« ПретходнаНастави »
acter by hos.
out regard to the fact of their residence and occupation in another country.
As this misapprehension of American citizens, Recent Ameriduring the war between England and Holland, was on the doctrine taught them to their cost, by the decisions of the of hostile charcourts of Great Britain (as we have seen in the tile residence cases before cited); so the same error of the British subjects residing in the southern ports of the American Union, has been in like manner corrected, by numerous recent decisions of the courts of the United States.
The brig Sarah Starr, in the month of July, The Sarah 1861, three months after the proclamation of block-States Court, ade by the executive authority of the United New York. States, was lying at Wilmington, North Carolina, one of the blockaded ports.
She was then owned by Messrs. Monroe, citizens of Rhode Island, having business connections and transactions in North Carolina. Through the agents and correspondents of Messrs. Monroe, in Charleston, South Carolina, a negotiation was made, by which the vessel was transferred to one Cowlan Gravely, a merchant, residing and transacting business at Charleston, but an Englishman by birth, and still owing allegiance to the British crown.
This transfer having been consummated, the British consul at Charleston supplied the vessel with a provisional register. The vessel was laden with naval stores, and, under a clearance and the insurgent authorities, she left Cape Fear river on the 3d day of August, and shortly after crossing the bar, was captured by the United States steamer Wabash, and sent to the port of New York for adjudication.
The question of the liability of the vessel to condemnation, as impressed with a hostile character, by reason of the residence of Cowlan Gravely in the country of the enemy, as his permanent business domicile, was distinctly raised in the case, and the doctrine, as well settled both in the English and American authorities, upon this subject, was recog. nized and affirmed.
At about the same time, the British consul at Charleston was employed in furnishing with provisional registers some five or six other vessels, lying at the different blockaded ports, and which had been in like manner transferred to the same Cowlan Gravely.
Several of them were captured, and the British title, which had been resorted to, was held to be no protection from condemnation. (Vide The Aigburth-MS. Decisions of United States District
Court of New York. The Joseph H. The Joseph H. Toone, captured in October, 1861, States Court, while attempting to violate the blockade of New
Orleans, by the United States ship South Carolina, and sent to New York for adjudication, was claimed by one Aymar, who was on board as a passenger at the time of capture. Her previous owner was a citizen of New Orleans; and the vessel left New Orleans on her preceding voyage, with Aymar on board, successfully evading the blockade, and pro- . ceeded to Havana, Previous to her departure, the New Orleans owner delivered to the master a power of attorney to sell the vessel; and, under this pow. er, the master executed a transfer to Aymar, in Havana. Aymar being, or claiming to be, a British subject, the British consul supplied the vessel with
a British register, which evidence of neutral ownership was found on board at the time of capture.
Aymar was examined as a witness on the standing interrogatories; and testified that he was a British subject, born at St. Andrews, in the British province of New Brunswick, and that he called St. Andrews his place of residence, but had transacted business in New Orleans for eight years past.
There were many other grounds upon which this vessel and cargo (which consisted of warlike munitions almost entirely) were clearly subject to confis. cation as lawful prize, but the permanent business residence of the claimant of the vessel, as sworn to by himself, was considered quite conclusive, as impressing upon the property such hostility of character as rendered it lawful subject of capture as the property of the enemy.
So also the recent adjudications in the United The General States District Court of Pennsylvania, in the case Court, Penn. of the General Parkhill, and in the United States District Court of Massachusetts, in the case of the Revere. In this latter case, the learned judge says:
Property of persons resident in an enemy's The Revere. country is deemed hostile, and subject to condem-Court, Mass. nation, without any evidence as to the individual opinions or predilections of the owner. If he be the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent states, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments toward his native country, still, his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property engaged in commerce, and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation."
In recognition and application of this doctrine, Court, Penn." the learned judge of the United States Court in
Pennsylvania, in the case of the General Parkhill, uses the following language :
“One of the purposes of naval warfare is to diminish the power of hostile governments, or of other hostile organizations, by the indiscriminate mari. time capture of the property of all persons residing in places within hostile dominion, or in permanent or temporary hostile occupation.
“The capture and confiscation of such property, by destroying or suppressing the maritime trade of such places, diminishes their wealth, and thus reduces the power of their hostile rulers.
“The liberation of the property when captured, whether the individual residents who owned it are well or ill affected in feeling toward the government of the captors, would restore its value in wealth to the hostile place.
“The rule of confiscation applies, though the resident may owe a duty of allegiance to the captor's government, and may, while in the hostile place, have been perfectly loyal in his own feeling and conduct.
“ After the declaration of war against England, in 1812, a citizen of the United States, residing in England, before any knowledge of the war, shipped merchandize for the United States, which, having been captured on the voyage, was condemned as prize. The Supreme Court said, ' although he cannot be considered an enemy in the strict sense of the word, yet, he is deemed such with reference to the seizure of so much of his property concerned in the trade of the enemy, as is connected with his residence."
“Those predatory maritime hostilities, which the law of war sanctions, could not be prosecuted with effect, if this rule were not applied with inexorable rigor."
So, too, in the case of the Amy Warwick, the The Amy Wardistinguished judge of the United States Court in States Court, Massachusetts, takes occasion to enforce the familiar Mass. doctrine, as follows:
“ What shall be deemed enemy's property is a question of frequent occurrence in prize courts, and on which certain rules and principles are well established.
Property of persons resident in an enemy's country is deemed hostile, and subject to condemnation, without any evidence as to the individual opinions or predilections of the owner. If he be the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent states, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments toward his native country, still, his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property engaged in commerce, and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to confiscation.” (The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253. See also The Hoop, 1 Rob., 196, and the cases there collected.)
Although, from the numerous adjudications upon captured vessels, transferred by public enemies to British subjects residing in the enemy's territory, during the existing war, the error seems to have been quite prevalent, that immunity from capture was, by such transfer, secured; there, nevertheless, seems to have been an apprehension, that a transfer of a vessel by an enemy to a neutral, in a blockaded port, might be of questionable validity. And thus,