannon in cases, with carriages; six cannon—some cast, some wrought—not in
cases; some thousand shells, varying from seven to a hundred and twelve
pounds each, and fuses for them. Three hundred barrels, seventy-eight halfbarrels, and two hundred and eighty-three quarter-barrels of gunpowder, seven
hundred bags of saltpetre; seventy-two thousand cartridges, two and a half
million percussion caps, two cases of Enfield rifles, twenty-one cases of
swords, marked N. D. (navy department?), seven cases of pistols, and a variety
of like or accessory things; in all about eighty tons weight. In addition to these
was a large amount of army blankets, army cloths, kerseys, vulcanized cloth,
with fifteen hundred yards of adhesive plaster; these last large enough to be
invoiced at $62,500.

26

Numerous letters of friendship and business were found in the vessel from
people abroad to different persons in the rebel States, Mrs. Trapman, Mrs.
Trenholm, Mrs. Rose, Mr. T. M. Hencle, Mr. C. F. Hencle, Mr. John Hencle,
&c.; also five numbers of the Times, sent by some person in England to his
friend in the South; also a book by one Spence, published by Richard Bentley,
New Burlington Street, London, showing the had effects which the American
Union had had on the national character and policy, and that 'secession' was 'a
constitutional right;' several passages being marked in margine, apparently as if
to invite attention specially to them.

27

A few memoranda, also, were found aboard;—requests apparently from persons
in Charleston to Captain Westendorff to buy things for them in England, and
bring them through the blockade. A part of one may serve for illustration;—it
having been evidently by some lady.

28

MEMORANDUM.

29

'CHARLESTON, 18.

30

2 pair ladies' kid gloves, silver-gray color.

31

2 pair ladies' kid gloves, tea color.

32

2 pair ladies' kid gloves, ashes of rose, light and dark.

33

Best quality.

34

Size 6 3/4.

35

2 pair ladies' gaiters, best kid, stout soles, soft upper, 3 1/2 full.

36

1 ladies' parasol, best silk, color drab or ashes of rose.

37

1/4 pound black sewing silk, fine. If it can be had of mixed colors, get 1/2
pound of best qualities.

38

1 pair lady's scissors, ordinary size, and some needles of best make.

39

M. S. D.

40

Get the best quality of everything.'

41

One of the memoranda, which like the other was a lady's, and contained an
order for gloves,—'dark-colored kid'—concludes:

42

'May God bless Captain W., and protect him, and bring him in safety back to
his family, church, and friends, is our prayer for him.'

43

On the vessel were several persons, called in various letters 'government
passengers;' being in fact 'artists' sent from Scotland. An account of them was
given in certain letters found on the vessel: some addressed to a certain Mr.
Morris, 'lithographer,' in Charleston, who it appears had safely ran the
blockade not long before. In different parts they ran thus:

44

STATIONERY DEPARTMENT,

45

80 BISHOPSGATE WITHIN, 26 LEADENHALL STREET,

46

LONDON, February 12, 1862.
DEAR MORRIS:

47

I was very much pleased to hear that you managed to escape the vigilance of
the Yankee vessels in getting into Charleston, and from the accounts I have
heard, should think you had a very narrow escape.

48

A commissioner (Major Ficklin) from the Confederate government has been
over here, and has sent a lot of printers and engravers, and presses, and
paraphernalia complete, which he obtained from Scotland. He served me very
shabbily and ungentlemanlike. I had many interviews with him, and gave him
all necessary information; furnished him with a list of requirements,
compromising myself with several workmen, and put myself to many
inconveniences. He admitted my price being proper and correct, and led me to
believe he would give me his order, but having got out of me all he could, he
then intrusted the order with anothr house. I hardly think that fair, after
promising to trust me with it and within a few weeks of its execution.

49

We, in England, do not think the North can hold on much longer, the financial
state being such as to induce us to hope that two or three months will settle your
present deplorable state.

50

We inclose our catalogue, which may guide you; and we make and can buy
paper of all kinds as well as any London house; so could execute your order for
foolscap loan paper, with watermark C. S. A., as shipped you, at 42s. per ream
double, equalling two reams single.

51

Trusting soon to hear of you, I am yours,

52

C. STRAKER.

53

This 'lot of printers and engravers' which Major Ficklin had obtained in
Scotland, embarked, under the charge of one George Dunn, on the Bermuda, on
this voyage, the whole party being entered on the crew list as common sailors.
They appeared to have taken their 'paraphernalia complete' with them. There
were at least 26 boxes marked P. O. D. (post-office department?), with
immense numbers of 'Confederate States' postage stamps; 'printing ink for
postage stamps;' copper-plates with 400 dies for printing at each impression
400 rebel postage stamps; also 200,000 letter envelopes; some 'Americanshape,' 'official blue,' &c.; many reams of fine white bank-note paper,
watermarked.

54

C. S. A.

55

Intended obviously for 'Confederate States' bank notes or bonds—'foolscaploan-paper;' and the same apparently which is referred to and so styled in the
concluding paragraph of the letter of Mr. C. Straker, of London, to his friend
and correspondent Morris, quoted on the preceding page, 'as shipped you at
42s. per ream double, equalling two reams single.' All this stationery having
gone with the captured vessel to the port of Philadelphia, was there sold.

56

So among the persons that embarked on the Bermuda, at Liverpool, were
certain gentlemen, residents of Charleston, but prfectly well known in circles of
gentility, both North and South, before the rebellion began. Among these, as
was specially noted by the counsel of the captors, was the late amiable Mr.
John Julius Pringle, a well-known gentleman of education and fortune, resident
in South Carolina during the winter, but at Newport, Rhode Island, in summer.
Mr. Pringle, with his two sons, Mr. Joel Poinsett Pringle and Mr. John Julius
Pringle, Jr., with Mr. Arthur Huger, all of whom the rebellion found in Europe,
and whose unquestionable wish and purpose was to return to the South, were
entered on the shipping list as common sailors, and by disguised names. The
nature of a shipping list and some of the regulations under which as ordinary
seamen [O. S.] these gentlemen came, appear by presenting original
instruments themselves. The gentlemen's names on the list are in italics.
AGREEMENT FOR FOREIGN-GOING SHIPS.

57

NAME OF SHIP. OFFICIAL NUMBER. NAME OF MASTER. DATE OF
AGREEMENT.

58

Bermuda. 42,608 C. W. Westendorff. 22 February, 1862.
SIGNATURE Ship in which he

59

OF CREW. Age. Where born. last served. In what Time at which Amouny of
wa- Shipping

60

capacity he he is to be ges per calander Masters

61

engaged. on board. month, shares, signature or

62

or voyage. initials.

63

John Dempsey, 15 Dublin, Demetrius, London, Boy, 25 Feb. 1 0 0 T. Cushman

64

Thomas Willott, 16 Liverpool, Holyhead, Bath, Asst cook, 25 Feb. 1 10 0 T. C.

65

Peter Johsen, 22 Copenhagen, Northern Crown, A. B., 25 Feb. 2 10 0 T. C.

66

John Richardson, 25 Derham, Bermuda, Liverpool, Fireman, 25 Feb. 4 0 0 T.
C.

67

Wm. Geo. Embleton, 29 Richmond, First Voyage O. S., 25 Feb. 0 10 0 T. C.

68

John Isard, 52 Charleston, First Voyage, O. S., 26 Feb. 0 1 0 T. C.

69

John Julius, 19 Charleston, First Voyage, O. S., 26 Feb. 0 1 0 T. C.

70

Joel Poinsett, 18 Georgetown, First Voyage, O. S., 26 Feb. 0 1 0 T. C.

71

Henry Arthur, 19 Savannah, First Voyage, O. S., 26 Feb. 0 1 0 T. C.

72

&c., &c., &c., &c., &c., &c., &c., &c., & c., &c., &c.,
REGULATIONS FOR MAINTAINING DISCIPLINE,

73

Sanctioned by the Board of Trade, in pursuance of the Merchants' Shipping
Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104.
Shipping

74

master's

75

No. OFFENCE. Amount of fine or signature

76

punishment. or

77

initials.

78

1 Quarrelling, or provoking to quarrel, One day's pay.

79

2 Swearing, or using improper language, One day's pay.

80

3 Carrying a sheath-knife, One day's pay. T. Cushman.

81

4 Drunkenness. First offence, Two days' half

82

allowance provisions

83

5 Drunkenness. Second offence, Two days' pay.

84

6 Not attending divine service on Sunday, unless

85

prevented by sickness or duty of the ship, One day's pay.

86

7 Interrupting divine service by indecorous conduct, One day's pay

87

8 Not being cleaned, shaved, and washed on Sun-

88

days, One day's pay. All adopted.

89

9 Washing clothes on a Sunday, One day's pay.

90

10 Secreting contraband goods on board, with intent

91

to smuggle, One month's pay.

92

Of the ship's real company, the master, Westendorff, the first mate, and the
master's brother (calling himself and shipped as a hand, but acting as clerk) and
three seamen, were citizens of South Carolina; and the second mate, the
carpenter, and cook belonged to other States in rebellion.

93

There were forty-five bills of lading, of which thirty-one were for goods
shipped by Fraser, Trenholm & Co. The whole of the cargo was shipped under
their direction; and according to the bills of lading it was to be delivered at
Bermuda, 'unto order or assigns.' No consignees were named on the bills.

94

Several of the persons connected with the ship or otherwise, and who were
examined in preparatorio, appeared to regard her as owned by Fraser,
Trenholam & Co. Thus the chief engineer, when thus asked to whom she
belonged, answered: 'To the best of my knowledge, Fraser, Trenholm & Co. are
the owners.' Heenan, a fireman, said: 'I have understood that Fraser, Trenholm
& Co. are the owners.' Noble, another fireman: 'The owners of the captured
vessel, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'
And Pierson, a third one, said: 'At Liverpool, it was the common talk that
Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, owned the captured vessel.' A letter of
one of the mates, found on board and written to some friend,5 seemed to speak
of them in the same way. So, too, Tessier, the old captain, writes to
Westendorff, his successor, thus:

95

STOCKTON-ON-TEES, 20th Feb., 1862.

DEAR WESTENDORFF:
96

Will you do me a favor? Opposite the Brumley Moore Dock wall there is a
boot-maker of the name of Warner. As you are passing by, will you have the
kindness to step in and inquire whether a pair of sea-boots I ordered have been
sent to the office of our owners. If they have, please request Mr. Griffiths,
head-porter of Frazer, Trenholm & Co., to forward them to me.

97

Captain Mitchell must have had a trying time since he sailed. I hope he kept her
well to the southward after leaving the channel. To take the H. [erald?] across
the Atlantic, at this season, will require some working.

98

With sincerest regards, I remain ever yours respectfully,

99

E. L. TESSIER.

100 Certain correspondence between Fraser, Trenholm & Co. and their branch
house, &c., was specially relied on by the captors to show that the British
subject Haigh was not the owner, and that the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co.
was. Thus it appeared that, on the 16th of January, 1862, the Liverpool house of
Fraser, Trenholm & Co. write to the Charleston branch, John Fraser & Co., that
they had despatched the ship 'Ella' with a cargo to Butterfield, Bermuda, and
that she would be followed by the steamer Bermuda with goods.
They now write as follows:
101 ['Ella.']
102 LIVERPOOL, 23d January, 1862.
103 MESSRS. JNO. FRASER & CO., Charleston.
104 DEAR FRIENDS: Referring to our respects of 16th inst., we now hand inclosed
bills lading of the cargo per ship Ella, and copies of invoices.
105 These goods are all shipped by our friends here; but the disposition of them
there is left entirely to you, and in any market to which you may please to direct
them.

106 The bills of lading are indorsed to your order, or that of your authorized agent.
Captain Carter is an intelligent shipmaster, and we believe a good man of
business; any communication for him, if you do not find it expedient to send an
agent to Bermuda, should be sent under cover to Mr. N. T. Butterfield,
Hamilton, Bermuda. Captain Carter is instructed to proceed to Bermuda, and
there await your instructions. The ship is now in the river ready for sea.
107 The 'Albert' sailed yesterday for Nassau, and will proceed, after landing her
cargo, to Rio for a cargo of coffee, with which she is to return to Nassau for
orders.
108 We remain yours, very truly,
109 FRASER, TRENHOLM & CO.
110 ['Bermuda.']
111 LIVERPOOL, 28th February, 1862.
112 MESSRS. JNO. FRASER & CO.,
113 (or their authorized agent,)
114 Hamilton, Bermuda.
115 DEAR SIRS: The letters we have written by this opportunity, with invoices and
bills of lading of the cargo of the ship, are very full in every particular, and we
think will greatly facilitate the delivery and also the transshipment, should this
be determined upon. We think that care should be taken to prevent the loss of
any of the invoices or bills of lading; but should this unfortunately happen,
duplicates can be furnished hereafter, which would, however, involve much
delay and great inconvenience in the delivery of the goods; and without the
invoices there would necessarily be much embarrassment in effecting sales.
116 In case of there being an opportunity of sending the letters forward with the
invoices and bills of lading, we cannot too strongly impress upon you the
adoption of the most certain means of preventing any of them falling into
improper hands.
117 Yours, truly,

118 FRASER, TRENHOLM & CO.
119 On the 1st of April, 1862, the Charleston house write to Butterfield thus,
having by previous letter informed him of their being advised that the Ella was
despatched, and that she would be followed by the Bermuda.
120 CHARLESTON, April 1, 1862.
DEAR SIR:
121 We suppose that the steamer Bermuda may be with you ere this; and the ship
Ella.
122 We will thank you to request the masters to act as follows, viz.:
123 Captain Westendorff to take in the tea and other light articles per Ella (if he has
room for them), and proceed to Nassau, reporting himself, on arrival there, to
Messrs. Hy. Adderly & Co.
124 Captain Carter to keep in his cargo and wait further orders from us. They will
reach him, we think, very shortly.
125 Yours respectfully,
126 JNO. FRASER & CO.
127 N. T. BUTTERFIELD, Esq.,
128 Hamilton, Bermuda.
129 Butterfield, who received this letter nineteen days after it was written,
immediately sent it to Captain Westendorff, at St. George's. Westendorff acted
on it at once. He took the new articles aboard, and the artists having got out
from his ship though he refused, as involving him in too great a responsibility in
the face of his new orders, to deliver to Dunn the printing-presses and working
apparatus consigned with the party under him to Bermuda—he proceeded from
St. George's towards Nassau, on the 23d of April. Mr. Pringle and the other
South Carolina gentlemen were aboard. On the 27th the vessel was captured.
He had arrived at Bermuda on the 19th March, and was accordingly there about
five weeks. His cargo was not touched while there.

130 Among the papers taken on board the Bermuda was an unfinished letter,
without signature, and apparently written by an engineer of the Bermuda to a
friend (another engineer it was said) at Stockton-upon-Tees. It ran thus:
131 LIVERPOOL, WELLINGTON DOCK, February 16, 1862.
MR. A. GRAY, Stockton-on-Tees:
132 We are all the talk of Liverpool at present, taking in those large rifled cannon
(without cases), and large lots of ammunition and materials of war. In American
circles our fate is discussed pretty freely; they have us taken, imprisoned, and
hung already. Our Hartlepool friend, Mr. Detective Maguire,6 has got a job here
again; is regularly to be seen on the quay, to take a look of what is going on
board. They put the custom-house inspectors to a great deal of trouble, because
they are coming down every day, opening boxes and cases—to satisfy J_____.
The inspector said to me yesterday, that there existed great jealousy on account
of our cargo; but fortunately they cannot stop us. We are on a lawful voyage;
people won't believe it here; they are bound to think we are for running the
blockade again.
133 Our tender left yesterday; don't be at all surprised we have got a tender; they
bought a light draft-boat at Dublin, used to run the mail once, called the Herald;
length, 280 feet; deep water line, 10 feet; light, 5 1/2; side-width, 225; horse,
nominal, used to press up to 28 pounds; got her boilers stayed, strengthened,
and soforth; strains up to 20 pounds now; average speed, 18 1/2 knots per hour;
razeed all her lower cabins, to make cargo space; shipped crew for twelve
months, for some port or ports south of Mason and Dixon's line. Three captains
on board; one an Englishman, nominal; another, an experienced coast pilot
from the Potomac to Charleston; another, ditto, ditto, from Charleston to the
San Juan River in Texas. If the Yankees reach her, they are smarter than I give
them credit for. She awaits our arrival in Bermuda; goes first into Charleston,
though, to see about the stone fleet. Don't tell Tessier I gave you the
information; he'll write straight to the owners, and tell them I am a traitor, and
blabber out secrets; I know him. I have seen the owners; all fudge what he told
me. Mr. Preleau (principal man) came up to me; shook hands; said was glad to
see me. I said, I hope I didn't incur your displeasure by remaining in the
Bermuda. Answer. Not at all.
134 The record showed that, after his arrival at Bermuda, Mitchell, captain of the
Herald, drew a bill on Fraser, Trenholm & Co., at Liverpool, in favor of
Westendorff, captain of the Bermuda, for £258, to be charged to the account of
the Harald; showing that Captain Westendorff advanced to the Herald that
amount.

135 So to one Farrelly, a person on the Bermuda, and apparently a candid, though
not a much educated witness, testified:
136 'At Bermuda there was a steamer called the Herald, which we understood was
intended to run the blockade; but the captain who brought the steamer out from
England refused to run it. The talk at Bermuda was that there were other
captains on board the Herald, and that they were trying to get one of these
captains in command. It was also the talk that the Herald was connected with
our ship.'
137 At the time of the capture, and after the vessel was boarded, the captain's
brother, by his order, threw overboard two small boxes and a package, which he
swore that he understood contained postage-stamps, and a bag, which he
understood contained letters, and which he was instructed to destroy in case of
capture. Mr. Huger also destroyed a number of letters, which he swore were
private letters, intrusted to him by Americans in Europe.
138 Such essentially was the case on the captors' side.
On the other side the case existed thus:
139 As to the place where the vessel was captured.—When captured, the Bermuda
was not far from the eastern coast of Great Abaco Island, an English colony,
and steering along the coast, not in the route to any of our ports, but in a
southwestwardly direction, and, as was alleged, between Abaco and Eleuthera
(another English island), to New Providence (Nassau), a third English colony.
She was captured within sight of British land, within the range of the Abaco
light. The distance was from five to seven miles from the shore; exactly how far
was not sufficiently shown. The British flag was flying at the time of the
capture, and was not hauled down until the prize was taken a distance of twenty
or thirty miles further out to sea. There was, perhaps, but slight evidence,
certainly slight direct evidence, to show that her immediate destination was to
any blockaded port. Being on the eastern side of the Bahama group, she was, in
a straight line, as was said at the bar, 160 miles from Florida, 410 miles from
Savennah, 430 miles from Charleston, and 480 miles from Wilmington, N. C.
The Mercedita was cruising near the Abaco entrance to Nassau; and it was
asserted, and perhaps rather made to appear, that orders had at one time been
given, or rather, maybe, understood to be given, to capture the Bermuda
wherever found on the high seas between England and the United States. A
previous conclusion, derived from our agents in England and from trustworthy
evidence, quietly collected by orders of our government, had possibly existed
on the part of the government that the vessel was built for the very purpose of
running the blockade.7

140 As to ownership.—Haigh, who had been desirous to make the British
government interpose, as for a capture within neutral territory, and who had
made claim in the court below as owner, in a paper prepared by him to induce
the British government to interfere, swore that he was 'the sole registered
owner' of the vessel; that she was bound to Bermuda, with instructions to
deliver her cargo there to one N. T. Butterfield, and to ship a homeward cargo
for Great Britain; that it was 'not intended that she should attempt to break the
blockade,' &c.; that, on the arrival of the ship at Bermuda, the consignee of the
cargo was desirous that it should be carried to Nassau, and made an
arrangement with the master to have it carried with some additional cargo, the
particulars of which he, Haigh, had not been informed of.
141 So Captain Westendorff, in previously asking to make claim to the vessel and
cargo for the parties whom he asserted were interested, swore that Haigh was
'the true, lawful, and bona fide owner' of the vessel, and that no other person
was owner of or interested in her; and that the vessel had no destination either
for herself or cargo when she left Liverpool, except for Bermuda in the first
instance, and ultimately for Nassau; that he, the captain, was directed to receive
instructions and place himself under the care of N. T. Butterfield, of Hamilton,
in the island of Bermuda named;8 that the cargo was shipped and owned by
British subjects and on British account, and not for or on account of or for the
use of any person in the insurectionary States; and that, if restored, it would
belong to British subjects, and not to them; and that neither vessel nor cargo,
nor any part of it, was intended for the insurgents; and that the vessel did not
intend to violate the blockade anywhere. His affidavit was as direct and full as
possible.
142 So Armstrong, the British partner in the firm of Trenholm, Fraser & Co., by
writing filed, swore that 'the said firm, acting as agents for Mr. Edwin Haigh,
owner of the British ship Bermuda, procured for her from various shippers a
full cargo;' that the steamer sailed hence for Bermuda; that the cargo laden here
was intended to be discharged at Bermuda or Nassau; and that a return cargo
had been provided by her consignees at Nassau; that the general management
of the steamer had been placed in the hands of his firm 'by the owner,' but that
no charter-party was entered into, 'this not being customary under such
circumstances.'

143 As to intent to run the blockade.—In addition to what was above sworn, Harris,
a member of the firm of Adderly & Co., in Nassau (the correspondents of
Fraser, Trenholm & Co.), declared, on oath, that when the Bermuda was
consigned to them from the island of Bermuda, the instructions then given to
them were, that, on the arrival of the ship at Nassau, the cargo laden on her
should be landed, and the ship again laden with a cargo to be delivered at some
port in Europe; and he swore 'that it was the intention of the firm of Adderly &
Co. to carry out strictly these instructions, and that there was never any
intention that the ship should run the blockade of any of the southern ports of
America; but that the vessel, at the time when she was taken and captured, was,
so far as instructions of the firm went, in the bona fide prosecution of a voyage
from the island of Bermuda to these islands, with a cargo which was to be
delivered here.'
144 As respected the power of attorney, or 'certificate,' to sell, Haigh, in a letter, 'per
J. R. A.,' to his agent at Philadelphia, represented, by way of explanation, that
'it was given on the first voyage of the Bermuda, as would be seen by the date,
and was intended to apply to that only.' 'On the vessel's return,' he adds, 'I
endeavored to sell her, but could neither do this nor cancel the power until the
document was returned from Charleston, whither it had been sent. This my
agents have hitherto failed to do, owing, seemingly, to the interruption of
communications.'
145 'The registry of such power of attorney,' he concluded, 'is compulsory, and a
copy can be obtained from the customs authorities by any one who pays the
trifling fee necessary.'
In another paper he gave an account thus:
146 'In August, 1861, being then the sole registered owner of the steamship
Bermuda, I was in hopes that the blockade imposed by the Northern
government of the United States against the southern ports might be raised by
reason of intervention, arrangement, or otherwise, and I accordingly caused the
said steamship to be sent on a voyage to Charleston, in South Carolina.
147 'I was also desirous that the said steamship should be sold at Charleston, or any
other port of the United States, if the opportunity should offer and a sufficient
price price could be got for her. I accordingly executed a certificate of sale
authorizing Mr. Hanckel and Mr. Trenholm, of Charleston, jointly or severally,
to carry into effect any desirable sale.

148 'I am informed and believe that the said steamship, in the prosecution of her
voyage, was not warned off by any of the blockading cruisers, and that she
entered the port of Savannah without meeting with any of such cruisers, or
having the opportunity of ascertaining whether the said blockade was in fact
still in force, and there discharged her cargo.
149 'In the month of January last the ship returned to England without having been
sold, but the certificate of sale was not returned to me.
150 'In the month of February last, 1862, seeing that the blockade had become
effective, and that there was little hope of its being raised, I caused the ship to
be loaded for Bermuda or Nassau; and, as there was no intention of the said
ship entering any of the blockaded ports, I caused application to be made to the
registrar of shipping at Liverpool, to grant a new certificate of sale to some
parties at Bermuda or Nassau, with a view to her sale at either of those British
ports; but the said registrar declined to issue such new certificate unless the old
certificate should be first given up to him cancelled.
151 'The old certificate has never been returned to me, probably by reason of the
difficulty of communication between the Southern States and Great Britain; but
it was virtually revoked and annulled in the month of February last, all
intention of entering any of the Southern ports of the United States being then
abandoned.
152 'EDWIN HAIGH.'
153 In regard to the munitions of war, Blakely, late a captain in her Majesty's
service, but who was now 'a cannon manufacturer and merchant,' swore that in
shipping the cannon, shells, fuses, limbers, &c., aboard, which, it appeared,
was his part of the cargo (and which he interposed in the District Court to
claim), he intended part for the government of Hayti and the rest 'for sale at
Bermuda or Nassau, in the usual course of business, to any person willing to
purchase the same;' that he had shipped the goods for Bermuda in the first
instance, the steamer being bound for that port, but having been informed that
Nassau, N. P., offered better opportunities, he desired them to be forwarded
thence to Nassau, instructing his friends there, the Messrs. Adderly & Son, to
sell those not intended for Hayti 'to any persons willing to become purchasers,
whether Federals, Confederates, or others, according to the prices which they
might respectively offer.'
154 [Captain Blakely, however, did not, nor did the Messrs. Adderly, though they
made oaths in the case,9 produce either originals or copies of these letters.]

155 It is to be noted, also, that the cargo was by no means confined to munitions of
war and such articles already mentioned as were plainly destined for the rebel
States. A large part of it consisted of British dry goods and of groceries
generally.
156 As respected the 'government passengers' (the engravers or artists), who
undoubtedly wished to run the blockade and get to Charleston, it appeared that
they all got out at Bermuda, and that none of them rejoined the vessel when she
went to Nassau.
157 So in regard to Mr. Pringle and the South Carolina gentlemen, registered by
disguised names as common sailors, and brought under obligation not to
quarrel, swear, carry sheath knives, interrupt divine service by indecorous
conduct, & c., &c., under penalty of forfeiting more or less pay, the explanation
given by Captain Westendorff was, that when they expressed their wish to
embark he was on the point of sailing; and that they were put on the crew list in
order to get round the British statutes, which required that before a vessel took
passengers she should be inspected; an operation which would have required a
week's time. All these gentlemen swore that they knew of no purpose on the
vessel's part to violate the blockade. The testimony of Mr. Pringle was positive
about this.
158 To the fifth interrogatory, in preparatorio, he answered as follows:
159 'The said vessel sailed from Liverpool on her present voyage and was bound to
Bermuda alone, and was not to run any blockade; so I was assured by the
agents, the Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, who are a branch
house, I believe, of John Fraser & Co., of Charleston, S. C.'
160 All the gentlemen, and several of the artists, in fact, while testifying distinctly
their wish and intention to get into the Southern States, testified that they did
not expect to get there on this vessel. Indeed, on arriving at Bermuda, they
prepared and offered to the captain
A TESTIMONIAL OF PARTING THANKS.
161 'ON BOARD THE STEAMSHIP BERMUDA,
162 20th March, 1862.

163 'DEAR SIR: The undersigned, passengers on board your vessel from Liverpool
to Bermuda, beg leave, before parting with you, to express their thanks for the
kind treatment and unceasing attention which we have received at your hands.
Your efforts to add to our comfort and make our time pass pleasantly has
served in a great measure to destroy the monotony of a sea voyage. We also
take much pleasure in assuring you that the strict attention we have observed
you paid to the management of your fine ship has been such as to make us feel
always a perfect security and confidence under your care. With our best wishes
for your future prosperity,
164 We are, dear sir, yours, respectfully,
165 J. J. PRINGLE,
166 GEORGE DUNN,
167 JAMES McHUGH,
168 GEORGE HENRY KEELING,
169 J. J. PRINGLE, JR.,
170 J. POINSETT PRINGLE,
171 W. E. SPARKMAN,
172 WM. G. EMBLETON,
173 P. GELLATLY,
174 J. McFARLAND,
175 ARTHUR HUGER,
176 JNO. GEMMELL.'
177 It was not pretended that any of these passengers had concealed their true
character from the captain, or in any way changed at any time their ordinary
dress; or that they had made concealments of any sort.

178 The following, in material parts, was the letter of instructions, which, when the
vessel set sail from Liverpool, the captain received:
179 'LIVERPOOL, 28th February, 1862.
180 'CAPTAIN C. W. WESTENDORFF,
181 Steamship Bermuda.
182 'DEAR SIR: You will proceed hence to the port of Hamilton, Bermuda, and
there deliver your cargo, as per bills of lading. Inclosed is a letter of
introduction to Mr. N. T. Butterfield, who will assist you in the purchase of
coals and in the disbursements of your ship. The bills inclosed (£500) on the
Bank of Liverpool, will furnish you the means of paying your disbursements in
Bermuda.
183 'Instructions will follow you as to a return cargo for your ship. If you should
have any surplus funds after paying the accounts of the ship, you will bring
them British gold; but should you require more money than the bills herewith
will furnish you, we authorize you to value upon us at short sight for what may
be wanted, and Mr. Butterfield will assist you in negotiating your bill upon us.
184 'Our friends in St. John, N. B., are Messrs. W. & R. Wright, and in Nassau, N.
P., Messrs. Henry Adderly & Co.; and in case of having to take cargo from
Bermuda to either of these ports, you will call upon them.
185 'We are, dear sir, yours truly,
186 'FRASER, TRENHOLM & Co.,
187 'Agents of the owner.'
188 There was no concealment, apparently, as to anything on board. Everything was
fairly entered on the bills of lading and manifest. The crew were shipped, it
seemed, for a term not exceeding twelve months, from Liverpool to Bermuda,
thence, if required, to any ports or places in the West Indies, British North
America, United States, and back to the United Kingdom. The wages, if fairly
set down, seemed to be at a rate not exceeding that of ordinary voyages in
peaceful times, without special risk.

189 The court below condemned the vessel and the part of her cargo which
consisted of munitions of war; reserving judgment as to the rest. Appeals were
now taken here by Mr. Haigh and Captain Blakely. The case was twice
elaborately and very well argued, both on reason and authorities, once at the
last term and again at this.
190 Mr. G. M. Wharton and Mr. W. B. Reed, on both arguments, for these
appellants: There is really no sufficient evidence of enemy ownership of the
vessel. Such ownership is denied positively by numerous respectable persons
on oath. The control which John Fraser & Co., of Charleston, had over the
voyage of the ship, did not clothe them with any ownership, even in a prize
court. That control must be treated as confined to a direction of the ship within
the limits of her prescribed voyage, and if that voyage did not include a trip to
any blockaded port, or to any port of the enemies of the United States, it cannot
affect injuriously the neutral owners. The power of attorney from Mr. Haigh,
was not accompanied with any interest in the attorney. Any sale under it must
have been for the use of the principal, and all money received under it would
have been the funds of the principal. The power had no reference to the then
voyage of the Bermuda. It was an unexecuted one and capable of revocation. If
the Bermuda were not, on the voyage in question, destined to a Southern port,
the execution of the power would either have been impracticable, or could only
have been carried into effect through correspondents in some neutral territory.

191 Neither is there any sufficient evidence that the vessel meant to run the
blockade. Her instructions were to go to Bermuda, to deliver her cargo there,
and to bring back a return in British gold; and while there was a provision made
for the possibility of carrying the cargo to Nassau, there was none for a
destination beyond. The vessel was captured in her direct course to a port
confessedly neutral. The artists, who, all admit wished to get to the Southern
States, left the vessel when she got to Bermuda. They left her, because on her
they could not get to our Southern States. Mr. Pringle, and his friends who
embarked at Liverpool, it is as plain, originally expected to go on this vessel to
Bermuda only; and though they went on her to Nassau afterwards, it was in the
expectation of finding some other conveyance thence to Charleston. The
testimony of Mr. Pringle, whose accuracy no one who knew him will question,
is positive that the parties knew of no purpose to run the blockade. The
unsigned letter attributed to an engineer of the Bermuda—and which will be
relied on to support a condemnation—disproves intent to run a blockade. After
saying that a detective was watching them, and that great jealousy existed on
account of the cargo, it declares: 'Fortunately they cannot stop us. We are on a
lawful voyage. People won't believe it. They are bound to think we are for
running the blockade.' And this foregone conclusion about the Bermuda, which
it seems was conveyed here by detectives when she was on the stocks, has been
one of the worst impediments to justice in our case. The government had
ordered the Bermuda to be captured wherever found.10 It is assumed, without
proof, that the vessel belonged to Fraser, Trenholm & Co.; and then inferred as
an irresistible conclusion that they could not own any vessel and not set her to
breaking a blockade.
192 It being impossible to fix unlawful enterprise on the Bermuda, it will be said
that the purpose was to transship the Bermuda's cargo at Bermuda or Nassau?
That is easy to conceive of and to suggest, and even to aver. But conception,
suggestion, and even averment are of no weight. Does the evidence prove such
a purpose? We say that it does not. It will be argued that the 'Herald' was to
perform this office for the Bermuda. The only thing which gives countenance
to such an idea is the unsigned and not very trustworthy letter said to have been
written by the Bermuda's engineer. The inference is a strained one which gets
this purpose of the Herald from that scrawl; one which, moreover, declares on
its face that the voyage on which the Bermuda was about to sail, was a 'lawful
voyage:' which, would it be if the Herald went as a tender to tranship?
193 The one or two memoranda found on board and said to have been for Captain
Westendorff are of the least possible significance. If there be anything in them
which shows that they were orders to bring articles through the blockade—
which there is not at all as respects the largest—there is assuredly nothing
which proves that Captain Westendorff did execute them, or ever meant to
execute them, especially to execute them for this voyage or by this ship.

194 That portions of the cargo—the cutlery, &c.—were intended to invite
purchasers at Bermuda for the Southern States may be; but that does not prove
enemy ownership in this vessel or her intent to run the blockade. The articles at
best were but a fraction, and not a large one, of the cargo; and after having
mingled with the stock of the commerce of Bermuda—or Nassau,—sold bna
fide, to British subjects there—would have found purchasers from the Southern
States, of which class of persons the islands had many.
195 As to the cannon and other munitions of war—sent by Captain Blakely—his
affidavit in explanation is clear, reasonable, and sufficient. Federals and
Confederates to him were both alike. He was any man's customer in a war.
196 The fact that Mr. Pringle and his friends, as well as the artists, were entered on
the crew list as sailors is abundantly explained by Captain Westendorff. They
had not disguised themselves when captured; nor at any time. Indeed there was
no concealment as to any part of the cargo. Everything was on the bills and
manifests.
197 The counsel for the claimants then submitted these points of law, which they
enlarged upon, enforced, and applied:
198 1. If the Bermuda were on a voyage, at the time of her capture, from the port of
Bermuda, a neutral port, to the port of Nassau, another neutral port, being then
a British vessel and owned by a British subject, she was not liable to capture. In
order to render her so liable to capture, under these circumstances, she must
have been actually on a voyage to Charleston, or some other blockaded port of
the Southern States, with an intent to run the blockade.
199 2. There can be no legal blockade by a belligerent of any other than a hostile
port. There can be none of a neutral port. The Bermuda was, therefore, at
perfect liberty to navigate to and fro among the British West India islands, so
far as the question of blockade is concerned, unless she were actually on a
voyage to a blockaded port of our country. No blockade of a Southern port
could be lawfully extended so as to embrace the waters lying between or about
the West India islands.

200 3. There can be no proper legal assertion of a continued voyage of which
Nassau was but an intermediate port, unless the evidence shows (which it does
not) that the Bermuda was on her way to a blockaded port, via Nassau. Every
voyage must have a terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem; the latter of
which, under the evidence, was a port of discharge in the United Kingdom; and
no part of the evidence shows that the Bermuda herself was to proceed as a part
of her voyage to any blockaded port. It was no breach of the blockade of any
such port to intend to land her cargo, either at Bermuda or Nassau, even though
some other vessel was afterwards to endeavor to carry on the cargo to
Charleston, provided the Bermuda herself was to return to England.
201 4. What the voyage of the Bermuda was, is a question of fact to be deduced
from all the evidence in the cause. The shipping articles which described it with
particularity, are persuasive evidence of the voyage on which the Bermuda
started from Liverpool. The letter of instructions to the captain at that place, is
in accordance with the shipping articles. The legal construction of those
documents is, that the violation of a blockade was not embraced by them; and
that if, after arriving at Bermuda the ship should be ordered to a port of the
United States, some open port, and not a blockaded port, must have been
intended. The instruction to the captain which he received at Bermuda to
proceed to Nassau, exhausted the power which the verbal charterers of the ship
had over her; and after leaving Nassau under the terms of the voyage, she could
only be brought back to the United Kingdom.
202 5. British merchants, as neutrals in our present war, had a perfect right to trade,
even in military stores, between their own ports, and to sell at one of them, even
to an enemy of the United States, goods of all sorts, although with a knowledge
that the purchaser bought them with a view of employing them afterwards out
of the neutral territory in war against us. A neutral may sell in his own territory,
to either belligerent, munitions of war; the only exception, so far as England and
America are concerned, being a prohibition against fitting out vessels of war, or
warlike expeditions, in the neutral country, against one of the belligerents.
203 6. The question of contraband of war cannot arise with respect to any portion of
the Bermuda's cargo, unless she were on a voyage to a blockaded port. It is not
necessary in law to show that it was part of the intention of the shippers of the
cargo to land and sell it at Nassau. If it was intended to be stored there, and the
voyage of the Bermuda to terminate at that place, except as regards her return to
England, no question of contraband can arise in the cause.

204 7. Spoliation of papers is cause of condemnation, and excludes further proof
only as against the party committing it, if interested in the vessel or cargo.
Against a party not committing the spoliation, and not authorizing it, nor
interested in the act, it neither excludes further proof, nor is it damnatory where
other circumstances are clear.
205 8. There is no proof in the cause that any spoliation of papers was authorized by
Mr. Haigh, or conduced to his benefit as owner of the ship; nor is there any
evidence of the spoliation of any papers which might properly be considered as
proprietary documents.
206 9. The capture of the Bermuda was unjustifiable; because, first, it was made
within the range of modern cannon-shot from British territory; second, it was
made within a space embraced by a line drawn due south from the nearest
headland on the island of Abaco, above the place of capture; third, because it
was made, not on the open sea, but in waters constituting channels between
islands belonging to Great Britain, a neutral power; and fourth, because it was
made before actual search, and under a general authority to seize certain vessels
wherever found.
207 On each of these points, we conceive that authorities sustain us.11
208 After argument, on the other side, by Mr. Speed, A. G., and by Mr. Coffey,
special counsel of the captors, who argued the case thoroughly every way—on
the facts, on principles of public law, and on English and American precedents
——
209 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
210 These appeals were very fully and ably argued at the last term; and, because of
the desire of the court to have all the aid that counsel could give in the
examination of the important questions of fact and law presented by the record,
were ordered to be reargued at this term. Under this order they have been again
thoroughly and exhaustively discussed, and have since received our most
deliberate consideration.
211 The questions arising upon the ownership of the steamship, will first be
disposed of.

212 She was built in 1861, on the eastern coast of England, at Stockton-upon-Tees.
On the 1st of August in that year, Edwin Haigh made the declaration of
ownership required by the British Merchants' Shipping Act of 1854. 12 In this
declaration he described himself as a natural born British subject, asserted
himself to be the sole and exclusive owner, and named E. L. Tessier as master.
Upon this declaration a certificate of registry was issued the next day, which
repeated the statement that Haigh was owner, and Tessier master; and on the
following day, the 3d of August, a joint and several power of attorney to sell the
ship, at any place out of the kingdom, at any time within twelve months, and
for any price thought sufficient by the attorneys, or either of them, was given
by Haigh to A. S. Hanckel and G. A. Trenholm, of Charleston, in South
Carolina. With these papers the steamship was despatched to Charleston, on her
first voyage; but finding, probably, the entrance of that port too dangerous, ran
successfully the blockade of Savannah, and returned to England in January,
1862, after an absence of about five months.
213 The power of sale was sent to Charleston, and remained there. Haigh asserts
that this power was intended only for the first voyage; was given because he
wished to have the steamer sold in Charleston, or in some other port of the
United States, if opportunity should offer, and a sufficient price could be
obtained; and was afterwards virtually revoked when he abandoned the idea of
sending her again to any southern port.
214 It is unfortunate for the credit of these statements, that the power was given to
enemies of the United States, resident in Charleston, without access to any loyal
port except by running the blockade; that it was not limited by its terms to the
first voyage, but, on the contrary, was to continue in force twelve months; that
it contained no provision insuring a sufficient price, but left that matter, so
important to a real owner contemplating a real sale, to the decision of the
attorneys, or either of them; and that there is no evidence in the record of any
actual revocation of the power, or of any attempt to revoke it, and none, except
Haigh's assertion, that the purpose of again sending the ship to a rebel port was
ever abandoned.
215 These first acts bring the ownership into doubt. Haigh may have been then the
true owner; but it is certainly strange that he was in such haste to remove her
from his own neutral control, and place her absolutely in the power and at the
disposal of the enemies of the United States.
216 After her return to England a new voyage was planned for the Bermuda, and
Fraser, Trenholm & Co., under whose direction, probably, the first voyage was
made, now appear conspicuously in her concerns.

217 Of the members of this firm, Fraser and Trenholm were, doubtless, citizens of
South Carolina; so also were, probably, Prioleau and Wellsman, who are
mentioned as partners.13 The only partner whose declaration that he was a
British subject appears in the record was J. R. Armstrong. The Liverpool house
thus composed was a branch of the house of John Fraser & Co., of Charleston,
and was employed as a depositary and agent of the rebel government at
Richmond.14
218 It was under the direction of this firm that the Bermuda was loaded at
Liverpool in February, 1862.
219 Her former master, Tessier, had been transferred to the Bahama, then at
Stockton-on-Tees, but destined to become notorious three months later by her
employment, under Tessier, in the conveyance of guns and munitions to the
Alabama.15 In his place, Westendorff had become master of the Bermuda. This
person, a citizen of South Carolina, arrived in Liverpool from Charleston in
December, in command of the Helen, a ship belonging to John Fraser & Co.
Through Fraser, Trenholm & Co., he obtained the official certificate of
competency necessary to enable him to take command of the Bermuda, and was
appointed master, probably by them, on the 17th January. On the day before
this appointment, Fraser, Trenholm & Co. had advised John Fraser & Co. of the
despatch of the ship Ella with a cargo to Bermuda Island, to be followed by the
steamship Bermuda with goods. The letter containing the advice is not in the
record, but the fact appears from a letter of John Fraser & Co. to N. T.
Butterfield at Bermuda, relating to these vessels and their cargoes.
220 The Bermuda, at the date of the Liverpool letter, was lying at a port on the
eastern coast, but was at once brought round to Liverpool to receive her cargo.
221 Her whole lading was under the direction of the Liverpool firm. Haigh was not
known in it; while, on the other hand, Fraser, Trenholm & Co. were regarded as
owners by many persons on the ship, and by others who certainly were not illinformed. Thus Tessier, then in command of the Bahama, writing to
Westendorff on the 20th February, spoke of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. as 'our
owners.' And so Graham, chief engineer of the Bermuda, deposed on the
preparatory examination, 'To the best of my knowledge and belief, Fraser,
Trenholm & Co. of Liverpool, England, are the owners of the captured vessel.'
The depositions of Heenan, Noble, and Pierson, firemen on board, were to the
same effect.
222 Against this evidence are the declaration of Haigh, the deposition of
Westendorff, and the affidavit of Armstrong, all affirming ownership in Haigh.

223 Thus stood matters in relation to ownership when the Bermuda left Liverpool
on the 1st of March. She was controlled absolutely, in all respects, by Fraser,
Trenholm & Co., and they were quite generally regarded as her owners. They,
on the other hand, assert that Haigh was the real owner, and that they were
acting as his agents; admitting, however, that they had no charter, and no
written authority to represent him.
224 On the day before sailing, Fraser, Trenholm & Co. addressed a letter to the
master, Westendorff, directing him to proceed to the island of Bermuda, and
deliver his cargo according to the bills of lading. After some general directions
as to money for disbursements and other matters, the letter concludes with the
information that 'the friends' of the firm 'in Nassau, New Providence, are H.
Adderly & Co.,' and with a direction to 'call on them, in case of having to take
cargo from Bermuda to that port.' What other special instructions were given to
Westendorff, at Liverpool, the record does not disclose. Every bill of lading
required the cargo mentioned in it to be delivered at Bermuda, to order or
assigns. It is clear that the ship was to go to Bermuda, and not beyond, unless
something not specified should occur; and the cargo was to be delivered there
and not elsewhere, except in the same contingency, to the order of somebody
not named.
225 The ship arrived at the port of St. George's, in Bermuda, on the 19th or 20th
March, and remained there five weeks waiting for orders.
226 And here we may expect to learn who was the unnamed party to whose order
the cargo was to be delivered, and what was the contingency in which it was to
be taken from Bermuda to another port.
227 Haigh asserts, and so does Westendorff, that the unnamed consignee was one
Butterfield, a resident of Hamilton, one of the ports of Bermuda, and that
Butterfield, as consignee of the cargo, being desirous to have it carried on to
Nassau, 'made an arrangement with the master to that effect.' Nothing in the
proofs supports, but everything contradicts, this. Butterfield is nowhere named
in any paper as consignee; we find no instructions anywhere given to deliver
the cargo to him; nor was it by his direction or arrangement that the cargo was
sent forward from Bermuda to Nassau.

228 The real state of facts is disclosed by the letters of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. to
John Fraser & Co., and of John Fraser & Co. to N. T. Butterfield, considered in
connection with some other matters in the record. On the 23d January, 1862,
the branch house at Liverpool wrote to the Charleston house, giving advice of
the immediate despatch of the ship Ella to Bermuda with a cargo consigned to
John Fraser & Co., or their authorized agent, with authority to dispose of it in
any market they should select. This letter suggested that if the Charleston house
should not think best to send an agent to Bermuda, any communication for the
master of the Ella should be sent, under cover, to Butterfield, and added, that
the master was instructed to await orders at Bermuda. On the 28th of February
the Liverpool firm directed another letter to John Fraser & Co., or their
authorized agent at Bermuda, in which they spoke of the 'invoices and bills of
lading' of the cargo of the Bermuda as 'very full, and as suited to facilitate
greatly the delivery and also the transshipment, should this be determined
upon.' The letter goes on to say that, 'should the loss of any of the invoices or
bills of lading unfortunately happen, duplicates can be furnished hereafter,' but
strongly urges, 'in case of an opportunity to send them forward with the letters,
the adoption of the most certain measures of preventing any of them falling into
improper hands.'
229 These letters show what unlimited control John Fraser & Co. were expected to
exercise over the ship and cargo of the Bermuda; and that control was
exercised.
230 They had been advised of the coming both of the Ella and Bermuda by the
letter of the 16th of January, and on the 1st of April they wrote to their
correspondent, Butterfield, saying: 'We suppose the steamer Bermuda may be
with you ere this, and the ship Ella. We will thank you to request the masters to
act as follows, namely: Captain Westendorff to take in the tea and other light
articles per Ella, if he has room for them, and proceed to Nassau, reporting
himself, on arrival there, to Messrs. Henry Adderly & Co.; Captain Carter to
keep in his cargo, and wait further orders from us. They will reach him, we
think, very shortly.'
231 This direction was received at Hamilton, where Butterfield resided, on the 19th
of April, and was forwarded the same day to Westendorff, at St. George's, and
was implicitly obeyed. Captain Westendorff even refused to allow certain
printing presses and materials, which formed part of his cargo, to be landed at
Bermuda, though requested to do so by George Dunn, the person who seems to
have had them in charge, and though the bills of lading expressly required that
they should be delivered at Bermuda. He said that the bills were 'signed to be
delivered to order;' that 'the responsibility' of delivery to Dunn would be too
great, unless he received instructions to that effect.

232 No ownership could give more absolute control than was exercised over the
ship and whole cargo by John Fraser & Co. That control and the action of the
master leave no doubt that they were the unnamed party to whom the cargo
was to be delivered, and whose orders the Bermuda was to await; nor can there
be any doubt that Westendorff had instructions to obey, absolutely and in all
things, their directions, both as to ship and cargo.
233 Whether the cargo was to be transshipped, or to be carried on to Charleston
without transshipment, was probably left to be determined by circumstances
after arrival at Nassau.
234 It appears from letters and papers in the record that a light draft steamship,
named the Herald, was connected with the Bermuda as a tender; and it seems
that it was to transshipment into that steamship that Fraser, Trenholm & Co.
referred in their letter of January 28.
235 There is not much about the Herald in the record; but what we find is
instructive. A letter, dated Liverpool, February 16, 1862, without signature, but
addressed to one of the engineers of the Bahama, and written, probably, by one
of the engineers of the Bermuda, says: 'Our tender left yesterday; don't be at all
surprised that we have got a tender. They bought a light draft boat at Dublin,
used to run the mail once, called the Herald.' The writer proceeds to describe
this tender as 'two hundred and eighty feet in length,' drawing 'ten feet heavy,
and five and a half feet light;' with 'her boilers stayed and strengthened;' with
'an average speed of eighteen and a half knots;' with 'all her lower cabins razeed
to make cargo space;' with 'a crew shipped for twelve months, for some port or
ports south of Mason's and Dixon's line;' with 'three captains on board: one an
Englishman, nominal; another, an experienced coast pilot from the Potomac to
Charleston; and another, the same from Charleston to San Juan.' This
correspondent expresses the opinion, that 'if the Yankees eatch her, they are
smarter than he gives them credit for;' and adds, 'she waits our arrival at
Bermuda,' 'but goes into Charleston first, to see about the stone fleet.' The letter
of Tessier to Westendorff, written four days later and already cited, speaks of
the Herald as on her voyage across the Atlantic, under the command of Captain
Mitchell. There is a statement, too, in the deposition of Farrally, one of the
firemen of the Bermuda, that the Herald was at Bermuda with several captains,
while the steamship was there, and was understood to be intended to run the
blockade; and that it was 'the talk that the Herald was connected with our ship.'
It appears, also, from a bill of exchange drawn by Mitchell, master of the
Herald, on Fraser, Trenholm & Co., that Westendorff supplied funds for that
steamer at Bermuda.

236 This bill must have been drawn under instructions, and the fact strongly
confirms what other parts of the record disclose of the connection between the
two vessels.
237 The attendance of the Herald was, doubtless, to facilitate transshipment, should
transshipment be directed by John Fraser & Co., and to secure the conveyance
of the cargo to its ultimate destination.
238 Why no transshipment took place at Bermuda; whether transshipment was
intended at Nassau; whether the Herald visited Charleston during the detention
of Westendorff's ship at St. George's; whether it was finally concluded that the
Bermuda herself should attempt to run the blockade, are matters thus far left in
doubt.
239 The Bermuda sailed from St. George's on the 23d of April, and was captured on
the 27th.
240 At the time of capture, two small boxes and a package, supposed to contain
postage-stamps, were thrown overboard, and a bag, understood to contain
letters, was burned. The bag was burned by the captain's brother, and under the
orders of the captain, after the vessel had been boarded by the captors. It was
burnt, as Westendorff says, in pursuance of his instructions. One of the
passengers, also, burned a number of letters, which, he says, were private.
241 The instructions, in pursuance of which this destruction of papers was made,
are not produced; nor is any explanation of this spoliation offered. The
instructions were, doubtless, given by John Fraser & Co., in view of the
contingency of capture, and were in accordance with the suggestion of Fraser,
Trenholm & Co.'s letter of the 28th of February, that the most certain measures
should be adopted to prevent any of the bills of lading or invoices falling into
improper hands. They, doubtless, included directions for the destruction of all
compromising papers, and among them of the instructions themselves. If they
had been preserved and produced, it is not unlikely that they would have
disclosed the real ownership of the vessel, the true nature of her employment,
and the actual destination of both ship and cargo.
242 This spoliation was one of unusual aggravation, and warrants the most
unfavorable inferences as to ownership, employment, and destination.

243 All these transactions, prior to capture, and at the time of capture, repel the
conclusion that Haigh was owner. Not a document taken on the ship shows
ownership in him except the shipping articles, and these were false in putting
upon the crew list employees of the rebel government and enemy passengers—
the last under assumed names. He was permitted to put into the cause his
original declaration of ownership of August 1, 1861, by way of further proof;
but we cannot give much weight to this, in view of the 'Certificate of
Transactions subsequent to Registry,' which shows his execution of the power
of sale to Hanckel & Trenholm. After giving that power, there is no indication
that he performed a single act of ownership. No letter alluded to him as owner.
No direction relative to vessel or cargo recognized him as owner. All the papers
and all the circumstances indicate rather that a sale was made in Charleston
under the power, by which the beneficial control and real ownership were
transferred to John Fraser & Co., while the apparent title, by the British papers,
was suffered to remain in Haigh as a cover.
244 The spoliation makes the conclusion of ownership out of Haigh and in John
Fraser & Co. wellnigh irresistible. Would the master have obeyed such
instructions from John Fraser & Co., if he had been really appointed by Haigh,
and was really responsible to him as owner? We are obliged to think that the
ownership of Haigh was a pretence, and that the vessel was rightly condemned
as enemy property.
245 We will next consider the questions relating both to vessel and cargo, which
join arising from employment in the trade and under the direction and control
shown by the record, assuming for the moment that Haigh was owner.
246 How, then, was the Bermuda employed? In what trade, and under what control
and direction?
247 The theory of the counsel for Haigh is that she was a neutral ship, carrying a
neutral cargo, in good faith, from one neutral port to another neutral port; and
they insist that the description of cargo, if neutral, and in a neutral ship, and on
a neutral voyage, cannot be inquired into in the courts of a belligerent.

248 We agree to this. Neutral trade is entitled to protection in all courts. Neutrals, in
their own country, may sell to belligerents whatever belligerents choose to buy.
The principal exceptions to this rule are, that neutrals must not sell to one
belligerent what they refuse to sell to the other, and must not furnish soldiers or
sailors to either; nor prepare, nor suffer to be prepared within their territory,
armed ships or military or naval expeditions against either. So, too, except
goods contraband of war, or conveyed with intent to violate a blockade, neutrals
may transport to belligerents whatever belligerents may agree to take. And so,
again, neutrals may convey in neutral ships, from one neutral port to another,
any goods, whether contraband of war or not, if intended for actual delivery at
the port of destination, and to become part of the common stock of the country
or of the port.
249 It is asserted by counsel that a British merchant, as a neutral, had, during the
late civil war, a perfect right to trade, even in military stores, between their own
ports, and to sell at one of them goods of all sorts, even to an enemy of the
United States, with knowledge of his intent to employ them in rebel war against
the American government.
250 If by trade between neutral ports is meant real trade, in the course of which
goods conveyed from one porr to another become incorporated into the mass of
goods for sale in the port of destination; and if by sale to the enemies of the
United States is meant sale to either belligenent, without partiality to either, we
accept the proposition of counsel as correct.
251 But if it is intended to affirm that a neutral ship may take on a contraband cargo
ostensibly for a neutral port, but destined in reality for a belligerent port, either
by the same ship or by another, without becoming liable, from the
commencement to the end of the voyage, to seizure, in order to the confiscation
of the cargo, we do not agree to it.
252 Very eminent writers on international maritime law have denied the right of
neutrals to sell to belligerents, even within neutral territory, articles made for
use in war, or to transport such articles to belligerent ports without liability to
seizure and confiscation of goods and ship. And this is not an illogical inference
from the general maxim that neutrals must not mix in the war. International
law, however, in its practical administration, leans to the side of commercial
freedom, and allows both free sale and free conveyance by neutrals to
belligerents, if no blockade be violated, of all sorts of goods except contraband;
and the conveyance, even of contraband goods, will not, in general, subject the
ship, but only the goods, to forfeiture.

253 We are to inquire, then, whether the Bermuda is entitled to the protection of
this rule, or falls within some exception to it.
254 It is not denied that a large part of her cargo was contraband in the narrowest
sense of that word. One portion was made up of Blakely cannon and other guns
in cases, of howitzers, of cannon not in cases, of carriages for guns, of shells,
fuses, and other like articles—near eighty tons in all; and of seven cases of
pistols, twenty-one cases of swords, seventy barrels of cartridges, three hundred
whole barrels, seventy-eight half-barrels, and two eighty-three quarter-barrels
of gunpowder. Another portion consisted of printing-presses and materials,
paper, and Confederate States postage stamps, and is described in a letter, found
on board, as 'presses and paraphernalia complete,' 'obtained from Scotland by a
commissioner of the Confederate government,' and sent with a 'lot of printers
and engravers.' The names of these printers and engravers, or at least the names
by which they were known on board, are in the crew list; but Westendorff, in a
letter already referred to, calls them his 'government passengers;' and all the
facts connected with this part of the cargo indicate that it actually belonged to
the rebel government and was intended for its immediate use. Other very
considerable portions of the cargo were also contraband within the received
definitions of the term.
255 The character of this cargo makes its ulterior, if not direct, destination to a rebel
port quite certain. And there is other evidence. The letters of Fraser, Trenholm
& Co. make distinct references to the contingency of transshipment; and the
evidence shows that the Herald was sent over with a view to this. The
consignment of the whole cargo was to order or assigns—that is to say, as we
have seen, to the order of John Fraser & Co. or assigns, and is conclusive, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, that its destination was the port in which the
consignee resided and transacted business.16 There is much other evidence
leading to the same conclusion; but it is needless to go further.
256 It makes no difference whether the destination to the rebel port was ulterior or
direct; nor could the question of destination be affected by transshipment at
Nassau, if transshipment was intended, for that could not break the continuity
of transportation of the cargo.
257 The interposition of a neutral port between neutral departure and belligerent
destination has always been a favorite resort of contraband carriers and
blockade-runners. But it never avails them when the ultimate destination is
ascertained. A transportation from one point to another remains continuous, so
long as intent remains unchanged, no matter what stoppages or transshipments
intervene.

258 This was distinctly declared by this court in 1855,17 in reference to American
shipments to Mexican ports during the war of this country with Mexico, as
follows: 'Attempts have been made to evade the rule of public law by the
interposition of a neutral port between the shipment from the belligerent port
and the ultimate destination in the ememy's country; but in all such cases the
goods have been condemned as having been taken in a course of commerce
rendering them liable to confiscation.'
259 The same principle is equally applicable to the conveyance of contraband to
belligerents; and the vessel which, with the consent of the owner, is so
employed in the first stage of a continuous transportation, is equally liable to
capture and confiscation with the vessel which is employed in the last, if the
employment is such as to make either so liable.
260 This rule of continuity is well established in respect to cargo.
261 At first, Sir William Scott held that the landing and warehousing of the goods
and the payment of the duties on importation was a sufficient test of the
termination of the original voyage; and that a subsequent exportation of them to
a belligerent port was lawful.18 But in a later case, in an elaborate judgment, Sir
William Grant19 reviewed all the cases, and established the rule, which has
never been shaken, that even the landing of goods and payment of duties does
not interrupt the continuity of the voyage of the cargo, unless there be an honest
intention to bring them into the common stock of the country. If there be an
intention, either formed at the time of original shipment, or afterwards, to send
the goods forward to an unlawful destination, the continuity of the voyage will
not be broken, as to the cargo, by any transactions at the intermediate port.
262 There seems to be no reason why this reasonable and settled doctrine should not
be applied to each ship where several are engaged successively in one
transaction, namely, the conveyance of a contraband cargo to a belligerent. The
question of liability must depend on the good or bad faith of the owners of the
ships. If a part of the voyage is lawful, and the owners of the ship conveying
the cargo in that part are ignorant of the ulterior destination, and do not hire
their ship with a view to it, the ship cannot be liable; but if the ulterior
destination is the known inducement to the partial voyage, and the ship is
engaged in the latter with a view to the former, then whatever liability may
attach to the final voyage, must attach to the earlier, undertaken with the same
cargo and in continuity of its conveyance. Successive voyages, connected by a
common plan and a common object, form a plural unit. They are links of the
same chain, each identical in description with every other, and each essential to
the continuons whole. The ships are planks of the same bridge, all of the same
kind, and all necessary to the convenient passage of persons and property from
one end to the other.

263 There remains the question whether the Bermuda, on the supposition that she
was really a neutral ship, should be condemned for the conveyance of
contraband. For, in general, as we have seen, a neutral may convey contraband
to a belligerent, subject to no liability except seizure in order to confiscation of
the offending goods. The ship is not forfeited, nor are non-offending parts of
the cargo.
264 This has been called an indulgent rule, and so it is.20 It is a great, but very
proper relaxation of the ancient rule, which condemned the vessel carrying
contraband as well as the cargo. But it is founded on the presumption that the
contraband shipment was made without the consent of the owner given in fraud
of belligerent rights, or, at least, without intent on his part to take hostile part
against the country of the captors; and it must be recognized and conforced in
all cases where that presumption is not repelled by proof.
265 The rule, however, requires good faith on the part of the neutral, and does not
protect the ship where good faith is wanting.
266 The Franklin, therefore, carrying contraband with a false destination, was
condemned, after mature consideration, by Sir William Scott in 1801.21 He said
that, 'the benefit of the relaxation could only be claimed by fair cases.' This
doctrine was shortly after applied to The Neutralitet by the same great judge; 22
and it received the sanction of this court in an opinion delivered by an equal
judge, in 1834.23 The leading principle governing this class of cases was stated
very clearly by Mr. Justice Story in that opinion, thus: 'The belligerent has a
right to require a frank and bona fide conduct on the part of neutrals in the
course of their commerce in times of war, and if the latter will make use of
fraud and false papers to clude the just rights of belligerents and cloak their
own illegal purposes, there is no injustice in applying to them the penalty of
confiscation.'
267 Mere consent to transportation of contraband will not always or usually be
taken to be a violation of good faith. There must be circumstances of
aggravation. The nature of the contraband articles and their importance to the
belligerent, and the general features of the transaction, must be taken into
consideration in determining whether the neutral owner intended or did not
intended, by consenting to the transportation, to mix in the war.

268 The Ranger, though a neutral vessel, was condemned for being employed in
carrying a cargo of sea stores to a place of naval equipment under false papers.
The owner had not consented, but the master had, and Sir William Scott said,
'If the owner will place his property under the absolute management and
control of persons who are capable of lending it in this manner to be made an
instrument of fraud in the hands of the enemy, he must sustain the
consequences of such misconduct on the part of his agent.'24
269 So, too, The Jonge Emilia, a neutral vessel, was condemned on the ground that
she appeared to have been altogether in the hands of enemy merchants and
employed for seven voyages successively in enemy trade;25 and The Carolina26
was condemned for employment in the transportation of troops, though the
master alleged that it was under duress, and the actual service was at an end.
270 Now, what were the marks by which the conveyance of contraband on the
Bermuda was accompanied? First, we have the character of the contraband
articles, fitted for immediate military use in battle, or for the immediate civil
service of the rebel government; then the deceptive bills of lading requiring
delivery at Bermuda, when there was either no intention to deliver at Bermuda
at all, or none not subject to be changed by enemies of the United States; then
the appointment of one of these enemies as master, necessarily made with the
knowledge and consent of Haigh, if he was owner; then the complete surrender
of the vessel to the use and control of such enemies, without even the pretence
of want of knowledge, by the alleged owner, of her destined and actual
employment.
271 We need not go further. We are bound to say, considering the known relations
of Fraser, Trenholm & Co. with the rebel leaders; and the relations of John
Fraser & Co. to the same combination, justly inferable from the fact that they
were the consignees of the whole cargo; and considering, also, the ascertained
character of most of it, that it seems to us highly probable that the ship, at the
time of capture, was actually in the service of the so-called Confederate
government, and known to be so by all parties interested in her ownership.
272 However this may be, we cannot doubt that the Bermuda was justly liable to
condemnation for the conveyance of contraband goods destined to a belligerent
port, under circumstances of fraud and bad faith, which make the owner, if
Haigh was owner, responsible for unneutral participation in the war.
273 The cargo, having all been consigned to enemies, and most of it contraband,
must share the fate of the ship.

274 Having thus disposed of the questions connected with the ownership, control,
and employment of the Bermuda, and the character of her cargo, we need say
little on the subject of liability for the violation of the blockade. What has been
already adduced of the evidence, satisfies us completely that the original
destination of the Bermuda was to a blockaded port; or, if otherwise, to an
intermediate port, with intent to send forward the cargo by transshipment into a
vessel provided for the completion of the voyage. It may be that the
instructions to Westendorff were not settled when the steamship left St.
George's for Nassau; but it is quite clear to us that the ship was then at the
disposition of John Fraser & Co., and that the voyage, begun at Liverpool with
intent to violate the blockade, delayed at St. George's for instructions from that
firm, continued toward Nassau with the purpose of completion from that port to
a rebel port, either by the Bermuda herself or by transshipment, was one
voyage from Liverpool to a blockaded port; and that the liability to
condemnation for attempted breach of blockade was, by sailing with such
purpose, fastened on the ship as firmly as it would have been by proof of intent
that the cargo should be transported by the Bermuda herself to a blockaded
port, or as near as possible, without encountering the blockading squadron, and
then sent in by a steamer, like the Herald, of lighter draft or greater speed.
275 We have not thought it necessary to examine the questions made by counsel
touching the right of belligerents to make captures within cannon-shot range of
neutral territory, for there is nothing in the evidence which proves to our
satisfaction that the Bermuda was within such range.
276 Our conclusion is, that both vessel and cargo, even if both were neutral, were
rightly condemned; and, on every ground, the decree below must be
277 AFFIRMED.
278 [After the preceding confirmation of the decree of the District Court of
Philadelphia—which, it will have been noted by the reader, was one
condemning only the vessel (claimed by Haigh), and the munitions of war, &c.
(claimed by Captain Blakely) judgment as to the residue of the cargo having
been reserved,—a decree was passed by the District Court, condemning this
whole residue also.—See 23 Legal Intelligencer, 116.]
NOTE.
279 Along with the preceding case was submitted another, much like it, the case of
——

1

2
3
4

It was, perhaps, a noteworthy fact that, in most of the affidavits, & c.,
about the ownership, the language was of a sort that did not necessarily
involved an unqualified assertion of real and equitable ownership, as
distinguished from the legal title and ownership on the registry, which the
British statutes, like our own, largely look to. One of the documents, for
example, said: 'Your memorialist is a British subject and sole registered
owner' of the ship Bermuda, &c. In another, Mr. Haigh styles himself,
'shipowner and merchant.' In another, he thought that certain contraband
things found on board should not affect his position 'as owner of the
vessel,' &c. &c.
So labelled.
Louisiana?
Texas, or Tennessee?

5

See infra, p. 528. 'I have seen the owners. All fudge what he told me. Mr.
Preleau (principal man) came up to me,' &c.

6

This was obviously a person employed by the United States, to see what
vessels were engaged in giving aid to the rebellion. He had been watching,
it appears, the vessel before she was brought round to Liverpool.

7
8
9
10

See supra, p. 528.
See, however, the letter of instructions, infra, p. 535.
See supra, p. 531.
See correspondence of Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward, in August, 1862, after
the capture, in which these general orders referring to a list were
rescinded. (Parliamentary papers, No. 5, 1863.)

11

On the first three points the counsel cited The Ada, Daveis, 407; The
Moss, Gilpin, 219; The Steen Bille, cited in Dean on Blockade
(Introduction), p. xii; The Jonge Pieter, 4 Robinson, 65; The Stert, Id. 53;
The Maria, 5 Id. 325; The Thomyris, Edwards, 17.
On the 5th and 6th points: Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des
Nations Neutres, tome iii, pp. 222-3; The Imina, 3 Robinson, 167; The
Hendrick and Alida, 1 Hay & Marriot, 96; Wheaton's International Law,
568; The Jacob, 1 Robinson, 90; The Tobias, 1 Id. 329; The Franklin, 3 Id.
217; The Neutralitet, 3 Id. 295.
On the 7th and 8th: The Rising Sun, 2 Robinson, 104; The Hunter, 1
Dodson, 480; The Pizarro, 2 Wheaton, 227.
On the 9th: the question of immunity from capture within actual range of
modern cannon-shot—one of the points assumed here was discussed very
interestingly, and with great ingenuity and learning; but it all having been
on the assumption of a case not regarded by the court as proved, the
authorities are not presented.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25

22 British Statutes at Large, 267, 351, 352.
Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, Part I, App., p. lxxii.
Ib., 1863, Part I, p. 90.
Ib., 224, 304, and App., lxxv.
Grove v. O'Brien, 8 Howard, 439; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 Id. 106.
Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 Howard, 114.
The Polly, 2 Robinson, 369.
The William, 5 Id. 395; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 84, note
The Ringende Jacob, 1 Robinson, 90; The Sarah Christina, Id. 238. See
opinions of Bynkershoeck and Heineccius, cited in notes to The
Mercurius, Id. 288, and The Franklin, 3 Id. 222.
The Franklin, 3 Robinson, 224.
The Neutralitet, Id. 296.
Carrington v. Merchants' Insurance Co., 8 Peters, 518, opinion by Story,
J.
The Ranger, 6 Robinson, 126.
The Jonge Emilia, 3 Robinson, 52.
The Carolina, 4 Id. 256.

26